72-ROC-2002- National Fire Alarm Code®...Robert W. Elliott, FM Global, MA [I] Richard D. Greene, Nampa Fire Department, ID [E] Kevin Greenwood, Fike Corporation, MO [M] Rep. Fire

295

Report of the Committee on

Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property (SIG-AAC)

Technical Correlating Committee

Wayne D. Moore, ChairHughes Associates, Inc., RI [SE]

Lee F. Richardson, Nonvoting SecretaryNational Fire Protection Association, MA

Richard W. Bukowski, U.S. National Institute of Standards & Technology, MD [RT]R. Bruce Fraser, SimplexGrinnell, MA [M] Rep. National Electrical Manufacturers AssociationVic Humm, Vic Humm & Associates, TN [SE]Peter A. Larrimer, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, PA [U]Irving Mande, Westport, CT [M]James M. Mundy, Jr., Siemens Cerberus Division, NY [M] Rep. Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.Thomas F. Norton, Norel Service Company, Inc., MA [IM] Rep. U.S. Naval Historical CenterPaul E. Patty, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT]Donald E. Sievers, D. E. Sievers & Associates, Limited, MD [SE]Tom G. Smith, Cox Systems Technology, OK [IM] Rep. National Electrical Contractors AssociationLawrence J. Wenzel, Hughes Associates, Inc., CT [SE]

Alternates

John K. Guhl, California State Fire Marshal, CA [E] (Voting Alt. to IAFC Rep.)

Nonvoting

Douglas M. Aiken, Lakes Region Mutual Fire Aid, NH [E] Rep. International Municipal Signal AssociationBenjamin B. Aycock, Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NCArt Black, Carmel Fire Department/Carmel Fire Protection Assoc., CA [E]Kenneth W. Dungan, Risk Technologies, LLC, TN [SE]Daniel T. Gottuk, Hughes Associates, Inc., MD [SE]Raymond A. Grill, The RJA Group, Inc., VA [SE]J. Jeffrey Moore, Hughes Associates, Inc., OH [SE]Martin H. Reiss, The RJA Group, Inc., MA [SE]Robert P. Schifiliti, R. P. Schifiliti Associates, Inc., MA [SE]Timothy M. Soverino, Nantucket Fire Department, MA [E]Evan E. Stauffer, Jr., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, PA Rep. TC Public Fire Service CommunicationsDean K. Wilson, Hughes Associates, Inc., PA

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the installation, performance, maintenance, testing, and use of signaling components and signaling systems for the protection of life and property.


Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems (SIG-FUN)

Raymond A. Grill, ChairThe RJA Group, Inc., VA [SE]

David M. Wyatt, SecretaryEnergy Northwest, WA [U]

Rep. NFPA Industrial Fire Protection Section

Andrew G. Berezowski, Fire-Lite/Notifier, CT [M] Rep. National Electrical Manufacturers AssociationRobert A. Bonifas, Alarm Detection Systems, Inc., IL [IM] Rep. Central Station Alarm AssociationDouglas Brunmeier, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT]Daniel G. Decker, Safety Systems, Inc., MI [IM]Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory-East, IL [U]Sanford E. Egesdal, Egesdal Associates PLC, MN [SE]Lawrence Esch, World Security & Control Engineering, IL [E] Rep. Illinois Fire Inspectors AssociationJohn C. Fannin, III, SafePlace Corporation, DE [IM]Dave Frable, U.S. General Services Administration, IL [U]James M. Freeman, Industrial Risk Insurers, GA [I]Daniel J. Gauvin, Simplex Time Recorder Company, MA [M]Dale M. Gigandet, The Gamewell Company, MA [M]David Goodyear, Office of the Fire Marshal-Ontario, Canada [E]Kevin M. Green, Schirmer Engineering Corporation, CA [SE]James R. Gressel, Ansul Inc., WI [M] Rep. Fire Equipment Manufacturersí AssociationScott Jacobs, ISC Electronic Systems, Inc., CA [IM]Ronald Kirby, Franconia, NH [SE]

Richard A. Malady, Fire Fighter Sales & Service Company, PA [IM] Rep. National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors Inc.Maurice Marvi, Insurance Services Office, NJ [I]Lloyde Mason, Lake Zurick, IL [SE]Robert Trexler McGinnis, Westinghouse Savannah River Co., SC [U]Jack McNamara, Detection Systems Inc., NY [M]James M. Mundy, Jr., Siemens Fire Safety, NY [M] Rep. Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.Edward Nemie, Chesapeake, VA [SE]Thomas F. Norton, Norel Service Company, Inc., MA [IM] Rep. U.S. Naval Historical CenterPhilip K. Schoenheiter, FM Global, MA [I]Ed Vaillancourt, E & M International, Inc., NM [M] Rep. Fire Suppression Systems AssociationWilliam F. Wayman, Jr., TVA Fire Safety, Inc., NJ [SE]Dennis R. Yanek, ADT Security Systems, NJ [M]

Alternates

James G. Bisker, U.S. Department of Energy, MD [U] (Alt. to M. Dumais)Daniel C. Colin, Siemens Cerberus Division, NJ [M] (Alt. to A. G. Berezowski)Chad M. Counard, Tyco Suppression Systems, WI [M] (Alt. to J. R. Gressel)John Craig, Jr., Safety Systems, Inc., MI [IM] (Alt. to D. G. Decker)Manuelita E. David, Schirmer Engineering Corporation, CA [SE] (Alt. to K. M. Green)Robert W. Elliott, FM Global, MA [I] (Alt. to P. K. Schoenheiter)Charles Erichsen, ADT Security Services, Inc., FL [M] (Alt. to D. R. Yanek)David L. Foster, Insurance Services Office, Inc., NJ [I] (Alt to M. Marvi)Kimberly A. Gruner, Fike Corporation, MO [M] (Alt. to E. Vaillancourt)Edward P. Reid, E. P. Reid & Associates, NJ [M] (Alt. to J. M. Mundy, Jr.)David J. Stone, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] (Alt. to D. Brunmeier)Allyn J. Vaughn, The RJA Group, Inc., NV [SE] (Alt. to R. A. Grill)

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on common system fundamentals for signaling systems, including definitions, requirements for approvals, installation, service, power supplies, equipment locations, compatibility, and system interfaces.


Initiating Devices for Fire Alarm Systems (SIG-IDS)

Kenneth W. Dungan, ChairRisk Technologies, LLC, TN [SE]

Martin H. Reiss, SecretaryThe RJA Group, Inc., MA [SE]

Rick Carroll, SBCCI, AL [E]Win Chaiyabhat, Aon Risk Consultants, IL [I]John A. Chetelat, Fire-Lite Alarms Inc./Notifier, CT [M] Rep. Fire Suppression Systems Assoc.John M. Cholin, J. M. Cholin Consultants Inc., NJ [SE]Jesse L. Denton, Jr., Starwood Hotels and Resorts, GA [U]James D. Dick, Kemper Insurance Companies, WA [I] Rep. Kemper Insurance CompaniesIrving Ellner, Siemens Fire Safety, NJ [M]Bruce Elmer, TVA Fire and Life Safety, Inc., MI [U] Rep. The Home DepotGary P. Fields, The Protectowire Company, Inc., MA [M]Robert A. Hall, R. A. Hall & Associates, NJ [SE]Robert L. Langer, Tyco Suppression Systems, WI [M] Rep. Fire Equipment Manufacturersí AssociationDavid B. Lederer, Detection Systems, Inc., NY [M]Loren L. Leimer, Hochiki America Corporation, CA [M] Rep. Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.Norbert W. Makowka, National Assn. of Fire Equipment Distributors, IL [IM] Rep. National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors Inc.Chris Marrion, Arup Fire, NY [SE]Nancy A. McCormick, Industrial Risk Insurers, OH [I] Rep. Industrial Risk InsurersRonald K. Mengel, System Sensor, IL [M] Rep. National Electrical Manufacturers AssociationNoura Milardo, FM Global, MA [I]Ovid E. Morphew, Jr., Design/Systems Group, TX [IM] Rep. National Independent Fire Alarm Distributors AssociationLynn B. Nielson, Henderson Fire Department, NV [E]Daniel J. OíConnor, Schirmer Engineering Corporation, IL [SE]

296

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPARonald D. Ouimette, Vision Systems Inc., MA [M]Paul E. Patty, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT]James C. Roberts, North Carolina Department of Insurance, NC [E]David L. Royse, Potter Electric Signal Company, MO [M]J. Brooks Semple, Smoke/Fire Risk Management Inc., VA [SE]Lawrence J. Wenzel, Hughes Associates, Inc., CT [SE]

Alternates

Mark E. Agar, Fire Equipment Company Inc., MI [IM] (Alt. to N. W. Makowka)Darryl Thomas Brown, Performance Design Technologies, TN [SE] (Alt. to K. W. Dungan)Paul F. Crowley, FM Global, MA [I] (Alt to N. Milardo)Michael Earl Dillon, Dillon Consulting Engineers, Inc., CA [SE] (Alt. to R. A. Hall)Kenneth L. Gentile, Rolf Jensen and Associates, Inc. (Alt to M.H. Reiss)John Gokey, Tyco Suppression Systems, WI [M] (Alt. to R. L. Langer)Scott Grieb, Fire Concepts, Inc., IL [I] (Alt. to J. D. Dick)John A. Guetzke, Guetzke & Associates, Inc., WI [IM] (Alt. to O. E. Morphew)Michael A. Henke, Potter Electric Signal Company, MO [M] (Alt. to D. L. Royse)William K. Hopple, SimplexGrinnell, CA [M] (Alt. to R. K. Mengel)J. Jeffrey Moore, Hughes Associates, Inc., OH [SE] (Alt. to L. J. Wenzel)John L. Parssinen, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] (Alt. to P. E. Patty)Sean Pisoni, TVA, CA [U] (Alt. to B. Elmer)Walter F. Schuchard, Pauleyís Island, SC, [SE] (Alt. to J. B. Semple)Jerry Trotter, City of Henderson, NV [E] (Alt. to L. B. Nielson)James R. York, Siemens Fire Safety, NJ [M] (Alt to I. Ellner)

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the installation and operation of initiating devices for signaling systems, including automatic fire detection devices, sprinkler waterflow detectors, manually activated fire alarm stations, supervisory signaling initiating devices, and guard’s tour stations.


Notification Appliances for Fire Alarm Systems (SIG-NAS)

Robert P. Schifiliti, ChairR. P. Schifiliti Associates, Inc., MA [SE]

Joe Achak, Fire Sentry Corporation, CA [M] Rep. Fire Suppression Systems AssociationDavid E. Becker, Fire Equipment Service Company, KY [IM] Rep. National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors Inc.Robert F. Bitter, Honeywell, MO [M]Thomas Carrie, Jr., Schirmer Engineering Corporation, IL [SE]Ferdinand DeVoss, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT]Rein Haus, Wheelock, Inc., NJ [M] Rep. National Electrical Manufacturers AssociationDavid O. Lowrey, Boulder Fire Department, CO [E]Navin D. Mehta, U.S. DOD Defense Logistic Agency, VA [U]Maurice M. Pilette, Mechanical Designs Limited, MA [SE]Jack Poole, Poole Consulting Services, Inc., KS [SE]Sam (Sat) Salwan, Environmental Systems Design Inc., IL [SE]James M. Shuster, Faraday, LLC, MI [M]Donald E. Sievers, D. E. Sievers & Associates, Limited, MD [SE] Rep. National Association of the DeafMartin C. Smith, Alarm Tech Solutions, LLC, MD [IM]Craig Summers, Gentex Corporation, WA [M] Rep. Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.

Alternates

Bill Luttrell, Jr., Suntronix Special Systems, Inc., TX [M] (Alt. to C. Summers)John Pederson, System Sensor, IL [M] (Alt. to R. Haus)Robert M. Pikula, Reliable Fire Equipment Company, IL [IM] (Alt. to D. E. Becker)Scott Vandame, Schirmer Engineeering Corporation, VA [SE] (Alt. to T. Carrie)

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the installation and operation of notification appliances for signaling systems.


Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems (SIG-PRO)

J. Jeffrey Moore, ChairHughes Association, Inc. [SE]

Fletcher MacGregor, Vice ChairMarsh USA, Inc., MI [I]

Philip R. Barrett, World Electronics, Inc., FL [M]James F. Barth, FIREPRO Inc., MA [SE]James G. Bisker, U.S. Department of Energy, MD [U]David J. Burkhart, Code Consultants, Inc., MO [SE]Frank Carideo, Fire Control Instruments Inc., MA [M] Rep. Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.Shane M. Clary, Bay Alarm Company, CA [IM] Rep. California Automatic Fire Alarm Association Inc.Harry M. Corson, IV, Siemens Fire Safety, NJ [M]John Craig, Jr., Safety Systems, Inc., MI [IM]Mickey L. Driggers, Kemper Insurance Companies, CO [I] Rep. Kemper Insurance CompaniesRobert W. Elliott, FM Global, MA [I]Richard D. Greene, Nampa Fire Department, ID [E]Kevin Greenwood, Fike Corporation, MO [M]Rep. Fire Suppression Systems AssociationMichael Hoffman, Springdale Fire Department, OH [E]Daniel J. Horon, CADgraphics, Incorporated, ND [M]Vic Humm, Vic Humm & Associates, TN [SE]W. Allen Johnson, Schirmer Engineering Corporation, IL [SE]Jim R. Kern, Kern Technical Services, TN [SE]Thomas E. Kuhta, Willis Co., NJ [I]Peter A. Larrimer, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, PA [U]Fred M. Leber, Leber/Rubes Inc., ON [SE]Stewart J. Levy, U.S. General Services Administration, DC [U]Irving Mande, Westport, CT [M]Scott T. Martorano, The Viking Corporation, NY [M] Rep. National Fire Sprinkler AssociationJames McFadden, AFA Protective Systems, Inc., NY [IM]Lawrence J. Shudak, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT]David Stringfield, University of Minnesota, MN [E] Rep. International Fire Marshals AssociationRalph E. Transue, The RJA Group, Inc., IL [SE]

Alternates

Doanld D. Anderson, Fire-Lite Alarms Inc./Notifier, CT [M] (Voting Alt. to NEMA Rep.)Scott Barrett, World Electronics Inc., FL [M] (Alt. to P. R. Barrett)Paul M. Carroll, Central Signal Corporation/Sentinel Alarm Co., MA [M] (Alt. to F. Carideo)James D. Dick, Kemper Insurance Companies, WA [I] (Alt. to M. L. Driggers)Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory-East, IL [U] (Alt. to J. G. Bisker)Jacob P. Hemke, Code Consultants, Inc., MO [SE] (Alt. to D. J. Burkhart)Neil P. Lakomiak, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] (Alt. to L. J. Shudak)David J. LeBlanc, The RJA Group, Inc., MA [SE] (Alt. to R. E. Transue)Wayne D. Moore, Hughes Associates, Inc., RI [SE] (Alt. to J. J. Moore)Alan D. Moors, Siemens Cerberus Division, NJ [M] (Alt. to H. M. Corson)Harris M. Oliff, Security and Fire Enterprises, Inc., CA [IM] (Alt. to S. M. Clary)Philip K. Schoenheiter, FM Global, MA [I] (Alt. to R. W. Elliott)Yogesh B. Shah, Fire-Lite Alarms/Notifier, CT [M] (Alt. to K. Greenwood)Jeffrey G. Van Keuren, Edwards Systems Technology, FL [M] (Alt. to I. Mande)Frank L. Van Overmeiren, FP&C Consultants, Inc., IN [SE] (Alt. to V. Humm)Scott Vandame, Schirmer Engineeering Corporation, VA [SE] (Alt. to W. A. Johnson)

Nonvoting

Benjamin B. Aycock, Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC (Member Emeritus)

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the installation and operation of protected premises signaling systems, including their interconnection with initiating devices, notification appliances, and other related building control equipment, within the protected premises.

297

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAReport of the Committee on

Public Fire Reporting Systems (SIG-PRS)

Douglas M. Aiken, ChairLakes Region Mutual Fire Aid, NH [E]

Rep. International Municipal Signal Association

Jeffrey G. Knight, SecretaryCity of Newton Fire Department, MA [U]

R. Bruce Allen, R. B. Allen Company, Inc., NH [IM]Sidney M. Earley, TLC Systems, MA [IM]Emerson B. Fisher, King-Fisher Company, IL [M]Robert E. Lapham, Signal Communications Corporation, MA [M]Dinesh K. Patel, U.S. Department of the Navy, CA [U]Max R. Schulman, Schulman Associates, Limited, CA [SE]Frank J. Tokarz, Monaco Enterprises, Inc., WA [M]

Alternates

John K. Guhl, California State Fire Marshal, CA [E] (Voting Alt. to IAFC Rep.)Nathaniel M. Johnson, City of Laconia Fire Department, NH [E] (Alt. to D. M. Aiken)Eugene A. Monaco, Monaco Enterprises, Inc., WA [M] (Alt. to F. J. Tokarz)

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the proper configuration, performance, installation, and operation of public fire alarm reporting systems. The Committee scope shall be limited to systems that use parallel telephone, series telephone, coded, or code-voice networks which utilize wire and/or radio frequency (RF) technologies, to provide any combination of manual or auxiliary fire alarm service. Reporting of alarms by voice over the public switched telephone network utilizing the Universal Emergency Number 9-1-1, or any other telephone number that can be dialed, is outside the scope of this Committee.


Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms and Household Fire Alarm Systems (SIG-HOU)

Daniel T. Gottuk, ChairHughes Associates, Inc., MD [SE]

Walter F. Schuchard, Vice ChairPauleyís Island, SC [SE]

Daniel L. Andrus, SecretarySalt Lake City Fire Department, UT [E]

H. Wayne Boyd, U.S. Safety & Engineering Corporation, CA [M] Rep. California Automatic Fire Alarm Association Inc.Ronald M. Brave, Snow Country Development LLC, CO [U] Rep. National Association of Home BuildersDavid E. Christian, Gentex Corporation, MI [M] Rep. Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.Manuelita E. David, Schirmer Engineering Corporation, CA [SE]S. Chester Jones, Bryan, TX [SE]Joseph L. Lynch, III, City of Irondale Fire Department, AL [E]Jeffrey L. Okun, Nuko Security, Inc., LA [IM]John R. Pacelli, Gentex Corporation, MI [M] Rep. National Electrical Manufacturers AssociationJohn L. Parssinen, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT]Larry Ratzlaff, Kidde Safety, IL [M]

Alternates

Gail M. Essen, Interactive Technologies, Inc. (ITI), MN [M] (Alt. to J. R. Pacelli)Paul E. Patty, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] (Alt. to J. L. Parssinen)J. Brooks Semple, Smoke/Fire Risk Management Inc., VA [SE] (Alt. to W. F. Schuchard)

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the performance, installation, operation, and use of single- and multiple-station alarms and household alarm systems for fire warning.


Supervising Station Fire Alarm Systems (SIG-SSS)

Art Black, ChairCarmel Fire Department/Carmel Fire Protection Associates, CA [E]

Charles Erichsen, SecretaryADT Security Services, Inc., FL [M]

Geoffrey Aus, Menlo Park Fire Protection District, CA [E]Robert Bitton, Supreme Security Systems, Inc., NJ [IM] Rep. Central Station Alarm AssociationEdward R. Bonifas, Alarm Detection Systems, Inc., IL [IM]Thomas C. Brown, The RJA Group, Inc., VA [SE]Robert F. Buckley, Signal Communications Corporation, MA [M]Scot Colby, Bayou Security Systems, Inc., LA [IM] Rep. National Burglar and Fire Alarm AssociationPaul F. Crowley, FM Global, MA [I]E. Tom Duckworth, Insurance Services Office, Inc., TX [I]Patrick M. Egan, Select Security, Inc., PA [IM]Louis T. Fiore, L. T. Fiore, Inc., NJ [SE]Harvey M. Fox, Keltron Corporation, MA [M]R. Bruce Fraser, SimplexGrinnell, MA [M] Rep. National Electrical Manufacturers AssociationJeffrey Heidelberg, Kemper Insurance Companies, TX [I] Rep. Kemper Insurance CompaniesRichard Kleinman, AFA Protective Systems Inc., NY [IM]Eugene A. Monaco, Monaco Enterprises, Inc., WA [M]Edward P. Reid, E. P. Reid & Associates, NJ [M] Rep. Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.Jeffrey R. Roberts, Industrial Risk Insurers, MS [I] Rep. Industrial Risk InsurersKim L. Sayre, Delphi Automotive Systems Corporation, IN [U] Rep. NFPA Industrial Fire Protection SectionSteven A. Schmit, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT]Robert V. Scholes, Firemanís Fund Insurance Co., CA [I]James H. Smith, Central Alarm Systems, TX [IM]Sean P. Titus, Fike Corporation, MO [M] Rep. Fire Suppression Systems AssociatesDavid A. Wescott, Instant Signal & Alarm Co., Inc., MA [IM] Rep. Professional Alarm Services Organizations of North America

Alternates

Joe Achak, Fire Sentry Corporation, CA [M] (Alt. to S. P. Titus)J. Robert Boyer, Edwards Systems Technology, Inc., NJ [M] (Alt. to E. P. Reid)Noura Milardo, FM Global, MA [I] (Alt. to P. F. Crowley)Isaac I. Papier, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] (Alt. to S. A. Schmit)Frank J. Tokarz, Monaco Enterprises, Inc., WA [M] (Alt. to E. A. Monaco)Richard A. Wheeler, Central Alarm Systems, TX [IM] (Alt. to J. H. Smith)Dennis R. Yanek, ADT Security Systems, NJ [M] (Alt. to C. Erichsen)

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the installation and operation of off-premises signaling systems, including the signal-receiving facility and the communications between the protected premises and the off-premises signal-receiving facility.


Testing and Maintenance of Fire Alarm Systems (SIG-TMS)

Timothy M. Soverino, ChairNantucket Fire Department, MA [E]

Mark L. Rochholz, SecretarySchirmer Engineering Corporation, IL [SE]

Brooks H. Baker, III, University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL [U] Rep. American Society for Healthcare EngineeringCharles H. Berry, Baltimore VA Medical Center, MD [U]Jeffrey R. Brooks, SimplexGrinnell, MA [M] Rep. Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.Robert E. Butchko, Siemens Fire Safety, NJ [M]Charles M. Cope, Industrial Risk Insurers, NC [I]

298

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPARep. Industrial Risk InsurersScott D. Corrin, University of California-Riverside, CA [U]Larry R. Dischert, ADT Security Services, Inc., FL [M]Scott R. Edwards, GENTEX Corporation, MI [M] Rep. National Electrical Manufacturers AssociationRandy P. Edwards, The RJA Group, Inc., MA [SE]David L. Foster, Insurance Services Office, Inc., NJ [I]Elaine B. Gall, Virginia State Fire Marshals Office, VA [E] Rep. International Fire Marshals AssociationScott Grieb, Fire Concepts, Inc., IL [I] Rep. Kemper Insurance CompaniesJohn F. Gudmundson, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., CA [RT]William E. Johannsen, AFA Protective Systems, Inc., NJ [IM]Robert H. Kelly, Fire Defense Equipment Company Inc., MI [IM]J. David Kerr, Plano Fire Department, TX [E] Rep. NFPA Fire Service SectionDavid E. Kipley, Duke Engineering & Services, IL [U] Rep. Edison Electric InstituteChuck Koval, General Services Administration, WA [U]Gene A. LaValle, Interlogix, GA [M]Michael J. Reeser, Santa Rosa Fire Equipment Service Inc., CA [M] Rep. California Automatic Fire Alarm Association Inc.Jeffrey L. Robinson, Westinghouse Savannah River Corporation, SC [U]George E. Seymour, Fire Protection Service, Inc., TX [IM] Rep. National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors, Inc.Frank L. Van Overmeiren, FP&C Consultants, Inc., IN [SE]

Alternates

Merton W. Bunker, Jr., Rolf Jensen & Associates, VA [SE] (Alt. to R. P. Edwards)Gaylon Claiborne, Master Protection Corp. DBA FireMaster, CA [M] (Voting Alt. to FSSA Rep.)Todd Gustafson, Fire Control Instruments, Inc., MO [M] (Alt. to S. R. Edwards)Thomas P. Hammerberg, Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc., FL [M] (Alt. to J. R. Brooks)Jeffrey Heidelberg, Kemper Insurance Companies, TX [I] ( Alt. to S. Grieb)Vic Humm, Vic Humm & Associates, TN [SE] (Alt. to F. L. Van Overmeiren)Peter A. Larrimer, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, PA [U] (Alt. to C. H. Berry)Joseph B. McCullough, ADT Security Services, Inc., CO [M] (Alt. to L. R. Dischert)Robert Trexler McGinnis, Westinghouse Savannah River Co., SC [U] (Alt. to J. L. Robinson)Bahman Mostafazadeh, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., CA [RT] (Alt. to J. F. Gudmundson)Dale Woodin, American Society for Healthcare Engineering, IL [U] (Alt. to B. H. Baker)

Staff Liaison: Lee F. Richardson

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the proper testing and maintenance of signaling systems, their components, and the interface equipment.

These lists represent the membership at the time each Committee was balloted on the text of this edition. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred. A key to classifications is found at the front of this book.

The Report of the Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property is presented for adoption:

The Reports were prepared by the:

•Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property (SIG-AAC) •Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems (SIG-FUN) • Technical Committee on Initiating Devices for Fire Alarm Systems (SIG-IDS) • Technical Committee on Notification Appliances for Fire Alarm Systems (SIG-NAS) • Technical Committee on Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems (SIG-PRO) • Technical Committee on Public Fire Reporting Systems (SIG-PRS) • Technical Committee on Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms and Household Fire Alarm Systems (SIG-HOU) •Technical Committee on Supervising Station Fire Alarm Systems (SIG-SSS) • Technical Committee on Testing and Maintenance of Fire Alarm Systems (SIG-TMS)

This Report has been submitted to letter ballot of the individual Technical Committees. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.

This Report has also been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, which consists of 13 voting members; of whom 12 voted affirmatively, and 1 abstained (Sievers).

Mr. Sievers abstained stating: “I vote “abstain” because I did not participate in any of the discussions and therefore felt it would not be appropriate for me to vote one way or the other.”

Mr. Smith voted Affirmatively stating: “Proposal 72-145 Verification of Compliant Installation is not in compliance with the NFPA Manual of Style. The opening words of 1-7.2.3.1, “where required ...” do not represent a mandatory requirement. NFPA Manual of Style 1.2.1.1 states that ìall nonmandatory or informational text shall appear either in Annex A or as a separate annex.” NFPA Manual of Style 2.3.3.1 further states that ìwhere a sentence in a code or standard does not contain a mandatory requirement, it shall be rewritten to include a mandatory requirement or that sentence shall be moved to the annex or deleted.”

299

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA(Log #118)

Committee: SIG-FUN72-1-(Chapter 1 (2002 ed. Chapters 1, 2, 3, & 4)) : Accept TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee advises that Chapter Scope (Application) statements are the responsibility of the Technical Correlating Committee and the Technical Correlating Committee accepts the Committee Action as modified by the action on Comment 72-4. The Technical Correlating Committee directs that Section 1-3.1 of the Recommendation of Proposal 72-1h be revised to reflect the actions taken by Proposal 72-419 and Proposal 72-5 as well as by Comment 72-7. Revise Section 1.3.1 to read as follows: 1.3.1 {1999 1-3.1} Fire alarm systems shall be classified as follows: (1) Household fire alarm systems (2) Protected premises fire alarm systems (3) Supervising station fire alarm systems a. Central station fire alarm systems b. Remote supervising station fire alarm systems c. Proprietary supervising station systems (4) Public Fire Reporting Systems a. Auxiliary fire alarm systems - Local energy type b. Auxiliary fire alarm systems - Shunt type The Technical Correlating Committee is unwilling to “make it perfectly clear that systems at the protected premises, with the exception of any remote signaling transmitters and connections thereto, are expressly outside the Scope of Chapter 5 and/or Chapter 6.” The work load of developing requirements has been divided among Technical Committees. However, fire alarm systems are applied in the field holistically. Such application, on occasion, may require very close coordination between the requirements of the several chapters that constitute the National Fire Alarm Code. It the responsibility of the Technical Correlating Committee to make certain that such coordination takes place in a professional and technically accurate manner. To this end, the Technical Correlating Committee desires to foster a spirit of cooperation between the Technical Committees.SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1hRECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that this Proposal be reconsidered to correlate with the action taken by the Technical Committee on Public Fire reporting Systems on Proposal 72-419. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. The Technical Correlating Committee advises that Chapter Scopes (Application) statements are the responsibility of the Technical Correlating Committee and the Technical Correlating Committee rejects the text proposed for Section 1.1. The Technical Correlating Committee directs that section 1.1 be rewritten to correlate with the Technical Correlating Committee NOTE on Proposal 72-2 and Proposal 72-4. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. The Technical Correlating Committee advises that Chapter Scopes (Application) statements are the responsibility of the Technical Correlating Committee and the Technical Correlating Committee accepts the Committee Action concerning Section 4.1. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The question of whether or not auxiliary fire alarms are “systems” or “connections” comes down to a question of jurisdiction. The Fundamentals Committee feels that the demarcation between protected premises systems and any kind of remote monitoring arrangement is clearly defined in Fig. 5-5.1, and that there are basically two types of remote monitoring arrangements (supervising station or municipal signaling) the requirements for which are found in Chapters 5 and 6, respectively. The Fundamentals committee defers to the other chapters with respect to whether they want to call their respective jurisdictions “connections” or “systems,” but requests that the Technical Correlating Committee make it perfectly clear that systems at the protected premises, with the exception of any remote signaling transmitters and connections thereto, are expressly outside the Scope of Chapter 5 and/or Chapter 6. The Technical Correlating Committee should refer to the committee action on Comment 72-4(Log #43) regarding the Chapter Scope.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28

NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & WaymanCOMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: KIRBY: I agree that the decision whether to call it a “connection” or a “system” resides somewhere other than the Fundamentals Technical Committee. However, if it were the prerogative of Fundamentals, I would vigorously argue that it is a “connection”. An auxiliary “system” is a throwback to the time when the shunt loop of a shunt type master box was installed to close contact devices within a building and the “system” truly was auxiliary to the 100-mil municipal system. If this is the intent of a definition of an “auxiliary system”, it should say so. If the system within the protected premises is connected to the 100-mil municipal alarm system via a local energy master box, as is the case 99.9% of the time, the term “connection” is more appropriate.

————————————————-

(Log #162)Committee: SIG-FUN

72-2-(Chapter 1 [2002 ed Chapters 1, 2, 3 & 4]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1hRECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on this proposal does not comply with the Rules Governing Committee Projects because the revised text contains numerous changes that go far beyond the “manual of style” justification for the proposal. B. Combining changes resulting from public proposals with wholesale “manual of style” changes pursuant to a committee proposal makes it very difficult to track all of the changes that have been made, and nearly impossible to verify that those changes comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects. C. The manual of style proposals from each technical committee should be stand-alone proposals which can be reviewed to verify that the only thing that has changed is the style; not the requirements. D. Correlation of accepted manual of style proposal - presumably editorial revisions - with other changes initiated via public proposals should be handled by the Technical Correlating Committee or NFPA staff.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee disagrees with the submitter’s substantiation for the following reasons: The Committee Action does comply with NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. The changes in the proposal that go beyond NFPA Manual of Style revisions are either specifically identified in the recommendation of the proposal or are identified* by reference to other proposals acted upon individually. Theses changes are supported in the substantiation of Proposal 72-1h or in the individual proposals. The combination of changes resulting from public proposals with changes made for the Manual of Style was directed by the Technical Correlating Committee in order to provide a complete text in the new style showing all changes in the proper context. This was done to enhance the usability and simplify the review of this material for both the committee and the public. Text that is based on changes made by public proposals has been identified by a bold reference to the public proposal number. The correlation of several proposals into the final document, especially with such broad changes in style and format, can often be difficult because of potentially conflicting or unclear committee actions. Showing all changes in their proper context offers a complete text that has been reviewed by the committee and has had opportunity for public review and comment. *(Add the use of legislative text where used). The committee recommends that the printing of the 2002 edition of the Code indicate code changes through the use of vertical lines in the margin and a cross-reference table.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & WaymanCOMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: KIRBY: I am voting to affirm the committee’s action so as to not throw out the baby with the bath water. The submitter is, in my judgment, correct; there have been many changes rolled into this one proposal by the technical committee. In the future, it would be far easier to deal with multiple changes if they were separated into individual proposals, not lumped into one.

————————————————-

300

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA


72-3-(Chapter 1 [2002 Ed. 4.4.3.12 (New)]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SCCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1hRECOMMENDATION: Add the old Alarm Verification from 3-8.3.2.3.1 of the 1999 Edition. SUBSTANTIATION: This is commonly used. I believe it was deleted by mistake and should be listed with presignal and positive alarm.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: This material is outside of the scope of the Chapter 1 Committee.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & WaymanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: GAUVIN: I do not agree with the committee statement that the material is outside the scope of the Chapter 1 Committee. The title of Section 4.3 is System Functions. It describes how system features are intended to operate such as Presignal, Positive Alarm Sequence, etc. The committee may have incorrectly based their comment on the assumption that alarm verification is a function of the initiating device, and therefore, this would belong to the Technical Committee on Initiating Devices for Fire Alarm Systems? In fact, in addressable analog systems the alarm verification is typically a function of the control panel. Therefore, the submitter was correct in recommending alarm verification be included in Section 4.3.

————————————————-(Log #43)

Committee: SIG-FUN72-4-(1-2.2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-4RECOMMENDATION: Relocate the text from the original proposal, as modified by the technical committee in the ROP, to new section 1-2.3.1. SUBSTANTIATION: A. As noted by the Technical Correlating Committee, the Technical Committee inappropriately placed this text in the Scope section of the standard. B. The intent of this proposal is to make the intended application of the standard clear to users; not to modify the scope.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-5-(1-2.2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-2RECOMMENDATION: Relocate the text from the original proposal, as modified by the technical committee in the ROP, to new section 1-2.3.1. SUBSTANTIATION: A. As noted by the Technical Correlating Committee, the Technical Committee inappropriately placed this test in the Scope section of the standard. B. The intent of this proposal is to make the intended application of the standard clear to users; not to modify the scope.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-6-(1-2.4 (New) ) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-8RECOMMENDATION: Add new Section 1-2.4 and new Appendix paragraph A-1.2.4 as follows: *1-2.4 Interpretation Failure of the code to explicitly allow, or to establish specific requirements for, any particular approach, arrangement, method or technology that achieves the performance objectives of this code shall not be interpreted as a prohibition thereof. A-1.2.4 The code intends to encourage innovative approaches and new technologies, within the limitations of the required performance. SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal has been modified from the ROP text, pursuant to the committee discussion, to eliminate the implication that anything that is not prohibited should necessarily be allowed. While the committee clearly does not intend to ban innovation and/or new technologies by omission, it was pointed out that blanket acceptance of anything that’s not

explicitly prohibited is going too far.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The intent of the submitter is already covered by the material in sections 1.2.3 and 1.5.3 in Proposal 72-1h. The committee is rejecting the comment in order to make it clear that it does not agree with the language in Proposal 72-8.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-7-(1-3.1 [2002 Ed. 1.3.1]) : Accept in Part SUBMITTER: Daniel T. Gottuk, Hughes Associates, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1hRECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: Change item (1) of 1.3.1 to include single-and multiple-station alarms as follows: 1.3.1 Fire alarm systems shall be classified as follows: (1) Single-and multiple-station alarms and household fire warning alarm systems. SUBSTANTIATION: The change more accurately reflects the division of systems that are addressed by the different chapters within 72. The household chapter is now Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms and Household Fire Alarm Systems.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Part The committee does not accept the addition of the wording: “Single-and multiple-station alarms and”, and accepts the remainder of the comment. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Single-and multiple-station alarms do not constitute fire alarm systems.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-8-(1-3.1 [2002 Ed. 1.3.1]) : Accept SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnellCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1hRECOMMENDATION: Revise to read ad follows: Change to Accept in Principle with the following change: (1) Household fire warning alarm systems. SUBSTANTIATION: The proper term is “household” fire alarm systems. This is substantiated by Chapter 1 accepting a new definition for this in Proposal 72-39, as well as Chapter 8 accepting Proposal 72-463 which uses this term in the title.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-

(Log #1)Committee: SIG-HOU

72-9-(1-4 Area, Living) : Reject SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-11RECOMMENDATION: Delete the definition or rework it to take out closets, bathrooms etc. SUBSTANTIATION: If this definition is left as is, Chapter 8 will require smoke alarms in closets, bathrooms etc. in hotels and motels (8-1.4.1.2.2) and I don’t believe that was ever the intent of the Life Safety Code from where the requirement was extracted. Although a storage room may be an occupiable space, I don’t believe it is a normally occupied space. Please note that the Life Safety Code pulled that definition into the LSC in the 2000 edition (extraction policy) and have yet to rework the requirements in the LSC chapter. The 1997 edition of the LSC did not intend smoke alarms in bathrooms and closets and I don’t believe that the 2000 edition consciously made the change either. The Life Safety Code even has an annex note that cautions placing smoke alarms too close to the bathrooms and kitchens, while this definition actually requires that the same areas be protected. Does the committee wish to extract from NFPA 101 a definitiion that would essentially pull in an errant requirement?COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has reviewed the submitter’s request and the definition already excludes the areas of concern.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-

301


(Log #290a)Committee: SIG-HOU

72-10-(1-4 Area, Living) : Reject SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnellCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-11RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal to add this definition. SUBSTANTIATION: All of these definitions are extracted from NFPA LS-101. There is little or no need for them to be transcribed into NFPA 72 just to create a single-source document. I believe that these definitions as well as the extracted text they refer to in Chapter 11 are unnecessary in NFPA 72, especially if it is to be considered adoptable by states who adopt “other” building codes. I have submitted a separate comment to delete the extracted material from Chapter 11 as well. If the committee agrees with this substantiation, they will need to take both actions for consistency.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee has the responsibility to address installation requirements for these areas. See Committee Action on Comment 72-360 (Log #272).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-(Log #66)

Committee: SIG-PRS72-11-(1-4 Auxiliary Fire Alarm System, Parallel Telephone Type) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-13RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Committee clarify the Committee Action on this Proposal. If this type of connection is no longer included in the code, all references to it need to be deleted. For example Table 9-15.4.2 and Table 9-15.4.3. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee has clarified its position as requested by the Technical Correlating Committee. Parallel telephone type auxiliary fire alarm systems are no longer used and the table references have been deleted. Refer to the committee action on 72-321a (Log #CC4).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:10VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 9 NOT RETURNED: 1 Fisher

————————————————-

(Log #290b)Committee: SIG-HOU

72-12-(1-4 Building, Apartment) : Reject SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnellCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-18RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal to add this definition. SUBSTANTIATION: All of these definitions are extracted from NFPA LS-101. There is little or no need for them to be transcribed into NFPA 72 just to create a single-source document. I believe that these definitions as well as the extracted text they refer to in Chapter 11 are unnecessary in NFPA 72, especially if it is to be considered adoptable by states who adopt “other” building codes. I have submitted a separate comment to delete the extracted material from Chapter 11 as well. If the committee agrees with this substantiation, they will need to take both actions for consistency.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee has the responsibility to address installation requirements for this occupancy. See Committee Action on Comment 72-360 (Log #272).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-

(Log #280)Committee: SIG-SSS

72-13-(1-4 Certification) : Reject SUBMITTER: Brad Shipp, NBFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-19aRECOMMENDATION: Modify definition of “Certification” to read as follows: Certification. A systematic program that uses randomly selected follow-up inspections of the certificated systems installed under the program that allows the listing organization to verify that a fire alarm system complies with all the requirements of this code. A system installed under such a program is identified by the issuance of a certificate or approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction to meet the minimum requirements of the standard and is

designated as a certificated system. SUBSTANTIATION: The long standing, well accepted and reasonable right of the Authority Having Jurisdiction to define what is acceptable or “Certified” should not be eliminated. As the local official with responsibility for verifying code compliance in the local jurisdiction, the Authority Having Jurisdiction is uniquely qualified to make this judgment. There should be no confusion about the fact that the local Authority Having Jurisdiction has the authority to accept that a system or company meets the requirements of the code.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agrees with the submitter that the AHJ has the right to define what is acceptable. However, “certification” and “approval” are two different concepts and certification has been a proven method to ensure code compliance. Certification is a unique process by which a listing organization verifies continuing compliance with the minimum requirements of this Code.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-

(Log #252)Committee: SIG-PRO

72-14-(1-4 Control Unit [2002 ed. 3-3]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SCCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h & 72-23RECOMMENDATION: Delete definition of control unit. Control Unit. A system component that monitors inputs and controls outputs through various types of circuits. SUBSTANTIATION: This definition was previously replaced by Fire Alarm Control Unit.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The term control unit is not limited to use exclusively as a fire alarm control unit.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-

(Log #290c)Committee: SIG-HOU

72-15-(1-4 Day-Care Home) : Reject SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnellCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-24RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal to add this definition. SUBSTANTIATION: All of these definitions are extracted from NFPA LS-101. There is little or no need for them to be transcribed into NFPA 72 just to create a single-source document. I believe that these definitions as well as the extracted text they refer to in Chapter 11 are unnecessary in NFPA 72, especially if it is to be considered adoptable by states who adopt “other” building codes. I have submitted a separate comment to delete the extracted material from Chapter 11 as well. If the committee agrees with this substantiation, they will need to take both actions for consistency.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee has the responsibility to address installation requirements for this occupancy. See Committee Action on Comment 72-360 (Log #272).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-(Log #290d)

Committee: SIG-HOU72-16-(1-4 Dormitory) : Reject SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnellCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-25RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal to add this definition. SUBSTANTIATION: All of these definitions are extracted from NFPA LS-101. There is little or no need for them to be transcribed into NFPA 72 just to create a single-source document. I believe that these definitions as well as the extracted text they refer to in Chapter 11 are unnecessary in NFPA 72, especially if it is to be considered adoptable by states who adopt “other” building codes. I have submitted a separate comment to delete the extracted material from Chapter 11 as well. If the committee agrees with this substantiation, they will need to take both actions for consistency.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee has the responsibility to address installation requirements for this occupancy. See Committee Action on Comment 72-360 (Log #272).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

302

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA————————————————-


72-17-(1-4 Evacuation Signaling Zone) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-31aRECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that this Proposal be referred to the Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems for correlation. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept Add a title to the definition as follows: “Evacuation Signaling Zone.”COMMITTEE STATEMENT: To comply with the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-18-(1-4 Evacuation Signaling Zone) : Accept SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnellCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-31aRECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows: Continue to accept with the following editorial change: 1-4* Evacuation Signaling Zone. A discrete area of a building... (Remainder as is). A.1.4 Evacuation Signaling Zone. Evacuation signaling zones can be as small as... (Remainder as is). SUBSTANTIATION: This is a simple editorial repair to an acceptable proposal.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: This action should be referred to the Fundamentals Committee.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-19-(1-4 Fire Alarm Circuit Integrity (CI) Cable) : Reject SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-32RECOMMENDATION: Change to Accept. SUBSTANTIATION: We disagree with the committee action and suggest adding the definition by extraction, which is an acceptable action in the Manual of Style. It is acceptable to have a definition in multiple locations, especially if it’s extracted. An Authority doing a fire alarm system final acceptance would not have to have an NEC with him/her to discern what - CI cable is intended for. We believe this is helpful information and should be included in NFPA 72. The term is used several places within NFPA 72.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: In accordance with 1-5.5.4 the wiring requirements for fire alarm systems are covered in the National Electrical Code. Section 760.3 of the NEC contains a definition of “Circuit Integrity (CI)” cable and it is not necessary to repeat this definition in NFPA 72.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: CLARY: While there may be a definition for CI Cable within NFPA 70, I do not see that it is duplication to also have the definition within NFPA 72, The National Fire Alarm Code. Why must we always send the designer hopping from one NFPA Standard to another in order for them to obtain a design answer?

————————————————-


72-20-(1-4 Fire Alarm Circuit Integrity (CI) Cable) : Reject SUBMITTER: Edward Walton, Draka USACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-32RECOMMENDATION: Accept proposal 72-32.

SUBSTANTIATION: Accept 72-32 in this code to clarify the distinction between the three basic methods of providing 2-hour fire protection (Circuit Integrity (CI) Cable, a 2-hour rated cable system, routing the cable through a 2-hour rated enclosure) and eliminate the mistaken belief that “CI” cable is the same as a 2-hour fire rated system. Including this definition in this code will emphasize the fact that only “CI” cable can be marked as “CI” Cable and be installed per the National Electrical Code WITHOUT the need for conduit, special connectors or special fire barriers.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on Comment 72-19 (Log #200).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: CLARY: While there may be a definition for CI Cable within NFPA 70, I do not see that it is duplication to also have the definiton within NFPA 72, The National Fire Alarm Code. Why must we always send the designer hopping from one NFPA Standard to another in order for them to obtain a design answer?

————————————————-


72-21-(1-4 Fire Warning Equipment) : Reject SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-33aRECOMMENDATION: Accept in Principle by changing the term to Household Fire Warning Equipment. SUBSTANTIATION: The term “Fire Warning Equipment” is too broad and will result in persons arguing that the testing criteria for household fire alarm systems should be in Chapter 11 instead of Chapter 10, because of Chapter 11 anonymity.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has reviewed the submitter’s request and rejected the comment because the substantiation is no longer applicable. The Technical Committee has received direction from the Technical Correlating Committee to move all testing and maintenance requirements to Chapter 10.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-

(Log #290e)Committee: SIG-HOU

72-22-(1-4 Guest Room) : Reject SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnellCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-35RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal to add this definition. SUBSTANTIATION: All of these definitions are extracted from NFPA LS-101. There is little or no need for them to be transcribed into NFPA 72 just to create a single-source document. I believe that these definitions as well as the extracted text they refer to in Chapter 11 are unnecessary in NFPA 72, especially if it is to be considered adoptable by states who adopt “other” building codes. I have submitted a separate comment to delete the extracted material from Chapter 11 as well. If the committee agrees with this substantiation, they will need to take both actions for consistency.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee has the responsibility to address installation requirements for this occupancy. See Committee Action on Comment 72-360 (Log #272).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-

(Log #290f)Committee: SIG-HOU

72-23-(1-4 Guest Suite) : Reject SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnellCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-36RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal to add this definition. SUBSTANTIATION: All of these definitions are extracted from NFPA LS-101. There is little or no need for them to be transcribed into NFPA 72 just to create a single-source document. I believe that these definitions as well as the extracted text they refer to in Chapter 11 are unnecessary in NFPA 72, especially if it is to be considered adoptable by states who adopt “other” building codes. I have submitted a separate comment to delete the extracted material from Chapter 11 as well. If the committee agrees with this substantiation, they will need to take both actions for consistency.

303

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPACOMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee has the responsibility to address installation requirements for this occupancy. See Committee Action on Comment 72-360 (Log #272).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-

(Log #290g)Committee: SIG-HOU

72-24-(1-4 Hotel) : Reject SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnellCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-37RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal to add this definition. SUBSTANTIATION: All of these definitions are extracted from NFPA LS-101. There is little or no need for them to be transcribed into NFPA 72 just to create a single-source document. I believe that these definitions as well as the extracted text they refer to in Chapter 11 are unnecessary in NFPA 72, especially if it is to be considered adoptable by states who adopt “other” building codes. I have submitted a separate comment to delete the extracted material from Chapter 11 as well. If the committee agrees with this substantiation, they will need to take both actions for consistency.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee has the responsibility to address installation requirements for this occupancy. See Committee Action on Comment 72-360 (Log #272).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-

(Log #290h)Committee: SIG-HOU

72-25-(1-4 Lodging or Rooming House) : Reject SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnellCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-42RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal to add this definition. SUBSTANTIATION: All of these definitions are extracted from NFPA LS-101. There is little or no need for them to be transcribed into NFPA 72 just to create a single-source document. I believe that these definitions as well as the extracted text they refer to in Chapter 11 are unnecessary in NFPA 72, especially if it is to be considered adoptable by states who adopt “other” building codes. I have submitted a separate comment to delete the extracted material from Chapter 11 as well. If the committee agrees with this substantiation, they will need to take both actions for consistency.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee has the responsibility to address installation requirements for this occupancy. See Committee Action on Comment 72-360 (Log #272).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-

(Log #68)Committee: SIG-IDS

72-26-(1-4 Manual Fire Alarm) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-43aRECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that this Proposal be referred to the Technical Committee on Initiating Devices for action. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the recommendation of the Technical Correlating Committee to act on the proposal. The Technical Committee on Initiating Devices for Fire Alarm Systems rejects the action of Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems on Proposal 72-43a. Refer to the committee action on Comment 72-27 (Log #208).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-27-(1-4 Manual Fire Alarm) : Accept SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-43aRECOMMENDATION: Reject the Committee Proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: We strongly disagree with the committee substantiation. Fire alarm industry consistency has already been addressed. The term “station” was changed to “box” during the 1993-1996 cycle of NFPA 72. NFPA 170, “ ...Symbols” refers to this as a “box”. NFPA 1/UFC Fire Prevention Code and NFPA 5000 NFPA Building Code, both refer to these initiating devices as “boxes”, not stations. Other building and fire codes refer to these initiating devices as “boxes”, not stations. Changing this term to “station” without unilaterally changing every building and fire code at the same time will cause confusion and inconsistency in the application of the code. It has taken us the last 6 years to coordinate all codes to use the term “box”; during which time, not one fire alarm industry member has voiced opposition to the change at Technical Committee meetings or public hearings. No data was provided by the committee for public review to support their substantiation. There were no audits or polls conducted that solicited an industry wide response/reason to change this term back to “station”. This change will have a considerable financial impact on all persons publishing documentation of any kind, which refer to “box”, without adding any benefit to the change to “station”.

COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-28-(1-4 Monitoring For Integrity (Electrical Supervision)) : Reject SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnellCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-44RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the proposal and Accept or Accept in Principle with change. SUBSTANTIATION: The committee statement is inaccurate. The comment, “...a short on...will not create a trouble condition” is not relevant to the proposal. The proposal states that a trouble condition which occurs on a failure of a circuit “...which would prevent their intended operation.” A short circuit does not “prevent” the operation of an initiating device circuit. Using the short circuit analogy is an invalid reason to reject this proposal. Circuits intended to report a trouble condition (versus an alarm condition) on a wire-to-wire short are clearly shown in Table 3-5. The need for this definition outweighs the committee’s concerns. The NFAC took the first step in the right direction by changing the term used for our meaning of “supervision” to “monitoring integrity”. Many codes and standards refer to “supervision” which does not always properly reflect what we want provided. When we mean “electrical supervision” we now refer to “monitoring integrity”. However, we’ve been asked to provide a definition for monitoring integrity by code officials. Without a definition to describe what this is, most prefer the use of the term “electrical supervision” because they feel they know what this (implies) requires; even though it too is not defined. I urge the committee to reconsider the proposal and develop an acceptable definition. The NFPA 5000 Building Code, Section 11.3.2, has accepted a reference to “electrical supervision”.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: There are other ways of monitoring the integrity of circuits or paths, and the introduction of “electrical supervision” would potentially be limiting. Section 1.5.8 provides specific requirements for monitoring integrity. The definition is inherent in the requirements of the code.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & WaymanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: KIRBY: I agree with the submitter; this change is needed for correlation with NFPA 5000 and the other model building codes.

————————————————-

(Log #34)Committee: SIG-NAS

72-29-(1-4 Noncoded Signal) : Accept TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the definition of the term “Noncoded Signal” be deleted to comply with the NFPA Manual of Style. The term “Noncoded Signal” is not used in the Code.SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-45

304

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPARECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The purpose of 1-4 is to define terms used in the standard, to aid in interpreting the requirements in which they are used. B. If a term is not used in a requirement of the standard, it shouldn’t be included in 1-4. The committee frequently rejects proposed definitions because the terms are not used in the standard. C. Definitions like this are properly handbook material.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reconsidered as requested and reaffirms its previous action and statement.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #CC300)Committee: SIG-NAS

72-29a-(1-4 Occupiable Area) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Notification Appliances for Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-324, 72-331 & 72-334RECOMMENDATION: The committee adds the following definition and Annex material to (existing 1999 edition) Section 1-4.Occupiable Area - The spaces of a facility that may be occupied or used by the facility occupants as part of the building function or to support building operations and maintenance. This includes, but is not limited to: storage areas; mechanical and electrical equipment areas; walk-in closets or janitor’s rooms; restrooms; conference rooms; individual offices; etc. Annex Material Occupiable Area - The space above a suspended ceiling that does not have permanent walkways or in a crawlspaces or attics that do not contain building support equipment is not considered an occupiable space. If a large attic or crawlspace contains building support equipment in one area only, notification appliances would only be required in the area of the building support equipment where the potential exists for building maintenance personnel being present for equipment maintenance. SUBSTANTIATION: The committee chose not to delete the term “occupiable area” as requested in comment 72-277. The committee chose instead to add a definition of “occupiable area”.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


72-30-(1-4 Nonrequired System) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-46aRECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that this Proposal be referred to the Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems for correlation. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee and takes the following action: In the the title of the definition of “Nonrequired Systems” in Chapter 3 of Proposal 72-1h, add “(Voluntary)” after “Nonrequired”.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-

(Log #290i)Committee: SIG-HOU

72-31-(1-4 Occupancy, Residential) : Reject SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnellCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-47RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal to add this definition. SUBSTANTIATION: All of these definitions are extracted from NFPA LS-101. There is little or no need for them to be transcribed into NFPA 72 just to create a single-source document. I believe that these definitions as well as the extracted text they refer to in Chapter 11 are unnecessary in NFPA 72, especially if it is to be considered adoptable by states who adopt “other” building codes. I have submitted a separate comment to delete the extracted material from Chapter 11 as well. If the committee agrees with this substantiation, they will need to take both actions for consistency.

COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee has the responsibility to address installation requirements for this occupancy. See Committee Action on Comment 72-360 (Log #272).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-

(Log #290j)Committee: SIG-HOU

72-32-(1-4 Occupancy, Residential Board and Care) : Reject SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnellCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-48RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal to add this definition. SUBSTANTIATION: All of these definitions are extracted from NFPA LS-101. There is little or no need for them to be transcribed into NFPA 72 just to create a single-source document. I believe that these definitions as well as the extracted text they refer to in Chapter 11 are unnecessary in NFPA 72, especially if it is to be considered adoptable by states who adopt “other” building codes. I have submitted a separate comment to delete the extracted material from Chapter 11 as well. If the committee agrees with this substantiation, they will need to take both actions for consistency.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee has the responsibility to address installation requirements for this occupancy. See Committee Action on Comment 72-360 (Log #272).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-


72-33-(1-4 Prime Contractor) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-50RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee statement on this proposal does not address the substantiation provided. B. It is not within the scope of NFPA 72 to define required contractual relationships between supervising station companies and their subscribers. C. It is not acceptable under the Manual of Style for definitions to include requirements; i.e., for prime contractors to be listed companies. The requirements the committee is concerned about are found in the body of the standard anyway. D. The proposed, revised definition is accurate and resolves the problems cited. It is also in scope, and in accordance with the Manual of Style.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reaffirms the action taken on Proposal 72-50. The existing definition more clearly describes the responsibilities of a prime contractor. The recommended revised definition does not include the important elements that currently exist, including a) the contractual relationship between the prime contractor and thesubscriber and b) the fact that the prime contractor must be a listed company. Further, the existing definition complies with the current Manual of Style.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-


72-34-(1-4 Supervising Station Fire Alarm System (New) ) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-55RECOMMENDATION: Add the following definition: Supervising Station Fire Alarm System - A fire alarm system consisting solely of transmitters at one or more protected premises connected to receiving equipment at a supervising station, or that portion of a protected premises fire alarm system that transmits signals from the protected premises to a supervising station, including the receiving equipment at the supervising station, the transmitter(s) at the protected premises, and the interconnecting signaling paths. For a proprietary system, the protected premises control unit and the receiving equipment at the supervising station may be one in the same. See also the definitions for Auxiliary Fire Alarm System, Central Station Fire Alarm System, Proprietary Fire Alarm System, and Remote Station Fire Alarm System, as well as Figure 5-5.1. SUBSTANTIATION: A. This comment is modified from the original proposal based on the committee discussion and committee statements on proposal 72-55 and the Technical Correlating Committee comment on proposal 72-138. B. If the committee reviews the definitions for Auxiliary Fire Alarm System, Central Station Fire Alarm System, Proprietary Fire Alarm System, and

305

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPARemote Station Fire Alarm System, they will note that these definitions define their respective systems by function, but do not address the issue of where protected premises systems end and supervising station systems begin; hence the need for figure 5-5.1. C. It is important to clarify where the protected premises system ends and a supervising station system begins in order to interpret various existing requirements that have nothing to do with the division of scope between Chapters 3 and 5, such as the standby power requirements in 1-5.2.6. For example, does the current 60 hour standby power requirement for supervising station systems mean the protected premises portion of the system needs 60 hours of standby power, or just the supervising station transmitter? This definition would clarify that the 60 hour requirement applied to the supervising station transmitter only. D. The proposed definition does not conflict with any existing text but rather, integrates the various pieces found elsewhere in the standard.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reaffirms the action taken on Proposal 72-55. There are three kinds of supervising station fire alarm systems, each of which the committee believes is correctly defined. Further, the jurisdictional question between the Protected Premises Technical Committee and the Supervising Stations Technical Committee has been clearly defined by Figure 5-5.1 Division of Scope in the 1999 edition and is shown in Section 8.5.1 in the committee action of proposal 72-362.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-

(Log #70)Committee: SIG-TMS

72-35-(1-4 System Owner (New) ) : Accept TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the word “may” be replaced with the word “can” in the committee action text of Comment 72-35 in accordance with the NFPA Manual of Style.SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-56RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Committee reconsider this Proposal and address the submitter’s concerns. The definition of “ownership” presently in the code does not address the submitter’s concerns. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept Add appendix material to be associated with the term “ownership” to read as follows: Inspection testing and maintenance is the responsibility of the system owner or may be transferred by contract. The system owner can include but is not limited to a landlord, tenant, financing company or an alarm company. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the recommendation of the Technical Correlating Committee to reconsider. The committee reaffirms its action on Proposal 72-56. The current definition of ownership includes property under legal control by the occupant. The system owner can include but is not limited to a landlord, tenant, financing company or an alarm company. Inspection testing and maintenance is the responsibility of the system owner or may be transferred by contract.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-36-(1-4 System Owner (New)) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Eddie Phillips, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-56RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the proposal and accept. SUBSTANTIATION: The issue of ownership comes up constantly and this definition should be incorporated into the standard. Authorities Having Jurisdiction have a constant problem dealing with the issue of ownership and this would assist them in performing their duties. We also agree with the Technical Correlating Committee comment.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the Committee Action and Statement on Comment 72-35 (Log #70).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-37-(1-4 Tactile Notification Appliance) : AcceptSUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-57RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The purpose of 1-4 is to define terms used in the standard, to aid in interpreting the requirements in which they are used. B. If a term is not used in a requirement of the standard, it shouldn’t be included in 1-4. The committee frequently rejects proposed definitions because the terms are not used in the standard. C. Definitions like this are properly handbook material.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reconsidered as requested and reaffirms its previous action and statement.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-(Log #209)

Committee: SIG-SSS72-38-(1-4 Waterflow Monitoring Panel) : TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the action on Comment 72-38 (comment only) be reported as “Hold” consistent with Section 4-4.6.2.2 of the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. The material is not within the scope of this technical committee and is referred to the Technical Committee on Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems.SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-60RECOMMENDATION: Change to Accept in Principle. Add an Asterisk to 1-4 Fire Alarm Control Unit. Move the text of this proposal to the annex as a new paragraph to this annex section and revise it to read as follows: Waterflow Monitoring Panel. Another example of a Fire Alarm Control Unit is a Sprinkler Alarm Panel, which is a system component that receives inputs from automatic fire detectors (inclusive of waterflow switches) and valve supervising devices and transmits these signals to a supervising station. A Sprinkler Alarm Panel is intended to include all requirements that apply to a Fire Alarm Control Unit; for example; power supply requirements, protection of the control and “ ...at least one manual box.” SUBSTANTIATION: Although the term “Waterflow Monitoring Panel” is not used in the document, the committee statement implies that the proponent’s concerns are satisfied because a waterflow switch is an automatic fire detector therefore his proposal is unnecessary. If this were the case, the proponent would have wasted his time submitting this proposal. The fact is that most Authorities Having Jurisdiction do not recognize a Sprinkler Alarm Panel (Waterflow Monitoring Panel) as a parallel to a Fire Alarm Control Unit. They tell us, “ ...it’s different...because it’s only monitoring a sprinkler system and not (necessarily) notifying occupants within the protected structure.” Adding this text to the annex is a step in the right direction to correct this error and oversight, ensuring that systems are designed properly and contain all of the necessary components and operations. NFPA 170, which is in the same cycle, has approved the symbol for Sprinkler Alarm Panel (SAP, see proposal 170-15, Log 11) submitted by Mr. Jim Mundy representing the Automatic Fire Alarm Association. Mr. Mundy’s proposal is consistent with the intent of this proposal to establish some recognition of this “thing” that monitors suppression system components.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Add an Asterisk to 1.4 Fire Alarm Control Unit. Add the following text as: A-1.4 Fire Alarm Control Unit. A panel which monitors the status of waterflow switches, sprinkler supervisory devices, or both, is one example of a Fire Alarm Control Unit.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The annex material addresses the submitters’ concerns.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-(Log #345)

Committee: SIG-SSS72-39-(1-4 Waterflow Monitoring Panel) : Reject SUBMITTER: Shane M. Clary, Bay Alarm Co., Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-60RECOMMENDATION: I support the comments submitted by NEMA on and for 72-60. SUBSTANTIATION: I refer to my original substantiation.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See commitee action and statement on Comment 72-38 (Log #209). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-

306


Committee: SIG-SSS72-40-(1-4 Waterflow Monitoring System) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Shane M. Clary, Bay Alarm Co., Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-61RECOMMENDATION: I support the comments submitted by NEMA on and for 72-60. They also apply to 72-61. SUBSTANTIATION: I refer to my original substantiation.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See commitee action and statement on Comment 72-38 (Log #209). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-


72-41-(1-5.1.2 [2002 Ed. 4.3.1, A.4.4.3.7.1(d)]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Jerry Martocci, Johnson Controls Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-286RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: 4.3.1 Except where specifically indicated elsewhere in this code, equipment constructed and installed in conformity with this code shall be listed for the purpose for which it used. fire alarm service. Add the following new annex material: A.4.4.3.7.1(d) Priorities should follow the basic priority scheme of Life Safety Groups, Property Safety Groups, Supervisory and Trouble Groups and all others as follows with Priority 0 as the highest priority: SUBSTANTIATION: The revisions in paragraph 4.3.1 are being proposed as a result of proposed revision in Chapter 6, paragraph 6.8.1.4. The annex material currently existing in Chapter 6 more appropriately belongs in Chapter 4 where signal prioritization is defined.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: No substantiation has been provided to indicate specific problems with current listing programs. Regarding the proposed additional material for the Annex, the committee does not feel that the material, as presented, will not provide guidance to users of the Code.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & WaymanCOMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: DECKER: There appears to be a typographical error in the last line of the substantiation, resulting in a double negative. I believe the second sentence should read: “Regarding the proposed additional material for the Annex, the committee does not feel that the material, as presented, will provide guidance to the users of the Code.”

————————————————-

Priority Alarm or Event Description

Life Safety Group (0-39)

5 Automatic Fire Alarm

8 Life Safety Process Alarm

11 Manual Fire Alarm

14 Other Higher Priority Life Safety

19 Medical Alarm

22 Hold Up and Duress Alarm

25 Panic Alarm

28 Life Safety PreAlarm Alert

31 Other Lower Priority Life Safety

Property Safety Group (40-79)

45 Burglar Alarm and Forced Door Alarm

48 Security Alarm

51 Other Higher Priority Property Safety

60 Watchman Tour Alarm

63 Property Process Alarm

66 Door Held Open Alarm

69 Other Lower Priority Property Safety

Supervisory & Trouble Group (80-139)

85 Fire Supervision (tamper)

88 Security Supervision (tamper)

91 Other Supervisory

100 Fire Trouble (equipment failure)

103 Security & Burglar Trouble (equipment failure)

106 Communication Equipment Failure Trouble

109 Process Trouble

112 Energy Alarm

115 Other Failure

124 Communication Equipment Warning Trouble

127 Early Warning Alert

130 Energy Warning

133 Other Warning

Other Group (140-255)

145 Equipment and Industrial Supervision

148 Comfort Alarm

151 Misc. Higher Priority Alerts

160 System Events

163 Misc. Higher Priority Events

172 Life Safety Return to Normal

179 Property Safety Return to Normal

186 Supervisory & Trouble Return to Normal

189 Misc. Return to Normal

198 System Status Active

201 Comfort Warning

204 Misc. Lower Priority Events

213 System Status Normal

216 Comfort Normal

219 Test and Diagnostic Events

222 Misc.

307


Committee: SIG-FUN72-42-(1-5.1.2 , A-1-5.1.2) : Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-62RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: *1.5.1.2 Equipment. Fire alarm system components shall be listed and shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions, as packaged with the equipment from the factory. A.1.5.1.2 Installation instructions are part of a product’s listing. This requirement is to ensure, to the extent practical, that the fire alarm system components are suitable for the application and are installed in the manner intended by the manufacturer and evaluated by the listing organization. SUBSTANTIATION: A. This proposal has been revised consistent with the committee discussion at the ROP meeting. It retires the often debated and problematic phrase “listed for the purpose for which it is used” and clarifies the intent of requiring listed equipment. B. It is clearly not the intent of the standard that listing categories be established for every possible component in every possible application; i.e., smoke detectors for “area protection service” vs. “suppression system releasing service” vs. “elevator recall service,” or that every listing be specific to fire alarm systems (i.e., wire nuts, electrical tape, ty-wraps, conduit, junction boxes, batteries, etc.) C. Nonetheless, the current text of 1.5.1.2 has been widely interpreted, or misinterpreted as the case may be, to effectively prohibit the use of some fire alarm components and systems in certain applications for which the equipment is entirely suitable, and/or to require equipment listed to categories that do not exist. That is, we already have fire-alarm ty-wraps and it’s not unusual for an Authority Having Jurisdiction to demand documentation showing that the standby batteries are listed for fire alarm use. In some jurisdictions, fire alarm systems monitor smoke detectors, control dampers, and turn air handlers on and off, while in others NFPA 72 is interpreted to “require” a listed “smoke control” panel and smoke detectors listed for “smoke-control service” to do exactly the same thing. D. As was discussed at the ROP meeting, we have seen a proliferation of fire-alarm specific listing categories, ranging from ty-wraps to smoke control panels to UPS and add-on relays, most of which are simply intended to either prevent 1.5.1.2 from locking specific products out of certain applications or jurisdictions, or to gain a competitive advantage in a specific market, such as smoke control. Neither of these objectives has anything to do with the original intent of 1.5.1.2.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle in Part Add a second sentence to 4.3.1 of Proposal 72-1h to read: 1. “Fire alarm system components shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturers’ installation instructions.” 2. The committee does not accept the proposed wording in the comment for A.1.5.1.2.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: 1. The wording was revised to maintain existing requirements, and to incorporate the submitter’s intent of requiring installation in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions. 2. The proposed Annex material is not necessarily representative of all listing organizations. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-43-(1-5.1.2, A-1.5.1.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-62RECOMMENDATION: Add the following subparagraphs to 1-5.1.2; delete 1.5.3. 1.5.3 is incorporated into proposed 1.5.1.2.3 below. 1.5.1.2.1 Fire alarm control panels and all devices powered by fire alarm control panels, or from power supplies integral to fire alarm control panels shall be specifically listed for fire alarm use. 1.5.1.2.2 Fire alarm initiating devices, notification appliances, and supervising station transmitters shall be specifically listed for fire alarm use but, except as required by 1.5.1.2.3, shall not be required to be compatibility listed for use with their associated control unit(s). 1.5.1.2.3 Devices that receive their power from an initiating device circuit or signaling line circuit, or that communicate via data, shall be specifically listed for compatibility with the associated control unit(s). 1.5.1.2.4 Supervisory alarm initiating devices shall be electrically compatible with the associated control equipment, but shall not be required to be specifically listed for fire alarm use. 1.5.1.2.5 External power supplies and standby batteries providing power to a fire alarm system or to equipment monitored by a fire alarm system shall be electrically compatible with the dependent equipment, but shall not be required to be specifically listed for fire alarm use. 1.5.1.2.6 Fire alarm system components that communicate with or are monitored or controlled their associated control equipment using unmodulated voltage, resistance, or dry-contacts shall be electrically compatible therewith, but shall not be required to be compatibility listed. 1.5.1.2.7 Non-powered components of a fire alarm system, other than initiating devices, shall be suitable for the intended purpose, but are not required to be specifically listed for fire alarm use.

SUBSTANTIATION: This new text resolves several of the problems identified in the original proposal substantiation.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The substantiation does not detail the reasons for all the changes noted in the comment.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & WaymanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: GIGANDET: The submitter’s proposal is sound and has merit, and should be accepted as proposed. It will eliminate many problems in the field for both the installer and enforcement officials.

————————————————-


72-44-(1-5.1.3) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-62aRECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Action on this Proposal be reconsidered and that this material be rewritten to comply with the NFPA Manual of Style. Explanatory material must be located in the annex. Because NFPA technical committes do not evaluate specific products or services from specific vendors, NFPA documents can not really require the use of specific products or services within the requirements of the code. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee and advises that the action on Proposal 72-62a be reported as “Reject”.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & WaymanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: FRABLE: By accepting the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee, the material in Proposal 72-62a will be moved to the Annex of the Code. However, I believe that the action taken by the committee will be contrary to NFPA policy/procedures regarding the endorsement of specific products and/or services. That fact is, even as written in the Annex, it can be still perceived by the user of the Code that NFPA is endorsing the NICET Program.

————————————————-


72-45-(1-5.1.3) : Reject SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-62aRECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept, or Accept in Principle, adding text to require a minimum of 5 years experience for design and move the examples to the annex. SUBSTANTIATION: The intent of the committee proposal was not to recommend or endorse programs. It was to set a standard of value. The Technical Correlating Committee NOTE: “Because NFPA technical committees do not evaluate specific products or services from specific vendors, NFPA documents cannot really require the use of specific products or services within the requirements of the code”, is confusing and misleading. A) In 1999 we added a reference to - CI cable in the NEC, Article 760, defined it and described where to use it. Code Making Panel 16 did not evaluate that specific product, however, it is allowed and required in both the NEC and NFPA 72. Some will respond to the foregoing this way: “CI cable is an acceptable alternative to other cables...it is not proprietary.” Correct, you just described NICET Level III as it applies to the other two examples in 1-5.1.3. B) “ ...documents cannot really require...” Can they or can’t they? This subject should be covered in the Regulations Governing Committee Projects, or another NFPA document and absolute direction should be provided to the Technical Committee. C) Suggesting that Technical Committee Members do not evaluate products or services from specific vendors is an acceptable statement. But stating it to imply that the members of Chapter 1 are not familiar with NICET is not acceptable. NICET Fire Alarm Certification was established at the request of the fire alarm industry as a means to prove competency (through certification) by a third-party disinterested source. Anyone in the fire alarm industry knows the NICET program and what it’s done for this industry. To suggest it be removed from the Code is a step backwards. Of the 30 voting members on Chapter 1, only 1 voted negative and he is also aware of NICET. His explanation is what caught the attention of the

308

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPATechnical Correlating Committee. It too, is misleading. “ ...endorsement of the NICET program, which I believe is contrary to NFPA policy.” Is it, or isn’t it? Another portion of the comment serves to confuse the reader about NFPA policy and the use of the code to discern qualified persons. “A careful reading of the note to the definition of “approved” would also indicate that it is not the intent of the NFPA to endorse or approve any other organizations.” That’s fine, but this proposal has nothing to do with “approving” qualified persons and therefore, does not conflict with the approval statement. Approving is what you do when you have nothing else available and you use your best judgment to do so. This section lists examples of persons qualified to design fire alarm systems. It is not the Authority Having Jurisdiction’s purview to approve which of the 3 qualifications are acceptable. They all are acceptable as pointed out in Mr. Decker’s Explanation of Negative Vote for 72-63a (CP101) in which he states, “With the proposed mandatory language, the Authority Having Jurisdiction must accept as qualified an individual with NICET Level II...” (in this proposal, NICET Level III). Moving them into the annex will make them examples. THEN, the Authority Having Jurisdiction will be in a position of approving one of them; but worse yet, some who offers what he/she thinks is equivalent. Before the committee chooses which direction to take this proposal, we strongly suggest you request and obtain the NFPA “policy” that is being suggested as being violated. In conclusion, we would also point out that in the last four code cycles (since the 1990 edition of NFPA 72A) when NICET was first referenced for inspection, testing and maintenance, not one other certification agency has proposed to be added to the “qualified” list. We do not see inclusion of other fire alarm certification programs as reasonable grounds to reject this committee proposal.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee cannot accept the Proposal because of the direction by the Technical Correlating Committee in Comment 72-44(Log #71). The submitters did not provide any suggested wording for incorporating a minimum of 5 years as a requirement.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & WaymanCOMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: KIRBY: It is important that the reference to the National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies remain in the annex to provide guidance to the user of NFPA 72 as to what programs are available to demonstrate competency.

————————————————-


72-46-(1-5.1.3 [2002 Ed. 4.3.2]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SCCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h & 72-62aRECOMMENDATION: Leave asterik in 4.3.2 and add annex material stating that 4.3.2.1 is a list of qualifications, however individuals may be deemed qualified by the Authority Having Jurisdiction through other means, local license, etc. SUBSTANTIATION: We need qualified individuals performing design work, but we shouldn’t limit what qualifies an individual. 4.3.2.1 was written to make it enforceable and that’s the way it needs to be. Nothing in 4.3.2.1 limits an individual to the items listed in 4.3.2.1.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee cannot accept the proposal because of the direction by the Technical Correlating Committee in Comment 72-44(Log #71). The submitter did not provide any suggested wording.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-47-(1-5.1.3 [2002 Ed. 4.3.2.1]) : TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the action on Comment 72-47 (comment only) be reported as “Hold”. It appears that the Technical Committee may have misunderstood the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee on Comment 72-44. The Technical Correlating Committee would have no objection to this example being added to the annex. SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SCCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1hRECOMMENDATION: In 4.3.2.1 add (4) IMSA Municipal Fire Alarm System Technician. SUBSTANTIATION: This is another well recognized group that certifies technicians. It is different from NICET but similar in many ways and has been included in past editions of NFPA 72.

COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee cannot accept the proposal because of the direction by the Technical Correlating Committee in Comment 72-44(Log #71).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-(Log #155)

Committee: SIG-FUN72-48-(1-5.1.3 [2002 Ed. 4.3.2.1(3)]) : TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the action on Comment 72-48 (comment only) be reported as “Hold”. It appears that the Technical Committee may have misunderstood the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee on Comment 72-44. The Technical Correlating Committee would have no objection to this example being added to the annex. SUBMITTER: Jack Poole, Poole Consulting Services, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-62aRECOMMENDATION: Revise 4.3.2.1(3) as follows: (3) Licensed or registered professional engineer by the state for which the system is being designed. The professional engineer shall have education and experience in fire alarm system design. SUBSTANTIATION: The Code should identify a PE that has education and experience in fire alarm design as acceptable to perform design.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee cannot accept the proposal because of the direction by the Technical Correlating Committee in Comment 72-44(Log #71).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-(Log #356)

Committee: SIG-FUN72-49-(1-5.1.3 and 1.5.1.4) : Accept SUBMITTER: Eddie Phillips, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-62a and 72-63aRECOMMENDATION: Reject these proposals. SUBSTANTIATION: These proposals are a state issue and should be dealt with on a local or state level. The text was better placed in the annex as guidance to the Authority Having Jurisdiction on suggested qualifications.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Actions on Comments 72-44(Log #71), and 72-51(Log #72).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-50-(1-5.1.3 and 1.5.1.4 (2)) : Accept SUBMITTER: James R. Streit, Los Alamos National LaboratoryCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-64, 72-65, & 72-66RECOMMENDATION: Delete 1-5.1.3 and 1.5.1.4 as follows: (2) National Institute of Certification in Engineering Technologies (NICET) fire alarm certified minimum Level II and/or III. SUBSTANTIATION: As noted in the Technical Correlating Committee’s note, this specific entry in the body of NFPA 72 constitutes an endorsement of this program, exclusively over all others (including IMSA as noted in Proposals 72-64 [Log 281], 72-65 [Log 378] and 72-66 [Log 436] + others). Since NFPA 72 does not establish minimum training requirements (e.g., lesson plans, hours of classroom and/or OTJ training, apprenticeship programs)., it is inappropriate to list/endorse NICET exclusively in the body of the standard.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-(Log #72)

Committee: SIG-FUN72-51-(1-5.1.4) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-63aRECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Action on this Proposal be reconsidered and that this material be rewritten to comply with the Manual of Style. Explanatory material must be located in the annex.

309

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA Because NFPA technical committes do not evaluate specific products or services from specific vendors, NFPA documents can not really require the use of specific products or services within the requirements of the code. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee. In Proposal 72-1h, revise 4.3.3 by moving the material shown below to the Annex as A.4.3.3 The material shown below has also been revised to meet Manual of Style requirements. “Examples of qualified personnel include: (1) Factory trained and certified personnel. (2) National Institute of Certification in Engineering Technologies (NICET) fire alarm Level II certified personnel. (3) Personnel licensed, certified, or approved by a state or local authority. The list of examples of qualified personnel is for informational purposes only and does not include all available services or programs. Information concerning programs referenced above has been provided by outside sources and has not been independently verified, endorsed or certified by the NFPA or any of its technical committees.”NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 26 NEGATIVE: 2 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & WaymanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: FRABLE: By accepting the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee, the material in Proposal 72-63a will be moved to the Annex of the Code. However, I believe that the action taken by the committee will be contrary to NFPA policy/procedures regarding the endorsement of specific products and/or services. That fact is, even as written in the Annex, it can be still perceived by the user of the Code that NFPA is endorsing the NICET Program. NORTON: IMSA was deleted from the 1999 Edition due to staff error and should be included in this material being moved to the annex.

————————————————-


72-52-(1-5.1.4) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-64RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Action on this Proposal be reconsidered and that this material be rewritten to comply with the Manual of Style. Explanatory material must be located in the annex. Because NFPA technical committes do not evaluate specific products or services from specific vendors, NFPA documents can not really require the use of specific products or services within the requirements of the code. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 72-51(Log #72).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & WaymanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: FRABLE: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-51.

————————————————-


72-53-(1-5.1.4) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-65RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Action on this Proposal be reconsidered and that this material be rewritten to comply with the Manual of Style. Explanatory material must be located in the annex. Because NFPA technical committes do not evaluate specific products or services from specific vendors, NFPA documents can not really require the use of specific products or services within the requirements of the code. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.

COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 72-51(Log #72). The committee has reconsidered Proposal 72-65 and upholds their action to “Reject “ the proposal.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-54-(1-5.1.4) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-66RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Action on this Proposal be reconsidered and that this material be rewritten to comply with the Manual of Style. Explanatory material must be located in the annex. Because NFPA technical committes do not evaluate specific products or services from specific vendors, NFPA documents can not really require the use of specific products or services within the requirements of the code. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 72-51(Log #72). The committee has reconsidered Proposal 72-66 and maintains their action to “Reject.”NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-55-(1-5.1.4) : Reject SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-63aRECOMMENDATION: Accept the committee proposal.SUBSTANTIATION: This is a repeat of Proposal 72-62a - Log CP102 except for installation qualifications instead of design qualifications, therefore most of the same comments apply. It is especially disappointing to see so much attention paid to NICET in Mr. Decker’s reasons for negative vote, when (based on his personal opinions of NICET) he should have been a whole lot more concerned about Item (3), which allows a state or local authority to “approve” installation personnel. Everything stated regarding NICET Level II personnel applies to Item 3, and worse. At least an individual with a NICET II certificate has two years of experience. An Item 3 person could have two weeks of experience as could an Item 1 person. However, someone meeting Item 1 at least has knowledge of a particular product. Suggesting that a NICET Level IV certificate entitles (forces an Authority Having Jurisdiction to accept them) an individual to be qualified to supervise an installation of equipment they are unfamiliar with is a care tactic. NICET Level IV individuals who are not trained on “XYZ” equipment are not likely to suggest that they can supervise an “XYZ” installation...although, it would probably result in an exceptionally better project even if they did. But this is not about NICET Level IV individuals. NICET Level II individuals have a minimum of two years of experience, training and education. These attributes are verified before a certificate is issued. The others, (1) and (3) require no tenure. Those are the ones we should be most concerned about. Once again, there is no line of organizations waiting to get their certification program acknowledged and added to the list of qualifications in NFPA 72. It might be nice if we had to be concerned about maintaining a list. The fire alarm industry continues to be “black-flagged” by faulty installations and poor workmanship. It is considerably passed time to acknowledge the NICET certification program as the industry choice for third-party certification. It is available in every state. There is no reason not to embrace this program or any program that is of equivalent value to the fire alarm industry. COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 72-51(Log #72).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-

310


Committee: SIG-FUN72-56-(1-5.1.4) : Hold SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-67RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept in Principle with the following recommendations: A) Change definition 1-4 Shop Drawings to 1-4 Plans and Specifications. B) Change the definition to read: Drawings and technical data required by the Authority Having Jurisdiction for approval prior to system installation or alteration. C) Change 1-6.1.1* to read: The Authority Having Jurisdiction shall be notified prior to installation or alteration of equipment or wiring. At it’s its request, complete information regarding the system or system alterations, including but not limited to, specifications, shop drawings, battery calculations and notification appliance circuit voltage drop calculations shall be submitted for approval. D) Change A-1-6.1.1 to read: shop drawings Plans and specifications for fire alarm systems are intended to provide basic information consistent with the objective of installing a fully operational, code compliant fire alarm system and to provide the basis for the record drawings required elsewhere in this code. Approval of shop drawings the plans and specifications is not intended to imply waiver or modification of any requirements of this code or any other applicable criteria. Shop drawings Plans and specifications should include, to an extent commensurate with the extent of the work being performed, floor plan drawings, riser diagrams (except for systems in single story buildings single-story buildings), control panel unit field-wiring connections diagrams, point-to-point intended circuit wiring diagrams and typical wiring diagrams as described herein: All shop drawings plans should be drawn on sheets of uniform size and should include the following information: (1) Name of owner and (if applicable) each occupant. (2) Location, including street address. (3) Device legend. (4) Date. (5) Building occupancy type. (6) Building type of construction; e.g., Type V. (7) System sequence of operations. Floor plan drawings should be drawn to an indicated scale and should include the following information: (6) Room identification or descriptions. (11) Intended routing of all fire alarm circuits and conductor information. (12) Ceiling heights. (13) All beams, joists, soffets or other projections extending more than 12 inches below the ceiling. (14) Locations of all fire rated walls and smoke barriers. (15) Locations and descriptions of all fire alarm interfaced (controlled) equipment. (16) Locations of all Fire/Smoke or Smoke Dampers. (17) For addressable systems, provide the address for each device/component. Fire alarm system riser diagrams should include the following information: (5) For addressable systems, provide the address for each device/component. Control panel unit Wiring diagrams should be provided for all control equipment...(remainder as shown in the committee action). Typical wiring diagrams should be provided for all initiating devices, notification appliances, remote alarm light emmitting diodes (LEDs)...(remainder as shown in the committee action). SUBSTANTIATION: We agree with the addition of material that provides guidance for plans and submittals but with these recommendations. Some of the reasons follow: Change “shop drawings” to Plans and Specifications because it is the term that NFPA 1/UFC uses to describe this material (requirements) in the Fire Protection Chapter. In C) we recommend adding “but not limited to” to allow the Authority Having Jurisdiction to request necessary information that is not included in these lists but is needed to provide a complete review. In D) we recommend changing control panel wiring diagrams to control unit field-wriing connections so that it is not perceived that internal wiring diagrams (schematics) of the control unit equipment and modules is required. Internal diagrams of control units are not necessary to provide a project review. They are essential for technicians who troubleshoot faults within the control unit but not for Authority Having Jurisdiction plan approval. Also in D) we recommend changing point-to-point wiring diagrams to intended circuit wiring diagrams. Requiring point-to-point diagrams before the system has been installed and operating requires considerable labor time for something that is almost assured to be changed during the installation. Point-to-point diagrams are an important part of the system documentation for troubleshooting purposes but should be required as part of the as-built diagrams. The remaining additions to “plans”, “floor plans” and “riser diagrams” should be self-explanatory.

COMMITTEE ACTION:HoldCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The comment introduces a significant amount of new material that cannot be adequately reviewed by the committee at this phase of the cycle.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-57-(1-5.1.4) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Eddie Phillips, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-64RECOMMENDATION: Accept the proposal as submitted. SUBSTANTIATION: We agree with the Technical Correlating Committee comment. This text is better placed in the annex as it currently is.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 72-51(Log #72).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-(Log #254)

Committee: SIG-FUN72-58-(1-5.1.4 [2002 Ed. 4.3.3]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SCCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h & 72-63aRECOMMENDATION: Add an asterik in 4.3.3 and annex information clearly stating that other methods of qualifications are acceptable. Add International Municiple Signaling Association IMSA Level II to the list. SUBSTANTIATION: We need qualified installers. 4.3.3 list some means of being deemed qualified and allow an Authority Having Jurisdiction to enforce system installations performed by qualified individuals. However, we shouldn’t limit it to those listed. Even though the method of obtaining this certification is different from NICET certification, it appears to be equal to NICET, Factory Trained, etc. and should be added. It is a recognized certification program.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 72-51(Log #72).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-(Log #336)

Committee: SIG-FUN72-59-(1-5.1.4 [2002 Ed. 4.3.3]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SCCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-63aRECOMMENDATION: In 4.3.3 add (4) IMSA Interior Fire Alarm System Technician. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a well recognized group that certifies technicians and is similar to NICET. It has been used in previous editions of NFPA 72.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 72-51(Log #72).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-(Log #340)

Committee: SIG-FUN72-60-(1-5.1.4 & A-1.5.1.4) : Accept SUBMITTER: Shane M. Clary, Bay Alarm Co., Inc./Rep. California Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-67RECOMMENDATION: We support the committee action and the revised text. SUBSTANTIATION: Where we support the action and revised text from the technical committee, we would not be in support of the proposed text that has been presented by Mr. Jacobs as part of his negative vote. We feel that this would be too restrictive.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-

311


Committee: SIG-FUN72-61-(1-5.1.4 and A-1-5.1.4) : Hold SUBMITTER: Robert Keough, Fairfax,, VACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-67RECOMMENDATION: Add text: type of system or service between “specification, ...” and “shop drawings” in the new section 1-6.1.1*. Add text: input/output matrix between “shop drawings, ...” and “battery calculations” in the new section 1-6.1.1*. SUBSTANTIATION: Agree with the Technical Committee action on Proposal 72-67 to Accept in Principle. The Committee Action taken on Proposal 72-67 provides the what and where, but does not address the why and how. The new proposal requires a specification, but a specification does not always identify the type of system or the functions of the system being submitted for approval. Since the National Fire Alarm Code does not determine why a system is required or how its sequence of operation should function to meet these requirements that is mandated by code or as an owner selective, the “type of system or service” and “input/output matrix” defines how this need is met. In either way, the criteria for the type of system and its performance is determined by the “type of system or service” and the “input/output matrix”, along with the other line items listed in the proposal. The inclusions of the “type of system or service” and “input/out matrix” are key components that will make the submittal holistic.COMMITTEE ACTION:HoldCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: To correlate with the “Hold” on Comment 72-56(Log #212). In addition, the comment introduces new material that has not had public review.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-(Log #CC100)

Committee: SIG-FUN72-61a-(1-5.1.4, and A-1-5.1.4) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-67RECOMMENDATION: Modify the Committee Action text of Proposal 72-67 by deleting the definition of “Shop Drawings”. SUBSTANTIATION: Shop Drawings are defined by the Annex text. The definition implies a requirement which is not allowed in a definition.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-62-(1-5.2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-69RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept in Principle. SUBSTANTIATION: We support the committee action to Accept in Principle. The only opposition we had to this proposal during the 1999 cycle was an oversight that deleted the exception for secondary power when the power supply complied with Article(s) 700, 701, or 702. We applaud the work of the task group on power supplies.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-(Log #76)

Committee: SIG-SSS72-63-(1-5.2, A-1-5.2.(various)) : TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the action on Comment 72-63 (comment only) be reported as “Hold” consistent with Section 4-4.6.2.2 of the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects.SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-69RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that this Proposal be referred to the Technical Committee on Supervising Station Fire Alarm Systems for correlation with Section 5-4.4.2 (1999). This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept

In the ROP, add a new paragraph to 5-5.3.5.3 (8-5.3.5.3) to read as follows: “(d) Personnel shall be dispatched to arrive within 4 hours to initiate maintenance after detection of primary power failure .”COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee deleted the exception to 5-4.4.2 in the ROP which satisfies the concerns of the Technical Correlating Committee.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-


72-64-(1-5.2.8.1) : Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SCCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-69RECOMMENDATION: The manufacture and installation date shall be permanently marked on each battery. SUBSTANTIATION: The installation date is important because NFPA 72 requires sealed lead-acid batteries be replaced every four years. The manufacture date is important because during storage, batteries have to be recharged every so often and that clock begins on the day of manufacture.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle in Part The committee accepts the manufacturers’ date, and rejects the addition of an installation date for correlation purposes with testing and maintenance requirements.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on Comment 72-67(Log #203). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-65-(1-5.2.8.2.3 [2002 Ed. 4.4.1.8.2.3]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SCCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1hRECOMMENDATION: Delete 4.4.1.8.2.3 SUBSTANTIATION: 4.4.1.5 adequately covers the requirements for secondary power supplies. All DC power supplies employ a transformer and rectifier. By their very nature transformers are isolators. The primary windings and secondary windings are separated. All power supplies must be listed for their purpose or with the equipment.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The substantiation is technically incorrect. All DC power supplies do not necessarily incorporate a transformer and rectifier.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & WaymanCOMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: GAUVIN: I agree that the substantiation is technically incorrect. However, I question why 4.4.1.8.2.3 is in the code. The code should not specify the design requirements relating to the components within fire alarm equipment. The code should describe the intended safety criteria of the equipment and leave the design of the equipment to meet that criteria up to the equipment manufacturer.

————————————————-(Log #77)

Committee: SIG-FUN72-66-(1-5.2.9.1) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-84RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that this Proposal be reconsidered and correlated with the action by the Technical Committee on Testing and Maintenance on Proposal 72-454. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on Comment 72-67(Log #203). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-

312


Committee: SIG-FUN72-67-(1-5.2.9.1) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA¹COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-84RECOMMENDATION: Change the committee action from Accept to Accept in Principle. SUBSTANTIATION: We agree with the substantiation. However, we recommend that the batteries be marked with the manufacturing date in lieu of the installation date. Batteries degrade while on the shelf. Therefore, we recommend the following text: Batteries used in fire alarm applications shall be permanently marked with the date manufactured by the manufacturer.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle In Proposal 72-1h, add the following after 4.4.1.8: 4.4.1.8.1 Marking. Batteries shall be permanently marked with the month and year of manufacture. Renumber the remaining paragraphs as appropriate. In addition, add A.4.4.1.8.1 to read: “Markings for month and year may be applied by the manufacturer or in the field based on the manufacturers’ date code.”COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Revised for correlation purposes with the action Proposal 72-454 as directed by the Technical Correlating Committee.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-68-(1-5.2.9.1 [2002 Ed. 4.4.1.8.1.3]) : Accept SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SCCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h & 72-69RECOMMENDATION: Revise 4.4.1.8.1.3 to read: If not located in or adjacent to the fire alarm control unit, the batteries and their charger location shall be permanently identified at the fire alarm control unit. SUBSTANTIATION: Clarification-A fire alarm control unit is what’s being discussed, and we shouldn’t call it a panel in one sentence and a unit in the next. Fire alarm control unit is defined in chapter one.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-69-(1-5.2.9.1 [2002 Ed. 4.4.1.8.1.4]) : Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SCCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h & 72-69RECOMMENDATION: Revise 4.4.1.8.1.4 to read: The manufacture and installation dates shall be permanently marked on each battery. SUBSTANTIATION: We currently require Sealed Lead-Acid batteries to be replaced every 4 years. In order for these batteries to have adequate capacity at the end of 4 years, they must be maintained properly from the day they’re manufactured until the day they’re replaced. Most SLAs must be recharged periodically while being stored. This is dependent on temperature as well as other factors. This makes the manufacture date as important as the installation date. Both are needed to meet the spirit of the code.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle in Part COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on Comment 72-67(Log #203). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-

(Log #CC104)Committee: SIG-FUN

72-69a-(1-5.4.1) : TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee reaffirms its direction to Accept Proposal 72-88 and directs that the action on Comment 72-69a be reported as “Reject.”SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-88RECOMMENDATION: The committee reaffirms its position to “Reject” Proposal 72-88. SUBSTANTIATION: The material that is proposed to be relocated to new Chapter 6 is applicable to functions which may be initiated or controlled from a remote location. A specific example includes proprietary systems serving multiple building sites where the receiver performs control functions. Requirements that are applicable to systems covered in multiple chapters

should reside in the Fundamentals Chapter. See committee action on Proposal 72-86a.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-69b-(1-5.4.2.2) : TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee reaffirms its direction to Accept Proposal 72-94 and directs that the action on Comment 72-69b be reported as “Reject.”SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-94RECOMMENDATION: The committee reaffirms its position to “Reject” Proposal 72-94. SUBSTANTIATION: The material that is proposed to be relocated to new Chapter 6 is applicable to functions which may be initiated or controlled from a remote location. A specific example includes proprietary systems serving multiple building sites where the receiver performs control functions. Requirements that are applicable to systems covered in multiple chapters should reside in the Fundamentals ChapterCOMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-70-(1-5.4.1) : Reject SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-88RECOMMENDATION: Continue to reject this proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: We disagree with the submitter’s substantiation because the section applies to proprietary systems as well as protected premises systems. If the text is moved to Chapter 3, it will no longer apply to proprietary systems. (See Section 5-3.) Fire-safety functions should not be initiated automatically or manually from any location off the protected premises.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: This definition applies only to protected premises fire alarms systems, therefore it should be only located in Chapter 3 (Chapter 6-2002). The Technical Correlating Committee action on Proposal 72-88 has addressed the submitter’s concern.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-71-(1-5.4.1) : Reject SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-86aRECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on Proposal 72-88, the Technical Correlating Committee directed the Technical Committee of Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems to “Accept” a proposal to relocate the material in 1-5.4.1 to the Chapter on Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems. Proposal 72-86a is referred to the Technical Committee on Protected Premises for action as it concerns 1-5.4.1. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to related Technical Correlating Committee comments.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: This material was moved to Chapter 3 (Chapter 6-2002) and this action affirms that these requirements are a function of protected premises fire alarm systems. The committee does not agree with the substantiation in Proposal 86a that states this material applies to other than protected premises fire alarm systems.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-

313


Committee: SIG-PRO72-72-(1-5.4.1.2) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-89RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on Proposal 72-88, the Technical Correlating Committee directed the Technical Committee of Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems to “Accept” a proposal to relocate the material in 1-5.4.1 to the Chapter on Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems. Proposal 72-89 is referred to the Technical Committee on Protected Premises for action as it concerns 1-5.4.1. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to related Technical Correlating Committee comments.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle In Section 6.15.2.2 replace the first paragraph with: “The time delay between the activation of an initiating device and the automatic activation of protected premises fire safety control functions shall not exceed 10 seconds.” Delete the second paragraph of the proposed text.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This section was relocated from 1-5.4.1.2. to new section 6.15.2.2 by the committee action on Proposals 72-88 and 72-244. “Local” was changed to “protected premises” for clarity.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-73-(1-5.4.1.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-90RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on Proposal 72-88, the Technical Correlating Committee directed the Technical Committee of Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems to “Accept” a proposal to relocate the material in 1-5.4.1 to the Chapter on Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems. Proposal 72-90 is referred to the Technical Committee on Protected Premises for action as it concerns 1-5.4.1. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to related Technical Correlating Committee comments.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee affirms that fire suppression systems are separate and distinct from fire safety control functions. The term “time delay” is commonly understood as it relates to this requirement and changing it to “response time” may result in confusion.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-74-(1-5.4.1.3) : Reject SUBMITTER: Michael Minieri, SimplexGrinnell LPCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-87RECOMMENDATION: The committee should ACCEPT or otherwise adopt language to meet the intent of the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee Statement explaining its rejection of this proposal is in error. As stated in the justification, the proposal is presently acceptable under the Code. As one example, there are requirements for smoke detectors for door release service, however, there is no mandate that these same detectors cause an ALARM condition on the building fire alarm system. 3-9.6.2 Exception and 3-9.2.1 Exception clearly establish circumstances under which these detectors NEED NOT cause a TROUBLE condition on the building fire alarm system. Therefore, this “debate” alone substantiates that the Code is in need of CLARIFICATION of this issue, and this proposal serves that purpose.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on Comment 72-75 (Log #363).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: LARRIMER: I disagree with the committee statement. It is not clear that stand alone devices are permitted by the National Fire Alarm Code as indicated by the proposal. The scope statement of Section 3-9 specifically states that Section 3-9 applies only to the requirements for devices connected to the fire alarm system and thus do not cover stand alone devices. The committee would improve the clarity of the code if the proposed verbiage was added as proposed. In addition, the committee’s statement to Proposal 72-289 contradicts with the committee statements provided for this comment. The committee statement for 72-289 is: “The proposed text is not clear as to what control functions will be permitted. Where the control function is a fire safety control function, it is intended that the detector be connected to the fire alarm system. Where the control function is not a fire safety control function, NFPA-72 does not apply.” All control functions are fire safety control functions by definition unless the committee believes that someone is going to provide a control function that would intentionally decrease the level of fire safety. From NFPA 72 definitions: “Fire Safety Function. Building and fire control functions that are intended to increase the level of life safety for occupants or to control the spread of the harmful effects of fire.” If the committee believes that all devices need to be connected to the fire alarm system (and I would disagree with that statement), they should so state it, but even after attending the meeting, I am still confused as to the intent of the committee. This proposal was intended to clarify something that is not clear and remains so after the voting on Comments 72-74, 72-75 and Proposal 72-289.

————————————————-


72-75-(1-5.4.1.3) : Reject TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee recognizes that the second sentence of the Committee Statement appears to conflict with the requirements of Section 3-9. However, the Technical Correlating Committee affirms the action taken by both Technical Committees. Refer also to Committee Action on Proposal 72-244 which relocated Section 1-5.4.1 as directed by the Technical Correlating Committee.SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-87RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on Proposal 72-88, the Technical Correlating Committee directed the Technical Committee of Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems to “Accept” a proposal to relocate the material in 1-5.4.1 to the Chapter on Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems. Proposal 72-87 is referred to the Technical Committee on Protected Premises for action as it concerns 1-5.4.1. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to related Technical Correlating Committee comments.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Requirements for control functions are already adequately covered in 3-9 (6.15, 2002 edition). This section details those applications in which initiating devices do not have to be connected to the fire alarm control panel. Supplementary devices as defined in Chapter 1 are not required to meet the requirements of Chapter 3 (Chapter 6, 2002 edition).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 26 NEGATIVE: 2 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: LARRIMER: I disagree with the committee statement. It is not clear that stand alone devices are permitted by the National Fire Alarm Code as indicated by the proposal. The scope statement of Section 3-9 specifically states that Section 3-9 applies only to the requirements for devices connected to the fire alarm system and thus do not cover stand alone devices. The committee would improve the clarity of the code if the proposed verbiage was added as proposed. In addition, the committee’s statement to Proposal 72-289 contradicts with the committee statements provided for this comment. The committee statement for 72-289 is: “The proposed text is not clear as to what control functions will be permitted. Where the control function is a fire safety control function, it is intended that the detector be connected to the fire alarm system. Where the control function is not a fire safety control function, NFPA-72 does not apply.” All control functions are fire safety control functions by definition unless the committee believes that someone is going to provide a control function that would intentionally decrease the level of fire safety. From NFPA 72 definitions: “Fire Safety Function. Building and fire control functions that are intended to increase the level of life safety for occupants or to control the spread of the harmful effects of fire.”

314

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA If the committee believes that all devices need to be connected to the fire alarm system (and I would disagree with that statement), they should so state it, but even after attending the meeting, I am still confused as to the intent of the committee. This proposal was intended to clarify something that is not clear and remains so after the voting on Comments 72-74, 72-75, 72-241 and Proposal 72-289. MANDE: The committee statement, in its reason for rejecting this Technical Correlating Committee’s comment, misstates the definition of “Supplemental”. Supplementary is defined as “...equipment or operations not required by this code...”, but is silent on whether they have to meet the requirements of the code. In its action on Comment 72-177, the committee has changed the heading of 3-2.4 from non-required systems to supplementary (non-required/voluntary) systems. Non-required system is defined in Chapter 1 as: “A supplementary fire alarm system component or group of components that is installed at the option of the owner and is not installed due to building or fire code requirement.” 3-2.4.1 states that “Non-required protected premises systems shall meet the requirements of this code.” 3-2 states that: “the requirements of Chapters 1, 2, 4 and 5 shall also apply, unless they are in conflict with this chapter.” The committee is wrong in stating that “Supplementary devices as defined in Chapter 1 are not required to meet the requirements of Chapter 3.” The Technical Correlating Committee’s Comment should be accepted and 1-5.4.1 relocated to Chapter 3.

————————————————-


72-76-(1-5.4.2.2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-92aRECOMMENDATION: Do not delete “at the protected premises”. SUBSTANTIATION: The 10 second requirement cannot be met by the allowable communication methods for supervising stations other than for a collocated proprietary system. A DACT is permitted to take 90 seconds (see 5-5.3.1.2.4) to complete the communications. The 10 seconds should only apply at the protected premises.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on Committee Comment 72-184a (Log #CC400).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-77-(1-5.4.2.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-94RECOMMENDATION: Continue to reject this proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: We agree with the committee action and disagree with the submitter’s substantiation because the section applies to proprietary systems as well as protected premises systems. It is acceptable to initiate notification appliances from e.g., a networked (proprietary) system.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee concurs with the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee to relocate this material.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-78-(1-5.4.2.2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-92RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on Proposal 72-94, the Technical Correlating Committee directed the Technical Committee of Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems to “Accept” a proposal to relocate the material in 1-5.4.2.2 to the Chapter on Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems. Proposal 72-92 is referred to the Technical Committee on Protected Premises for action as it concerns 1-5.4.2.2. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to related Technical Correlating Committee comments.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on

Committee Comment 72-184a (Log #CC400).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-(Log #368)

Committee: SIG-PRO72-79-(1-5.4.2.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-93RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on Proposal 72-94, the Technical Correlating Committee directed the Technical Committee of Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems to “Accept” a proposal to relocate the material in 1-5.4.2.2 to the Chapter on Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems. Proposal 72-93 is referred to the Technical Committee on Protected Premises for action as it concerns 1-5.4.2.2. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to related Technical Correlating Committee comments.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on Comment 72-73 (Log #365).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-(Log #317)

Committee: SIG-PRO72-80-(1-5.4.2.2 [2002 Ed. 4.4.3.2.2]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SCCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1hRECOMMENDATION: Add exceptions in 4.4.3.2.32 for Presignal, Alarm Verification, Positive Alarm Sequence, and Cross-Zoning. SUBSTANTIATION: Presignal 4.4.3.10 and Positive Alarm Sequence 4.4.3.11 are somewhat covered, but could cause problems in the field. The exceptions make it clear in those two cases and allow for Alarm Verification and Cross-Zoning.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The proposed text for presignal, alarm verification, and positive alarm sequence is adequately covered by the current requirements in Chapter 3 (Chapter 6, 2002). Cross-zoning is an undefined term in the NFAC.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-(Log #318)

Committee: SIG-FUN72-81-(1-5.4.3.2.2 [2002 Ed. 4.4.3.3.3 (1)]) : Accept SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SCCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1hRECOMMENDATION: Revise 4.4.3.3.3 (1) to read: (1) Fire Alarm Control Unit (panel) for local fire alarm systems. SUBSTANTIATION: Clarificaton and consistency.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-(Log #319)

Committee: SIG-FUN72-82-(1-5.4.3.2.2 [2002 Ed. 4.4.3.3.4]) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SCCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1hRECOMMENDATION: Delete 4.4.3.3.4 (in accordance with 2-9.1.1) SUBSTANTIATION: Consistency between 4.4.3.3.3 and 4.3.3.4.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle In Section 4.4.3.3.4 of Proposal 72-1h, delete “(in accordance with 2-9.1.1)” at the end of the paragraph.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on Comment 72-85(Log #339). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-

315


Committee: SIG-FUN72-83-(1-5.4.3.3) : Accept SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-95aRECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept this proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: NEMA supports this clarification of the Code permitting the use of both latching and non-latching supervisory signals for the reasons indicated in the committee proposal substantiation. The committee proposal meets the intent of the original submitter’s proposal 72-95.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-84-(1-5.4.3.3(1)) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SCCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-95aRECOMMENDATION: Revise (1) to read: Fire Alarm Control Unit for local fire alarm systems. SUBSTANTIATION: The definitions section of chapter one defines a panel as a Fire Alarm Control Unit. This term is used in many places throughout NFPA 72 and should be consistently used throughout. This is a matter of consistency.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on Comment 72-81(Log #318). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-85-(1-5.4.3.4) : Accept SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SCCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-95aRECOMMENDATION: Delete (in accordance with 2-9.1.1) SUBSTANTIATION: By leaving this the way it is you may as well delete 1-5.4.3.4. 2-9.1.1 only affects valves. Additionally 2-9.1.1 will be interpreted to mean that valve tampers must operate within two full turns and remain in a supervisory state until the valve is fully opened at which point the off-normal signal will be required to restore. This would be identical to 1-5.4.3.3 non-latching. Why write it this way for 1-5.4.3.4 and not 1-5.4.3.3? Consistency.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-86-(1-5.4.5) : Reject SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-96RECOMMENDATION: Accept the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: The committee is treading on thin ice to suggest that fire safety control functions can be initiated from a supervising station. Some communication methods permitted by the supervising station chapter will not meet the time stipulations in this chapter, and if the committee implies that initiating fire safety functions from a supervising station is permitted, it is essentially creating a difficult situation to say the least from the standpoint of enforcement. It should at least clarify that fire safety functions can only be initiated from supervising stations where the communication methods will ensure that it is performed in the times stipulated within the chapter. Correlation needs to be done to identify which communication methods would be allowed to be used if alarm and fire safety function time stipulations in Chapter 1(4) are directed toward supervising stations.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has reconsidered its action and reaffirms its statement that the material does not solely apply to protected premises fire alarm systems.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-87-(1-5.4.6 [2002 Ed. 4.4.3.6.1]) : Accept in Part SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SCCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1hRECOMMENDATION: In 4.4.3.6.1, delete exception/or correct reference from 1-5.8.7.3 to 4.4.7.3.3. SUBSTANTIATION: Why should DACTs be different from other equipment. Panels connected to DACTs would still typically transmit a trouble signal if primary power failed. Reference is from the 1999 Edition verses the proposed 2002 Edition.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Part The committee accepts the recommendation to change the reference from “1-5.8.7.3” to “4.4.7.3.3.”COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee disagrees with the substantiation to delete the exception.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-88-(1-5.4.6.1 [2002 Ed. 4.4.3.6.6(1)]) : Accept SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SCCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1hRECOMMENDATION: Revise 4.4.3.6.6(1) to read: Fire Alarm Control Unit (panel) for protected premises alarm systems. SUBSTANTIATION: Clarity and consistency.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-89-(1-5.4.6.3.4 [2002 Ed. 4.4.3.6.8.4]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SCCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1hRECOMMENDATION: 4.4.3.6.8.4 should become an exception to 4.4.3.6.8.3. SUBSTANTIATION: It is actually an exception to 4.4.3.6.8.3.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The current language is consistent with the Manual of Style.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-(Log #288)

Committee: SIG-FUN72-90-(1-5.4.7 [2002 Ed. 4.4.3.7.2(a)]) : TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the action on Comment 72-90 be reported as “Reject” as the action taken is outside the scope of the Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems.SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, Rep. National Electrical Manufacturers AssociationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1hRECOMMENDATION: Revise 4.4.3.7.2(a) to read as follows: Accept the committee proposal with the following changes: (a) Fire alarm signals shall be distinctive in sound from other signals, shall comply with the requirements of 3-8.4.1.2.1, shall apply to existing fire alarm systems by January 1, 2005, and their sound shall not be used for any other purpose. SUBSTANTIATION: Fire alarm systems need to produce consistent evacuation signals. Unless a “meet by” date is established, older systems will continue to confuse the intent of establishing a standard evacuation signal. We agree with only Part A of the submitter’s substantiation in proposal 72-257 (Log 53), in which he endorses retroactivity of the Standard Evacuation Signal. The Standard Evacuation Signal can be superimposed on all applicable existing audible notification appliances. In most cases, this change will require installing a temporal module or software into the existing fire alarm control unit and not require audible device replacement or modification. Most older fire alarm control units have already been replaced because additional notification appliances were installed to meet accessibility guidelines and because of NFPA 72 changes to the requirements for notification appliance circuits. We all realize that the intent of the Standard Evacuation Signal is to establish and maintain a consistent evacuation pattern for recognition by occupants regardless of their spoken language or the structure they occupy. We believe this concern meets the intent of the Exception to the retroactivity section (1.4) relating to maintaining a distinct hazard to life.

316

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPACOMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle In addition to the submitter’s recommended text, add the following text as the second sentence of 4.4.3.7.2(a) in Proposal 72-1h to read as follows: “ Where approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction, the continued use of an existing consistent evacuation signaling scheme shall be permitted.”COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agrees with the submitter’s substantiation, but feels that there could be circumstances where discretion is appropriate, such as in a multi-building system.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 24 NEGATIVE: 4 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & WaymanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: BONIFAS: 1. The substantiation states that most older fire alarm control units have already been replaced because of the accessibility guidelines. It is my belief based upon my experience that close to 1/2 of the fire alarm systems in service have not been upgraded, were installed prior to the accessibility guidelines and, therefore, have been grandfathered so long as there are not major modifications to the building or to the fire alarm system. This change to temporal would be viewed as a major change to the system and result in the Authority Having Jurisdiction requiring a full system upgrade resulting in new wire runs to the notification appliances as a practical matter. This involves a totally new system in most cases and, therefore, a major cost which in worst cases could be a million dollars or more. The implications of imposing this change by 2005 are huge and probably will be opposed vigorously if it comes to the floor for a vote in May. 2. I have personally been in many buildings such as hotels when a fire alarm was activated. There was never any doubt in these instances that there was a fire alarm activation even though some people didnít evacuate because they sensed no danger and saw no smoke. I saw no confusion as to what the signal was from occupants of the building. I agree with the standardized temporal sound on a going forward basis, but feel that the improvement to life safety is minor or nonexistent and the cost great. 3. There are a lot of large, older buildings which will be impacted by the cost to upgrade a major fire alarm system. The economics may well render the building useless. The worst-case costs may be so great as to put some entities out of business. 4. I can see the business opportunity for my company in upgrading or replacing probably 1/2 of the systems we service, but that reason would be self-serving. I feel unjustified in supporting this proposal because I feel it is unjust to the building owner in that, in my opinion, it does not meaningfully advance life safety while imposing what in many cases will be a huge cost. I disagree with the last sentence in the submitterís substantiation relating to the Retroactivity Section (1-4) which indicates that failing to impose the temporal sound would somehow create a ìdistinct hazard to lifeî. I do not feel that the sound issue rises anywhere near the level of being a ìhazard to lifeî. I support major improvements to life safety but merely modifying the nature of the sound is not one which improves life safety sufficiently to justify the Exception to Retroactivity. DECKER: This comment should be rejected on both procedural grounds and technical merits. Procedurally, I donít believe it is appropriate for the Technical Committee to consider this comment due to the submitterís failure to comply with Section 4-4.2 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects: ìSubjects Appropriate for Comment. Comments shall be confined to those items under consideration for action and directly affected items.î This comment refers to Section 4.4.3.7.2(a) of the committee proposal. No proposals were received by this Technical Committee seeking any change whatsoever in this paragraph or its predecessor paragraph in the 1999 Edition of NFPA 72, and the only proposed change in the committee proposal is the renumbering of the paragraph consistent with the Manual of Style changes proposed by the committee. A careful reading of 4-4.6.2.1 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects would indicate the proper action by the Technical Committee would have been to hold, on the basis that this introduces a concept that has not had public review. To the best of my knowledge, there was not a single proposal in the ROP specifying a 2005 date for standard evacuation signal retroactivity. This requirement, if accepted, would have a dramatic financial impact on owners of existing fire alarm systems without the Standard Evacuation Signal. Inserting this retroactivity requirement for compliance by January 1, 2005 at this stage in the process, clearly violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects. On a technical basis, the substantiation statement that: ìThe Standard Evacuation Signal can be superimposed on all applicable existing audible notification appliancesî is a source of concern. Many audible notification appliances include strobe devices, and interrupting power to the circuit to produce the Standard Evacuation Signal would clearly interfere with the

ability of the strobe to function. Many older panels no longer have their product listings maintained, and it is highly unlikely manufacturers will develop temporal modules for panels that are no longer listed. Control panels that produce only a march time output, and coded alarm systems are inherently incapable of being retrofitted to provide the Standard Evacuation Signal. If the committee wishes to make such a sweeping change based on misleading substantiation, we should at least give the public affected by this change the opportunity to consider the costs and benefits of this proposal, and a chance to provide their input. FRABLE: I agree with the submitter, that new fire alarm systems need to produce consistent evacuation signals. However, I strongly disagree with the submitterís intent to retroactively impose on the building community a ìdateî to require all existing fire alarm systems to utilize the standard evacuation signal. Not only is the submitter putting an undue burden on building owners to replace or upgrade their code compliant existing fire alarm systems, but the submitter has also burdened the code official to evaluate all existing fire alarm systems in their jurisdiction to approve the continued use of the existing fire alarm systemís evacuation signaling scheme. I also strongly disagree with the submitterís assumption that the majority of older existing fire alarm systems have been replaced or upgraded to meet accessibility guidelines. This is not the case at all. If an existing fire alarm system is properly maintained, functioning and operating properly, and is code compliant, why would a building owner replace their existing fire alarm system? Even current accessibility guidelines do not retroactively require existing fire alarm systems to be replaced to incorporate visible notification appliances. The submitter also attempts to paint a pretty picture that the standard evacuation signal can be easily superimposed and upgraded on all existing fire alarm systems. If thatís the case, why doesnít the fire alarm industry provide these upgrades for free? In addition, I also disagree with the submitterís weak attempt to rationalize that this proposal is justifiable since it meets the intent of the exception to the retroactivity Section (1.4) related to maintaining a distinct hazard to life. It appears that the submitter believes that any existing fire alarm system not utilizing the standard evacuation signal is creating a distinct life safety hazard to the occupants of a building. Again, I contend this is not the case. However, I do believe that proper training and education of the building community and not retroactivity is the proper direction to take to ensure all new fire alarm systems utilize the standard evacuation signal. Lastly, I believe that this proposal should have been considered ìnew materialî since it appears the general public did not have an adequate opportunity to review the ìdateî of this retroactive requirement. YANEK: I believe and agree with the fact that a standard is necessary on the sound and its tempo rate on all new systems installed, but to dictate a date of compliance requiring existing systems to be modified or replaced by that date, is completely out of line. Inserting such a requirement in the code could be devastating to those who have to meet the date requirement without giving them a sufficient period of time to plan, budget and absorb the cost. I do not believe 3 years is sufficient, in fact, I do not believe there should be any deadline required. I do a fair amount of traveling and have been through 15 to 20 false alarms in hotels, restaurants and airports. As yet, I have not seen any confusion in any of those alarm situations. It would be different if people didnít recognize the evacuation signaling, but in all the cases that I have been involved, they all recognized the signaling even though sound and tempo were different in each case. I also believe the submitter is speculating on the number of systems in the country that would require upgrades and/or replacement. What justification does the submitter have to support the claim?COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: KIRBY: The requirement for retroactivity for the standard evacuation system is long overdue. The reason that temporal 3 was selected a standard signal 20 plus years ago (instead of slow whoop) was because it would be easy to retrofit. Imposing this requirement will not constitute an economic hardship on system owners and will finally permit NFPA (and others) to get on with the task of educating the public about this signal.

————————————————-

317


Committee: SIG-FUN72-91-(1-5.4.8) : Accept SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-100RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the proposal and Accept. SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal has nothing to do with the use of coded alarm signal operation. The section deals with a means for (manually) turning off activated alarm notification appliances. The section deals with an ability to “silence” activated alarm notification appliances for investigation of the actuated device. Fire alarm systems should not be allowed to be automatically silenced. The reason for allowing manually silencing of notification appliances is to avoid occupant disruption if staff is present to investigate the reason for the initiated alarm via pre-planned action. This allowance for automatic silencing should only be permitted if the system has emergency voice/alarm communications capability so the occupants can be informed of the purported condition following the automatic silencing. If the structure is not occupied, there is no reason to silence the alarm, manually or automatically. At the very least, the committee should consider deleting Exception No. 1. If automatic silencing is justified, which should be rare, it should never be allowed for less than 5 minutes because additional devices on that zone may not re-initiate the notification appliances, putting the occupants in harms way. Exception No. 1, if permitted, could alter the automatic silencing of notification appliances to 30 seconds for example. This could cause the occupants to perceive that they have been exposed to a nuisance alarm and not take action to evacuate. The whole idea of automatically silencing notification appliances is a bad idea.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-91a-(1-5.4.10) : TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee reaffirms its direction to Accept Proposal 72-102 and directs that the action on Comment 72-91a be reported as “Reject.”SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-102RECOMMENDATION: The committee reaffirms its position to “Reject” Proposal 72-102. SUBSTANTIATION: The material that is proposed to be relocated to new Chapter 6 is applicable to presignals which may occur or be received remotely. A specific example includes proprietary systems serving multiple building sites. Requirements that are applicable to systems covered in multiple chapters should reside in the Fundamentals Chapter.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-(Log #CC107)

Committee: SIG-FUN72-91b-(1-5.4.11) : TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee reaffirms its direction to Accept Proposal 72-103 and directs that the action on Comment 72-91b be reported as “Reject.”SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-103RECOMMENDATION: The committee reaffirms its position to “Reject” Proposal 72-103. SUBSTANTIATION: The material that is proposed to be relocated to new Chapter 6 is applicable to positive alarm sequence which may be controlled by a supervising station. A specific example includes proprietary systems serving multiple building sites. Requirements that are applicable to systems covered in multiple chapters should reside in the Fundamentals Chapter.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-92-(1-5.4.10) : Accept SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-102RECOMMENDATION: This proposal should be Accepted.

SUBSTANTIATION: We agree with the submitter’s substantiation and the Technical Correlating Committee recommendation. We disagree with the committee statement that this text “clearly applies to multiple chapters.” The portion of the section that alludes to off-premises signals is preceded by the word “if”. This entire section is also preceded by the words “if permitted” and caution should be exercised in its application. It is imperative that responsible persons be in the vicinity of the system and immediately notified to investigate the source of the alarm signal (to take further action) because it delays occupant notification and egress. This section should apply ONLY to protected premises systems.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on Committee Comment 72-184a (Log #CC400).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-93-(1-5.4.11) : Accept SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-103RECOMMENDATION: This proposal should be Accepted. SUBSTANTIATION: We agree with the submitter’s substantiation and the Technical Correlating Committee recommendation. We disagree with the committee statement that the material “clearly applies to multiple chapters as in 1-5.4.11.2 and 1-5.4.11.3.” Although the cited sections refer to activating “remote signals”, the primary purposes of these sections deal with the protected premises operation(s). This section should apply ONLY to protected premises systems and should be relocated to Chapter 3.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on Committee Comment 72-184a (Log #CC400).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-94-(1-5.4.11.1.1) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-104RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on Proposal 72-103, the Technical Correlating Committee directed the Technical Committee of Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems to “Accept” a proposal to relocate the material in 1-5.4.11 to the Chapter on Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems. Proposal 72-104 is referred to the Technical Committee on Protected Premises for action as it concerns 1-5.4.11. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to related Technical Correlating Committee comments.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Revise the proposed text to read: 6.8.1.3.1 The signal from an automatic fire detection device selected for positive alarm sequence operation shall be acknowledged at the control unit by trained personnel within 15 seconds of annunciation in order to initiate the alarm investigation phase. If the signal is not acknowledged within 15 seconds, notification signals in accordance with the buildings evacuation or relocation plan and remote signals shall be automatically and immediately activated.”COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the language as modified by the Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems action in Proposal 72-104 and has incorporated Mr. Jacob’s comment on the affirmative. This requirement is now located in 6.8.1.3.1 based on the committee action on Committee Comment 72-184a (Log #CC400).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanCOMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: JOHNSON: In the last sentence of the Committee’s revised text, I recommend that the word “buildings” be changed to “building.” If the letter “s” were retained, the word should be changed to “building’s”; however, the building is not usually thought of as owning the “evacuation or relocation plan.”

————————————————-

318


Committee: SIG-PRO72-95-(1-5.4.2.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-92aRECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on Proposal 72-94, the Technical Correlating Committee directed the Technical Committee of Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems to “Accept” a proposal to relocate the material in 1-5.4.2.2 to the Chapter on Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems. Proposal 72-92a is referred to the Technical Committee on Protected Premises for action as it concerns 1-5.4.2.2. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to related Technical Correlating Committee comments.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The phrase “at the protected premises” has been retained. See committee action on Comment 72-76 (Log #5) and committee action and statement on Committee Comment 72-184a (Log #CC400).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-(Log #370)

Committee: SIG-PRO72-96-(1-5.4.11.1.2) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-105RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on Proposal 72-103, the Technical Correlating Committee directed the Technical Committee of Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems to “Accept” a proposal to relocate the material in 1-5.4.11 to the Chapter on Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems. Proposal 72-105 is referred to the Technical Committee on Protected Premises for action as it concerns 1-5.4.11. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to related Technical Correlating Committee comments.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Revise text as follows: 6.8.1.3.2 Trained personnel shall have up to 180 seconds during the alarm investigation phase to evaluate the fire condition and reset the system. If the system is not reset during the investigation phase, notificationsignals in accordance with the building evacuation or relocation plan and remote signals shall be automatically and immediately activated.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the language as modified by the Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems in proposal 72-105 and has incorporated Mr. Jacob’s comment on the affirmative. This requirement is now located in 6.8.1.3.2 based on the committee action on Committee Comment 72-184a (Log #CC400).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanCOMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: JOHNSON: In the last sentence of the Committee’s revised text, I recommend that the word “buildings” be changed to “building.” If the letter “s” were retained, the word should be changed to “building’s”; however, the building is not usually thought of as owning the “evacuation or relocation plan.”

————————————————-


72-97-(1-5.4.11.2) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-106RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on Proposal 72-103, the Technical Correlating Committee directed the Technical Committee of Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems to “Accept” a proposal to relocate the material in 1-5.4.11 to the Chapter on Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems. Proposal 72-106 is referred to the Technical Committee on Protected Premises for action as it concerns 1-5.4.11. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to related Technical Correlating Committee comments.

COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Revise the text to read: If a second automatic fire detector selected for positive alarm sequence is actuated during the alarm investigation phase, notification signals in accordance with the buildings evacuation or relocation planand remote signals shall be automatically and immediately activated.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the language as modified by the Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems in proposal 72-106 and has incorporated Mr. Jacob’s comment on the affirmative. This requirement is now located in 6.8.1.3.3 based on the committee action on Committee Comment 72-184a (Log #CC400).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanCOMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: JOHNSON: In the last sentence of the Committee’s revised text, I recommend that the word “buildings” be changed to “building.” If the letter “s” were retained, the word should be changed to “building’s”; however, the building is not usually thought of as owning the “evacuation or relocation plan.”

————————————————-


72-98-(1-5.4.11.3) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-107RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on Proposal 72-103, the Technical Correlating Committee directed the Technical Committee of Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems to “Accept” a proposal to relocate the material in 1-5.4.11 to the Chapter on Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems. Proposal 72-107 is referred to the Technical Committee on Protected Premises for action as it concerns 1-5.4.11. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to related Technical Correlating Committee comments.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Revise the text to read: If any other initiating device is actuated, notification signals in accordance with the buildings evacuation or relocation plan and remote signals shall be automatically and immediately activated.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the language as modified by the Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems in proposal 72-107 and has incorporated Mr. Jacob’s comment on the affirmative. This requirement is now located in 6.8.1.3.4 based on the committee action on Committee Comment 72-184a (Log #CC400).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanCOMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: JOHNSON: In the last sentence of the Committee’s revised text, I recommend that the word “buildings” be changed to “building.” If the letter “s” were retained, the word should be changed to “building’s”; however, the building is not usually thought of as owning the “evacuation or relocation plan.”

————————————————-


72-99-(1-5.5.1 [2002 Ed. 4.4.4.1]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SCCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1hRECOMMENDATION: In 4.4.4.1, replace at with between in regards to (1) and (2). SUBSTANTIATION: Editoral.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: This is not an editorial change. Equipment is required to operate at the limits identified in the Code. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-100-(1-5.5.2.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-108RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the proposal and Accept in Principle.

319

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA SUBSTANTIATION: The intent of the submitters’ proposal has merit. The committee should develop text that requires operating controls and displays to be located at reasonable heights. Because of the varied nature of controls (e.g, from a P.C.) it is reasonable to require them to be “readily accessible” as defined in the NEC. Lack of direction in the NFAC has led to arguments between installers and the Authority Having Jurisdiction regarding an “appropriate” mounting height for controls. “Readily accessible” would provide some assurance that controls will be in a location affording prompt availability.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitters have not provided proposed text for the committee’s consideration.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-101-(1-5.6) : Hold SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-111RECOMMENDATION: Accept the original proposal and delete the paragraph. SUBSTANTIATION: Either mandate smoke detection throughout all spaces such that you know that you will get a signal, and, require connection to the emergency forces so you get a response, or delete this requirement for a smoke detector. Having one smoke detector hardly “protects” the control panel from anything, especially when the building is unoccupied and it is only a local system. Survivability is addressed in Chapter 3 and will require a performance based approach to protecting the control unit when needed.COMMITTEE ACTION:HoldCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on Comment 72-105 (Log #3).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-102-(1-5.6) : Hold SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-111RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The submitter does not dispute that control equipment survivability is within the scope of the code. However, the point of the substantiation is that this requirement does not actually provide any protection for control equipment. B. This requirement explicitly violates the intent of the standard as stated in 1-2.1: “It is the intent of this code to establish the required levels of performance, extent of redundancy, and quality of installation but not to establish the methods by which these requirements are to be achieved.” C. There are many ways that the survivability of control equipment can be improved, but frankly, a smoke detector isn’t one of them. Because it won’t slow down the fire, make the control equipment fire resistive, or even call for help, a smoke detector cannot protect the integrity of a fire alarm system or extend it’s operability under fire conditions for even a second. D. As a solution, a smoke detector simply doesn’t match the problem it’s intended to solve. If protection is what the committee intends to mandate, sprinklers, a NEMA 3R cabinet, and a supervising station connection would be a much better bet.COMMITTEE ACTION:HoldCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on Comment 72-105(Log #3).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-103-(1-5.6) : Accept SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-111RECOMMENDATION: Continue to reject this proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: We tend to agree with the submitter’s statement that protection requirements belong in the Building Code. However, this requirement is NOT in the Building Code and unless and until it is included, we are opposed to deleting it. The current editions of all Building Codes we are aware of cite NFPA 72 as the document to use for the location and installation of automatic fire detectors. In addition, there are several sections

of the code that specify where detectors are to be installed and this proposal does not include companion proposals to delete those sections. We disagree with Part B of the submitter’s substantiation. The intent of the section is to initiate action before the electronics of the control unit are destroyed. We disagree that no form of notification is provided upon initiation of the required smoke detector. Part D of the submitter’s substantiation has no merit. Survivability applies to protected premises systems used for other than evacuation. The smoke detector requirement applies to all fire alarm systems.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-104-(1-5.6) : Accept SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnellCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-111RECOMMENDATION: Continue to reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: Annex material describes the purpose of the smoke detector. However, the Technical Committee should expand on the requirement(s) for specific purposes (in the next cycle) and expand the explanation in the annex why smoke detection is the preferred method of detecting and initiating “something”.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-105-(1-5.6 Exception) : Hold SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-112RECOMMENDATION: Accept the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: If the tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it does it make a noise? If the fire activates the smoke detector near the control unit in the building but nobody is there to hear it and the system is not monitored, did it warn anyone (earlier) as the committee indicates? Even with nobody there, the sprinkler would not only protect the control unit but the building too, yet the committee would rather have a smoke or heat detector in lieu of sprinklers.COMMITTEE ACTION:HoldCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The issue of early warning at control equipment is a complicated issue. A task group has been established to study this issue and to make recommendations for the next cycle of this standard that will incorporate review of the issues raised by the submitter. This subject matter also needs to be correlated with requirements for survivability in other areas of the Code which will also be considered by the task group.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-106-(1-5.6 Exception) : Hold SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-112RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the intent of the submitter’s proposal and accept in principle by amending the submitter’s proposal. We suggest that the proposal be modified to read in essence as follows: Exception No. 2: Fully sprinkled buildings that initiate the required notification. SUBSTANTIATION: The committee statement has little merit. The current exception allows the use of a heat detector when a smoke detector is not suitable. Although the preferred detection is smoke detection, heat detection may be more appropriate in some cases. However, the submitter’s proposal did not require the sprinkler system to initiate the fire alarm system.COMMITTEE ACTION:HoldCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on Comment 72-105(Log #3).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-

320


Committee: SIG-FUN72-107-(1-5.6 Exception) : Accept SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnellCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-112RECOMMENDATION: Continue to reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: I strongly disagree with the submitter’s substantiation that sprinklers should be permitted because the current exception allows a heat detector in lieu of the required smoke detector. The heat detector is ONLY to be considered where ambient conditions “prohibit” the installation of a smoke detector. A heat detector is not a trade-off for a smoke detector. Consideration of a sprinkler as equivalent to the heat detector in the exception is far from equivalent. When and if (rarely) a heat detector is used in lieu of the required smoke detector, upon actuation it immediately initiates the control unit (to provide an indication of alarm as this location) so appropriate action can be taken. Operation of a sprinkler head (even ESFR) is typically longer than a heat detector. Additionally, the sprinkler head operates a waterflow switch with a retard (delay) therefore the time to initiate the control unit is considerably longer than a heat detector (maximum 90 seconds longer) because the fused sprinkler is not connected to the control unit but the delayed waterflow switch is. In the meantime (before initiation) the operated sprinkler is putting water on the control unit (typically not listed for outdoor - doesn’t meet the 1-hour hose stream test for internal moisture) which could cause the control unit to fail (fault) before the flow switch transferred and initiated a signal. The end result could be that the applied water causes the control unit to fail; thus not signaling on-or off-premises; and even though the fire may have been extinguished, the water could flow all night or all weekend causing considerable additional damage to the structure and its contents.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-108-(1-5.6 Exception) : Accept SUBMITTER: Shane M. Clary, Bay Alarm Co., Inc./Rep. California Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-112RECOMMENDATION: We support the action of the technical committee. SUBSTANTIATION: Where it may be true that there has not been a recorded loss of a fire control unit within a fully sprinklered building, it is not to say that there could be in the future. The extra protection provided by the smoke detector is warranted.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-109-(1-5.6 Exception No. 2) : Hold SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-113RECOMMENDATION: Accept the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: If you are really only trying to protect the control unit, then the whole building would not have to be sprinkler protected, just the room in which it is located. See my comments on Proposal Numbers 72-111 and 72-112.COMMITTEE ACTION:HoldCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on Comment 72-105 (Log #3).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-110-(1-5.6 Exception No. 2) : Hold SUBMITTER: Raymond A. Grill, Rolf Jensen & Assoc., Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-112RECOMMENDATION: The committee should accept the proposal to add Exception No. 2 for fully sprinklered buildings. SUBSTANTIATION: The explanation of the negative votes on the committee action by Messrs. Decker, Frable and Dumais are clear and provide strong substantiation for accepting the proposal. COMMITTEE ACTION:Hold

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on Comment 72-105(Log #3).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-111-(1-5.6 Exception No. 2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-113RECOMMENDATION: Continue to reject this proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: We disagree with the submitter’s substantiation. The submitter’s proposal does not go far enough. If a heat detector is installed in lieu of the smoke detector, it does initiate the required notification. Unless the sprinkler system flow switch is connected to the control unit to initiate the required notification, the discharge of water could damage the control unit before notification is accomplished. Furthermore, a fully sprinkled building could contain less than 100 sprinkler heads. Building codes do not require sprinkler systems to be monitored under 100 heads. The exception should be considered only if the sprinkler system is connected to the fire alarm control unit. The detector, and notification, is required regardless of the size of the structure.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-112-(1-5.6 Exception No. 2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnellCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-113RECOMMENDATION: Continue to reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: I strongly disagree with the submitter’s substantiation that sprinklers should be permitted because the current exception allows a heat detector in lieu of the required smoke detector. The heat detector is ONLY to be considered where ambient conditions “prohibit” the installation of a smoke detector. A heat detector is not a trade-off for a smoke detector. Consideration of a sprinkler as equivalent to the heat detector in the exception is far from equivalent. When and if (rarely) a heat detector is used in lieu of the required smoke detector, upon actuation it immediately initiates the control unit (to provide an indication of alarm as this location) so appropriate action can be taken. Operation of a sprinkler head (even ESFR) is typically longer than a heat detector. Additionally, the sprinkler head operates a waterflow switch with a retard (delay) therefore the time to initiate the control unit is considerably longer than a heat detector (maximum 90 seconds longer) because the fused sprinkler is not connected to the control unit but the delayed waterflow switch is. In the meantime (before initiation) the operated sprinkler is putting water on the control unit (typically not listed for outdoor - doesn’t meet the 1-hour hose stream test for internal moisture) which could cause the control unit to fail (fault) before the flow switch transferred and initiated a signal. The end result could be that the applied water causes the control unit to fail; thus not signaling on-or off-premises; and even though the fire may have been extinguished, the water could flow all night or all weekend causing considerable additional damage to the structure and its contents.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & WaymanCOMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: GIGANDET: The submitter’s substantiation to reject the proposal is sound and has merit. Regardless of whether the building is fully or partially sprinklered or, for that matter, has a single sprinkler head in the room with the control panel, early warning will not be guaranteed by activation of a sprinkler head for reasons already explained by several opponents to the original proposal. Further, sprinkler head(s) may confine or extinguish the fire, but they may also damage the control panel in the process, thereby rendering it non-operational. A smoke detector (or heat detector in the rare situations when used) should provide ample time for the fire alarm system to nofify or alert someone (internally and/or externally) before being damaged by fire. I see early warning (internal and/or external) as the objective of this code section, not protection of the panel from fire damage. A smoke detector can give early warning before damage to the control panel takes place, however, a discharging sprinkler head in the proximity of the panel may not.

————————————————-

321



72-113-(1-5.6 [2002 Ed. 4.4.5]) : Hold SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SCCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1hRECOMMENDATION: Revise 4.4.5 to read: In buildings that are not continuously occupied, automatic smoke detection shall be provided at the location of the Fire Alarm Control Unit(s) to provide early notification of fire at that location. SUBSTANTIATION: This is to clarify the intent of this section. For a number of cycles this has been a source of confusion for a few.COMMITTEE ACTION:HoldCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on Comment 72-105(Log #3).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-114-(1-5.8.7.1 [2002 Ed. 4.4.7.4.1.4]) : Accept SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SCCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1hRECOMMENDATION: Change section 4.4.7.4.1.4 number to 4.4.7.3.1.4. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-115-(1-6.1.1) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-127RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that this Proposal be referred to the Technical Committee on Inspection, Testing and Maintenance for correlation. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the recommendation of the Technical Correlating Committee. The committee does not see any conflicts with the action of the Technical Committee of Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-116-(1-6.1.1 and A.1.6.1.1) : Reject SUBMITTER: James R. Streit, Los Alamos National LaboratoryCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-67RECOMMENDATION: Revise 1-6.1.1 and A-1.6.1.1 to read as follows: 1-6.1.1* Shop drawings, specifications, manufacturer’s information and supporting battery and notification appliance circuit voltage drop calculations shall be submitted for approval to the The Authority Having Jurisdiction shall be notified prior to installation or alteration of equipment or wiring. At its request, complete information regarding the system or system alterations, including specifications, shop drawings, battery calculations and notification appliance circuit voltage drop calculations shall be submitted for approval. Deviation from approved submittals shall require permission of the Authority Having Jurisdiction. 1-6.1.1.1 Shop Drawings. Shop drawings shall be drawn to an indicated scale, on sheets or uniform size, with a plan for each floor or protected area, and shall show those items from the following list that pertain to the design, operation and function of the system: (1) Name or owner and occupant (2) Location, including street address (3) Name, address and qualifications of the fire alarm designer and (installing) contractor (4) Point of compass (5) Location of partitions, including partitions with elevated sound control characteristics (6) Location of fire walls

(7) Locations of all beams, joists, or other projections extending more than 12-inches (30-cm) below the ceiling (8) Occupancy of each room or area, including rooms with unusually high ambient or peak sound levels (9) Location and classification of hazardous occupancies (See NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, Article 500) (10) Location of rooms or areas with corrosive atmospheres (11) Location and size of concealed spaces, underfloor spaces, attics, plenums and shafts (12) Make, model and location of fire alarm control panel (13) Make, model and location of remote annunciators and graphic interface units (14) Make, model, type and location of automatic fire detection devices (15) Temperature rating and location of automatic heat detection devices (16) Make, model, type and location of manual fire alarm initiating devices (17) Make, model, type and location of flammable gas detection devices (18) Make, model, type and location of fire suppression system alarm initiating devices (19) Make, model, type and location of fire suppression system supervisory alarm initiating devices (20) Make, model, type and location of fire protection water supply system supervisory alarm initiating devices (21) Make, model, type, rating and location of fire suppression system releasing devices (e.g., releasing modules, solenoid valves, rupture discs, explosive actuators) (22) Make, model, type and location of monitoring modules, control modules, relay modules, door hold-open/releasing devices, remote test stations, remote indicating lamps (e.g., light emitting diodes (LEDs)), smoke and/or fire dampers, and abort stations interconnected to the fire alarm system (23) Location of auxiliary equipment or systems interconnected to the fire alarm system, including HVAC fan shutdown controllers, smoke control systems, elevator controllers, door closing mechanisms, damper release mechanisms (24) Make, model, type, performance characteristics and locations of notification appliances (25) Make, model, type and location of signaling line circuit devices (26) Make, model, type and location of transient surge protection devices (27) Make, model, type and location of remote/auxiliary power supply devices/panels (28) Location and rating of circuit end-of-line (EOL) devices (29) Location, panel designation and circuit breaker designation of primary power supply source for fire alarm control panel and each remote/auxiliary power supply device/panel (30) Location, type, make, model and location of secondary power supply source (31) Specified performance of Initiating Device Circuits (See Section 3-5) (32) Specified performance of Signaling Line Circuits (See Section 3-6) (33) Specified performance of Notification Appliance Circuits (See Section 3-7) (34) Fire alarm zone schedules, designations and descriptions (35) Fire alarm riser diagram, showing all initiating devices and circuits, signaling line devices and circuits, notification appliances and circuits, auxiliary devices and circuits, interlocked equipment and system circuits, primary power supply circuit and source, related circuits and zone designations (36) Sequence of operation diagrams/descriptions, logic schematics or narrative describing system operations, including response of auxiliary and interlocked equipment and systems in response to all fire alarm system inputs [See Figure A-7-5.2.2(9)] (37) Terminal-to-terminal field wiring diagrams for fire alarm panel, auxiliary and remote power supplies, initiating devices, notification appliances, signaling devices, auxiliary equipment and interlocked equipment and systems (38) Quantity, size, type and insulation color-coding for conductors of each circuit, including auxiliary equipment and interlocked equipment and systems (39) Quantity, size, type, location and routing of conduit, wireways, circuits and junction boxes (40) Type and location of device and wireway hangers, supports, sleeves, braces and methods of securing equipment (41) Reference points on the plans to support voltage drop calculations Delete appendix/annex material with A-1-6.1.1. SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee’s action to place minimum requirements for acceptable shop drawings in the appendix/annex is incomplete and inconsistent with other NFPA design/installation standards. Without clear, minimum expectations of design drawings and supporting calculations for submittal to the Authority Having Jurisdiction, how is the Authority Having Jurisdiction or even the 3rd party organization (See Sections 1-7.2.3 [Log 65] and 4.5.2.3 [Log 466]) going to be able to review, approve and verify field performance of an installed or modified system? Section 4.4.4.2.1 [Log 466] requires all systems to be installed in accordance with specifications and standards approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction, so NFPA 72 should provide these minimum expectations in the body of the standard for the Authority Having Jurisdiction to invoke. The majority of NFPA design/installation standards invoke minimum design and calculation expectations in the body of the standard, NFPA 72 should be no different considering a fire alarm system’s role in providing occupant life safety and property protection. As noted in Proposal numbers 72-67 [Log 277] and 72-125 [Log 106], lack of consistency and quality of fire alarm system design drawings and supporting calculations is a significant problem with system installations, acceptance testing, routine testing and maintenance,

322

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAand maintaining future configuration management (completion of “record drawings”). Incorporation of the applicable requirements in original design drawings also provides the field installers with sufficient and clear direction on how the system is to be installed and how it is to perform.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee does not agree that these are minimum requirements that are needed in the body of the Code. The committee has added recommendations for documents in the appendix.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-(Log #334)

Committee: SIG-FUN72-117-(1-6.2 [2002 Ed. 4.5.2.3.1]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SCCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1hRECOMMENDATION: In 4.5.2.3.1 replace Chapter 10 with NFPA 72 in the body and the exception. SUBSTANTIATION: Acceptance/Reacceptance and periodic testing requirements are found throughout NFPA 72. It’s true that Chapter 7 or new Chapter 10 is the chapter on testing but many test requirements are found in the other chapters. The only exception in the past was the chapter dealing with dwelling systems which had it’s own chapter and still does.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Testing requirements are intended to be in Chapter 10. The submitter has not provided any examples to substantiate his comment.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-118-(Figure 1-6.2.1) : Accept SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-138RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A local protected premises fire alarm system does not become a supervising station system just because it is connected to a supervising station. The scope of Chapter 5 is “Chapter 5 shall cover the requirements for the performance, installation, and operation of fire alarm systems at a continuously attended supervising station and between the protected premises and the continuously attended supervision station.” There is often a connection from a local system via a local energy master box, dact, etc. to a receiving station of some type, often not a type that is defined by Chapter 5, such that this line item should remain for those who use the record of completion form. I agree with the negative voting expressed by Mr. Jacobs. This form adds very little value to a fire alarm installation due to the difficulty in its use and the information that is provided.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & WaymanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: YANEK: A local protected premises fire alarm systems does (must) become a supervising station system when connected to a supervising station and must follow the rules and code addressing supervisory station systems, because of the simple fact that it is now connected to a supervising station. In argument for it becoming a supervisory station system, one could cite basically the same reason as the submitter, the scope of Chapter 5 covers the systems connected to a supervisory station including the station, thus a local system connected to a supervisory station must fall under Chapter 5 or the supervising station can take on any form not having to meet a set of requirements addressing supervision.

————————————————-


72-119-(Figure 1-6.2.1) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-135RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that this Proposal be referred to the Technical Committee on Inspection, Testing and Maintenance for correlation. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.

COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept Add the following line to Figure 7-5.2.2 [10.6.2.3] in the Alarm Initiating Devices and Circuit Information Section: “The alarm verification feature is disabled ——— enabled ————.”COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the recommendation of the Technical Correlating Committee. The change is made for correlation with the action on Proposal 72-135 in Figure 1-6.2.1.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-120-(1-6.2.3) : Accept SUBMITTER: Daniel G. Decker, Safety Systems, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-141RECOMMENDATION: Section 1-6.2.3 should be deleted as recommended by the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee statement does not address the problem pointed out in the substantiation. The substantiation proved the requirements were added in order to mandate enrollment in one of two specific programs, in violation of NFPA policy. If the committee feels other organizations should be permitted to provide these services, the language describing these two specific programs should be deleted as proposed. B. The committee statement ignores the implicit endorsement given to the UL and FM certification programs by specifically describing those programs as requirements in the standard. Such endorsement is clearly in violation of NFPA policy; reference the Technical Correlating Committee comment on Proposal 72-64. If there were a requirement that all fire alarm control panels be gray and have a stylized N on the front, the committee would clearly (I hope) recognize that as an improper endorsement of a specific product. The language in 1-6.2.3 is no different in improperly endorsing specific services from two specific vendors. C. The committee statement is essentially an excuse to continue violating the NFPA policy regarding endorsements. While the committee statement implies mandating two specific services is not a barrier to other vendors providing those services, it is simply not true in the real world. I have attended presentations by Technical Committee members (among others) that review the requirements in this section, and then review the specifics of their program, and (wink, wink, nod, nod) “look at how specifically our program meets the requirements of NFPA 72”. There is clearly an implicit endorsement of these programs, and those that market those programs clearly utilize that endorsement to further their marketing goals. D. These requirements, which regulate contractual relationships, not fire alarm systems, are outside the scope of NFPA 72. The language in this section does not even permit the Authority Having Jurisdiction to verify compliance with NFPA 72; only the two specific programs operated by the two specific vendors are permitted.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the action taken on Proposal 72-145.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 26 NEGATIVE: 2 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & WaymanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: CLARY: I vote negative to the action of the Committee. Please se my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-192. I do concur with the committee statement as it relates to item “d” of the substantiation.1 KIRBY: Neither Underwriters Laboratories or Factory Mutual is mentioned in NFPA 72. Other organizations are not prohibited from offering this service. This program works! When used, it does elevate the quality of installations.

————————————————-


72-121-(1-6.2.3 [2002 Ed. 4.5.2.3]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Brad Shipp, NBFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-145 & 72-1hRECOMMENDATION: Delete the following: 4.5.2.3* Verification of Compliant Installation. (ROP 72-145) Where required, compliance of the completed installation with the requirements of this standard, as implemented via the referring code(s), specifications, and/or other criteria applicable to the specific installation, shall be certified by a qualified and impartial 3rd party organization acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction. 4.5.2.3.1 At a minimum, the verification and certification shall ensure that the installed system includes all required components and functions that those components and functions are installed and operate as required, that the system has been 100% acceptance tested in accordance with Chapter 10, and that all required documentation has been provided to the system owner. For supervising station systems, the verification and certification shall also ascertain proper arrangement, transmission, and receipt of all signals required

323

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAto be transmitted off-premises. Exception: Where the installation is an extension, modification, or reconfiguration of an existing system, the verification and certification shall be required for the new work only and reacceptance testing in accordance with Chapter 10 shall be acceptable. 4.5.2.3.2 Certification shall not be conferred until verification, including verification of any required corrective actions, has been completed. SUBSTANTIATION: Existing certification programs conducted by UL and FM rely upon annual spot inspections of a sample of the certificated accounts. Both organizations have traditionally been unable to fill inspector positions due to the lack of qualified applicants. It is unreasonable to expect that either group or any new group will be able to add the required number of inspectors to perform these inspections in a timely manner. This is especially true since local inspectors will be required to ensure that occupancy permits can be issued in a timely manner. It will be dangerous to life safety if the Authority Having Jurisdiction’s defer inspections based upon the false hope that third party certification organizations will be able to meet the demand for the required frequency of inspections.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee is not mandating third party verification, but provides requirements to be invoked at the Authority Having Jurisdictions’ prerogative.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-(Log #CC102)

Committee: SIG-FUN72-121a-(1-6.2.3.1.1, 1-6.2.3.1.2, and A-1.6.2.3) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-145RECOMMENDATION: In the wording of Proposal 72-145 make the following changes: In paragraph 1-6.2.3.1.1 delete “and certification” in the two locations in the paragraph it appears and in the Exception. Revise 1-6.2.3.1.2 to read: “Verification shall include confirmation that any required corrective actions have been completed.” Revise A-1-6.2.3 delete “and certification” the one time it appears in the paragraph.SUBSTANTIATION: These revisions are being made to minimize confusion between verification and the other code requirements for certification or placarding of systems.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-122-(1-7) : Accept TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee has reconsidered the issue of scope and believes that the direction provided by the Technical Correlating Committee NOTE in Comment 72-324a conforms with the scope of the committee.

SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-143RECOMMENDATION: Reaffirm the committee action on proposal 72-143. SUBSTANTIATION: A. A fire alarm system impairment program is a practical necessity for system owners and an integral element of routine fire alarm system testing and maintenance. If “as-built” drawings, operation and maintenance manuals, inspection, testing and maintenance are within the scope of the standard, so is an effective fire alarm system impairment program. B. NFPA 1 is the Fire Prevention Code and does not even mention impairment programs. Fire alarm impairment programs have nothing to do with preventing fires; they are about making sure that required fire alarm systems are in service when fires occur.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept The committee requests that Proposal 72-143 be reported as “Accept in Principle”.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reaffirms its action to Accept in Principle Proposal 72-143. The Scope of NFPA 1 is explicit in that it is subservient to the requirements of other NFPA standards. NFPA 25 addresses impairment procedures within that standard. NFPA 1 can extract the requirement if they so desire. See Committee Action and statement on Comment 72-124a (.Log CC101).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-123-(1-7) : Accept SUBMITTER: Jim Everitt, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-143RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the Technical Correlating Committee Note. SUBSTANTIATION: We do not believe that the inclusion of impairment requirements is not the scope of NFPA 72. The scope of the technical committee is “The Committee has primary responsibility of documents on the proper testing and maintenance of signaling systems, their components and their interface equipment.” NFPA 25 addresses impairment in their documents so the precedence has been set. If the requirements for impairments is given to the Fire Prevention Code Technical Committee there will be no requirements dealing with impairments of fire alarms systems for jurisdictions that do not adopt NFPA 1.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on Comment 72-122(Log #183) and substantiation for Comment 72-124a (.Log CC101).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-(Log #352)

Committee: SIG-FUN72-124-(1-7) : Hold SUBMITTER: Jon Nisja, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-143RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: 7.6 Impairments

7.6.1 General. This section provides the minimum requirements for a fire alarm system impairment program. Adequate measures shall be taken during the impairment to ensure that increased risks are minimized and the duration of the impairment is limited.

7.6.2 Impairment Coordinator. The building owner shall assign an impairment coordinator to comply with the requirements of this section. In the absence of a specific designee, the owner shall be considered the impairment coordinator.

Exception: Where the lease, written use agreement, or management contract specifically grants the authority for inspection, testing, and maintenance of the fire alarm system(s) to the tenant, management firm, or managing individual, the tenant, management firm, or managing individual shall assign a person as impairment coordinator.

7.6.3 Tag Impairment System.

7.6.3.1* A tag shall be used to indicate that a system, or part thereof, has been removed from service.

7.6.3.2* The tag shall be posted at each fire alarm control panel and remote annunciator panel indicating which system, or part thereof, has been removed from service. The authority having jurisdiction shall specify where the tag is to be placed.

7.6.4 Impaired Equipment. The impaired equipment shall be considered to be the fire alarm system, or part thereof, that is removed from service. This shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following:

(a) Fire Alarm Control Panel

(b) Alarm Notification Devices

(c) Detection Devices

(d) Control Devices

(e) Signal Transmission Devices

(f) Normal System and Backup Power Systems

(g) Special Hazards Equipment

7.6.5* Preplanned Impairment Programs. All preplanned impairments shall be authorized by the impairment coordinator. Before authorization is given, the impairment coordinator shall be responsible for verifying that the following procedures have been implemented:

(a) The extent and expected duration of the impairment have been determined.

(b) The areas or buildings involved have been inspected and the increased risks determined.

(c) Recommendations have been submitted to management or building owner/manager. Where a required fire alarm system is out of service for more than 4 hours in a 24-hour period, the impairment coordinator shall arrange for one of the following:

1. Evacuation of the building or portion of the building affected by the system out of service

2. * An approved fire watch

324

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA3. * Establishment of temporary detection and notification

4. * Establishment and implementation of an approved program to eliminate potential ignition sources and limit the amount of fuel available to the fire

(d) The fire department has been notified.

(e) The insurance carrier, the alarm company, building owner/manager, and other authorities having jurisdiction have been notified.

(f) The supervisors in the areas to be affected have been notified.

(g) A tag impairment system has been implemented. (See Section 7.6.3.)

(h) All necessary tools and materials have been assembled on the impairment site.

7.6.6 Emergency Impairments. Emergency impairments include but are not limited to fire alarm control panel failure, detector and notification troubles, loss of normal or backup power, and equipment failure. When this occurs, appropriate emergency action shall be taken to minimize potential injury and damage. The coordinator shall implement the steps outlined in Section 7.6.5.

7.6.7 Restoring Systems to Service. When all impaired equipment is restored to normal working order, the impairment coordinator shall verify that the following procedures have been implemented:

(a) Any necessary inspections and tests have been conducted to verify that effected systems are operational. The appropriate chapter of this standard shall be consulted for guidance on the type of inspection and test required.

(b) Supervisors have been advised that protection is restored.

(c) The fire department has been advised that protection is restored.

(d) The building owner/manager, insurance carrier, alarm company, and other authorities having jurisdiction have been advised that protection is restored.

(e) The impairment tag has been removed.

A.7.6.3.1 A clearly visible tag alerts building occupants and the fire department that all or part of the fire alarm system is out of service. The tag should be weather resistant, plainly visible, and of sufficient size [typically 4 in. 6 in. (102 mm 152 mm)]. The tag should identify which system is impaired, the date and time impairment began, and the person responsible. Figure A-11-3.1 illustrates a typical impairment tag.

A.7.6.3.2 An impairment tag should be placed on the fire alarm control panel and any remote annunciator panels to alert responding fire fighters of an abnormal condition. An impairment tag that is located on the system control panel only could go unnoticed for an extended period if fire fighters encounter difficulty in gaining access to the building or fire alarm system control room.

A.7.6.5 The need for temporary fire protection, termination of all hazardous operations, and frequency of inspections in the areas involved should be determined. All work possible should be done in advance to minimize the length of the impairment. Where possible, temporary detection and notification should be used to maintain portions of systems while work is completed.

Fire alarm systems should not be removed from service when the building is not in use. Where a system that has been out of service for a prolonged period (such as in the case of idle or vacant properties) is returned to service, qualified personnel should be retained to inspect and test the systems.

A.7.6.5(c)2 A fire watch should consist of trained personnel who continuously patrol the effected area. Ready access to fire extinguishers and the ability to promptly notify the fire department are important items to consider. During the patrol of the area, the person should not only be looking for fire, but making sure that the other fire protection features of the building such as egress routes and sprinkler systems are available and functioning properly.

A.7.6.5(c)3 Temporary detection and notification systems are possible from a number of sources including the use of bullhorns.

A.7.6.5(c) 4 Depending on the use and occupancy of the building, it might be enough in some circumstances to stop certain processes in the building or to cut off the flow of fuel to some machines. It is also helpful to implement ìNo Smokingî and ìNo Hot Workî (cutting, grinding or welding) policies while the system is out of service since these activities are responsible for many fire ignitions.

Figure A7.6.3.1

SUBSTANTIATION: The issue of impairments needs to be addressed in NFPA 72. We do not agree with the Technical Correlating Committee that this is not within the scope of NFPA 72. NFPA 25 on water-based systems inspection, maintenance and testing has a chapter dealing with impairments. This proposal took the wording from NFPA 25 and reworded for fire alarms systems. We believe that this will provide consistency in impairment between NFPA 25 and 72.COMMITTEE ACTION:HoldCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The comment includes significant new material that cannot be handled by the committee at this phase of the Code cycle.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-124a-(1-7 through 1-7.4, and A-1-7.3) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-143RECOMMENDATION: The committee requests that Proposal 72-143 be reported as “Accept in Principle” maintaining the text in the Report on Proposals. SUBSTANTIATION: The committee reaffirms its action to Accept in Principle Proposal 72-143. The Scope of NFPA 1 (paragraph 1-3) is explicit in that it is subservient to the requirements of other NFPA standards. NFPA 25 addresses impairment procedures within that standard. NFPA 1 can extract the requirement if they so desire. If the requirements for impairments are given to the Fire Prevention Code Technical Committee, there will be no requirements dealing with impairments of fire alarm systems for jurisdictions that do not adopt NFPA 1.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-

325


Committee: SIG-FUN72-125-(1-7 thru 1-7.4 ) : Reject SUBMITTER: Thomas W. Jaeger, Gage-Babcock & Assoc., Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-143RECOMMENDATION: I agree with the Technical Correlating Committee that proposals 72-143 and 72-459 are outside the scope of NFPA 72 and should be referred to the Technical Committee for NFPA 1. SUBSTANTIATION: I am a member of the Technical Committee on the Fire Prevention Code (NFPA 1), but these comments are my personal comments and not the Technical Committee’s. NFPA 1 is in cycle for and working on the 2003 edition. There are Public Proposals in process for NFPA 1 dealing with impairments of fire protection systems which could address the issues in proposals 72-143 and 72-459 at the public comment period for NFPA 1. This would allow implementation of the direction the National Fire Alarm Code Technical Correlating Committee has given to their Technical Committee on Testing and Maintenance of Fire Alarm Systems.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on Comment 72-122(Log # 183) and substantiation for Comment 72-124a (.Log CC101).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-(Log #296)

Committee: SIG-FUN72-126-(1-7 Thru 1-7.4) : Reject SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnellCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-143RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. I agree with the Technical Correlating Committee. SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal is outside the scope of NFPA 72 and would be appropriate for NFPA 1 Fire Prevention Code. However, although not called “impairments”, most of the submitter’s concerns are currently addressed in NFPA 1, Section 1-10, 1-23, 1-15, and 1-19. The submitter should review NFPA 1 and recommend changes he feels are inadequately covered. Any proposals should apply to all required systems and operations; not just the fire alarm system. This material cannot be treated as a proposal or a comment on a proposal as it lacks specific guidance to NFPA 1 sections and subsections. I am a member of the NFPA 1 Technical Committee.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on Comment 72-122(Log #183) and substantiation for Comment 72-124a (.Log CC101) The code references in the substantiation do not deal with impairments.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-127-(1-7.2) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Bush, Office of the Maryland State Fire MarshalCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-143RECOMMENDATION: Revise the wording of Paragraph 1.7.2 as follows: The system owner or designated representative shall maintain a permanent record of all system impairments. SUBSTANTIATION: The revised wording of this paragraph is intended to clarify the duration and person(s) responsible for maintaining such records. If the intent of such documentation is to record a history of problems associated with a particular system or associated condition, such problems or conditions may exist for longer than a one-year period or may occur on an annual or other intermittent basis which would not be adequately documented by records complying with current language. In addition, the proposed wording serves to clarify the time period that such records are to be maintained, and eliminates the confusion of whether they are to be maintained on a 12-month or calendar year basis. This wording also serves to clarify the concerns expressed by both negative ballots received on this issue.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Revise 1.7.2 in Proposal 72-143 to read as follows: “A record shall be maintained by the system owner or designated representative for a period of 1 year from the date the impairment is corrected.”COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has accepted the submitter’s recommendation by identifying the parties responsible for maintaining the record(s).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-128-(Figure 1-7.2.1) : Hold SUBMITTER: Martin H. Reiss, The RJA Group, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-144RECOMMENDATION: Accept proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: The record of completion should indicate the fire safety functions activated by or interfaced with the fire alarm system.COMMITTEE ACTION:HoldCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee feels that the introduction of fire safety and security functions in the Record of Completion has merit. The submitter has not provided specific language, and developing the language at this point in the cycle is not achievable.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-129-(1-7.2.3) : Reject SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-145RECOMMENDATION: New Wording. Revise the text deleted by proposal 72-145 as shown in new paragraph 1-6.2.4. Continue to accept new wording accepted in principle in proposal 72.145. 1-6.2.4 Fire Alarm System Certificate Service Where required by the Authority Having Jurisdiction or other chapters of this code, a certificate of compliance shall be conspicuously displayed indicating that the fire alarm system providing service complies with all applicable requirements of this code. The certificate shall be provided by a listed service company based on the requirements of the listing organization, which shall include at a minimum a periodic evaluation of the service company test and inspect records and an audit of a sufficient number of the certificated systems to assure listed service company competency to meet NFPA 72 requirements. SUBSTANTIATION: The verification requirement introduced by proposal 72-145 is an option for a local authority or system owner to assure the fire alarm system meets code, during system acceptance phase of an installation. In some cases, a system owner may plan on using staff for testing and maintaining the fire alarm system so the verification requirement approach makes sense. However, deleting the certificate service program is a significant reduction in requirements without substantiation. The deleted text removes the requirement for a service contract, which is part of the certificate service. The revised wording requires the system to be “verified” as meeting NFPA 72 requirements at the time of completion, if required by the Authority Having Jurisdiction. The “verified” system approach does not require further testing. A system with a certificate and being tested by a listed service company is more likely to continue to be operational. It seems that both methods have a place in the fire alarm industry. Here is how we understand that the certificate service works. A fire alarm system is tested by a “listed” service company for compliance with NFPA 72 requirements prior to issuing a certificate. The service contract for testing and maintenance provides a degree of assurance of continued compliance to NFPA 72 requirements. Additionally, the certificate service provides for an audit of systems by the listing organization, to assure the service company is competent to issue certificates. Additionally, a “listed” service company has been evaluated for competency by the listing organization, prior to listing the service company. During the last code cycle, the Certificate Service as identified as “3PV,” which, in our opinion is wrong, or at least misleading. The Certificate Service is an excellent process, based on how factory quality departments function. Simply put, the certificate program is an organized process to assure the local alarm company is competent to perform to code requirements, with periodic follow-up at the local alarm company for a records check, and random, unannounced inspection of sample jobs (an audit). That is how a factory quality department works. In a factory, the Production Department is responsible for the quality of the product. The Quality Department monitors the consistency of the process to assure the Production Department is producing within spec. The monitoring can be on the production line. If a product out of spec, “Red Light—stop and fix the process.” The preferred method is to audit sample products taken from finished stock, and to review production “yield records.” This process monitors the consistency of the Production Department’s processes. A local fire alarm service company equates to a factory production company. Listing organizations, such as UL and FM, equate to a factory Quality Assurance Department.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Fire prevention codes and NFPA-72 require periodic inspection, testing, and maintenance of fire alarm systems. The language accepted by the committee does not prohibit the use of a certificate service program.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 26 NEGATIVE: 2 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

326

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: BEREZOWSKI: Comment 72-129 should be accepted. The proposed text would enable the Authority Having Jurisdiction to require that any fire alarm system be certificated by a listing organization. Verification of Compliant Installations is likely to be expensive and unnecessary in many circumstances. An auditing program is a lower cost alternative that has proven to be effective in raising the quality of central station system installations. A monitored quality assurance program applied to other system installations would almost certainly raise the quality of those installed systems as well. Comment 72-129 is a revision to the paragraphs deleted by Proposal 72-145. The requirements put forth by Comment 72-129 do not reference any particular program or organization. Rather, the requirements are based on the definition of “listed”, which includes equipment, material, or services. Then National Fire Alarm Code requires use of Listed equipment. It seems reasonable to establish, but not mandate, the requirements for a Listed Quality Assurance Program. Comment 72-129 does not quarrel with the new reeequirement introduced by Proposal 72-145. EGESDAL: Comment 72-129 defines requirements for a fire alarm system quality assurance program, which would be in effect where required by the Authority Having Jurisdiction. The comment provides guidance to the Authority Having Jurisdiction. Comment 72-129 is a revision to the paragraphs deleted by Proposal 72-145. The requirements put forth by Comment 72-129 do not reference any particular program or organization. Rather, the requirements are based on the definition of “listed,” which includes “equipment, material or services. The National Fire Alarm Code requires use of “listed” equipment. It seems reasonable to establish, but not require, the requirements for a “listed” quality assurance program. Comment 72-129 does not quarrel with the new requirement introduced by Proposal 72-145.

————————————————-


72-129a-(4-4.7.1.13) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1hRECOMMENDATION: In Proposal 72-1h revise 4.4.7.1.13 to read as follows: Monitoring for integrity of the installation conductors for a ground-fault condition shall not be required for the communications and transmission channels extending from a supervising station to a subsidiary station(s) or protected premises, or both, which comply with the requirements of Chapter 8 and are electrically isolated from the fire alarm system (or circuits) by a transmitter(s), provided that a single ground condition does not affect the required operation of the fire alarm system.” SUBSTANTIATION: Editorially revised to provide clarity.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-130-(Chapter 2 [2002 Ed. Chapter 5]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-146aRECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on this proposal does not comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects because the revised text contains numerous changes that go far beyond the “manual of style” justification for the proposal. B. Combining changes resulting from public proposals with wholesale “manual of style” changes pursuant to a committee proposal makes it very difficult to track all of the changes that have been made, and nearly impossible to verify that those changes comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects. C. The manual of style proposals from each technical committee should be stand-alone proposals which can be reviewed to verify that the only thing that has changed is the style; not the requirements. D. Correlation of accepted manual of style proposal - presumably editorial revisions - with other changes initiated via public proposals should be handled by the Technical Correlating Committee or NFPA staff.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee disagrees with the submitter’s substantiation for the following reasons: The committee action does comply with NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. The changes in proposal that go beyond NFPA Manual of Style revisions are either specifically identified in the recommendation of the proposal (by reference and the use of legislative text) or are identified by reference to other proposals acted upon individually. Theses changes are supported in the substantiation of Proposal 72-146a or in the individual proposals.

The combination of changes resulting from public proposals with changes made for the Manual of Style was directed by the Technical Correlating Committee in order to provide a complete text in the new style showing all changes in the proper context. This was done to enhance the usability and simplify the review of this material for both the committee and the public. Text that is based on changes made by public proposals has been identified by a bold reference to the public proposal number. The correlation of several proposals into the final document, especially with such broad changes in style and format, can often be difficult because of potentially conflicting or unclear committee actions. Showing all changes in their proper context offers a complete text that has been reviewed by the committee and has had opportunity for public review and comment. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-

(Log #CC201)Committee: SIG-IDS

72-130a-(Chapter 2 [2002 Edition 5.3 (New )]) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Initiating Devices for Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-151RECOMMENDATION: Insert new Section 5.3 in the recommendation text of Proposal 72-146a, and insert A.5.3 in the recommendation text of Proposal 72-488a to read as follows: 5.3* Performance-Based Design.A.5.3 Annex B, Engineering Guide for Automatic Fire Detector Spacing, provides a detailed design guide for the implementation of the performance-based design of fire alarm systems. 5.3.1 Performance-based designs submitted to the authority having jurisdiction for review and approval shall include documentation, in an approved format, of each performance objective and applicable scenario, together with any calculations, modeling or other technical substantiation used in establishing the proposed design’s fire and life safety performance. 5.3.2 The authority having jurisdiction shall determine whether such identified performance objectives are appropriate and have been met. 5.3.3 The authority having jurisdiction shall approve modifications to or variations from the approved design or design basis in advance. The current Section 5.3 and subsequent paragraphs shown in Proposal 72-146a are not effected by this action and are to be renumbered. SUBSTANTIATION: A Section has been provided to add a set of rules to provide a framework of requirements for use in applying a performance-based design option to the perscriptive requirements on detector selection, location, and spacing, as intended by the submitter of Proposal 72-151.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-131-(Chapter 2 [2002 Ed. 5.7.3.6.1]) : Hold SUBMITTER: Kenneth W. Dungan, Risk Technologies, LLCCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-146aRECOMMENDATION: Rewrite 5.7.3.6.1 as follows: a) For ceilings with beam depths of less than 10% of the ceiling height (0.1 H), smooth ceiling spacing shall be used in the direction running parallel to the beams and 1/2 the smooth ceiling spacing shall used in the direction running perpendicular to the beams. b) For ceilings with beam depths equal to or greater than 10% of the ceiling height (0.1 H) and beam spacing closer than 40% of the ceiling height (0.4 H), the requirements of 5.7.3.6.1a shall apply. c) For ceilings with beam depths equal to or greater than 10% of the ceiling height (0.1 H) and beam spacing equal to or greater than 40% of the ceiling height (0.4 H), spot type detectors shall be located on the ceiling in each beam pocket. d) For applications where the potential fire source to be detected in located above floor elevation, the height of the ceiling above the fire shall be used for ceiling height for determining spacing and locations. SUBSTANTIATION: These changes modify the 1993 version wording and provide better and more specific guidance than either the 1999 wording or the ROP wording. The calculations sponsored by FDI for beamed ceilings does not contradict this new wording.COMMITTEE ACTION:HoldCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: In accordance with NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects, Section 4-4.6.2.2(a), the comment is held because it introduces material that has not had public review by being published in the Report on Proposals.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 24 NEGATIVE: 2 ABSTENTION: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

327

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: CHOLIN: Everyone who has been using NFPA 72 for the design of smoke detection systems has been aware of the state of flux in the recommendations for spacing adjustments due to the presence of beams and joists. The topic is old, not new. Indeed a Tentative Interim Amendment was issued to correct the language in the 1999 Edition. Consequently, the public has been made aware that this issue was under consideration and apt to be amended. It is only this particular approach to addressing the problem that is new. There is ample precedent for technical committees adopting new language at the Report on Comments meeting. Thus, this material should have been considered on its merits at the meeting rather than deferred. The spacing corrections for smoke detectors provided in the proposed text have a far better basis in research than any of the recommendations provided in the current edition of the National Fire Alarm Code, even as amended by the Tentative Interim Amendment. This comment should have been adopted. I urge the Technical Committee to reverse its earlier action and adopt this comment. MARRION: The corrections for spacing proposed in 72-131 have a solid basis in the fire industry, and are easier to use by the end user when applying NFPA 72. The committee should reconsider their action on this proposal.COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: DUNGAN: I respect the committee’s decision to hold this item, but I wish to offer two comments. First, this is not really new. It was appendix material in the three editions prior to 1993 and is currently still referenced for heat detectors. Secondly, although we corrected the error that required the Tentative Interim Amendment, we still have not addressed the pan or waffle ceilings. By our requirements it looks like we require a smoke detector in each pan or pocket in these type ceilings, even though they may only be 50 square feet or less. This was not and is not the committee’s intent.EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: O’CONNOR: Although at the Committee level the proposal to rewrite the beamed ceiling spacing rules (Section 5.7.3.6.1) was viewed as new material, it is clear from the Committee discussion that this section causes many interpretation problems and that the current requirements are not consistent with accepted principals of fire physics. The proposed wording in Log 333 corrects a current confused section of the document and should be considered for handling as a Tenative Interim Amendment.

————————————————-


72-132-(Chapter 2 [2002 Ed. 5.4.2.2]) : Accept SUBMITTER: Kenneth W. Dungan, Risk Technologies, LLCCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-146aRECOMMENDATION: Reword Section 5.4.2.2 as follows: Where partial coverage is required, detection devices shall be provided... SUBSTANTIATION: The current wording refers to a partial system in certain areas without defining what a partial system is. The intent is that a partial system provides protection for the listed areas but not other areas of the building.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-133-(Chapter 2 [2002 Ed. 5.7.3.2, 5.7.3.3, 5.7.3.5, 5.7.3.6, 5.7.5.3.1, and 5.7.5.4.1) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenneth W. Dungan, Risk Technologies, LLCCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-146aRECOMMENDATION: Reorganize and renumber the following sections: All of 5.7.3.2 becomes 5.7.3.3 All of 5.7.3.3 becomes 5.7.3.2 with the following sections added: All of 5.7.3.5 becomes 5.7.3.2.3 All of 5.7.3.6 becomes 5.7.3.2.4 Move 5.7.5.3.1, .2, and .3 to 5.7.3.4.6, .7, and .8, respectively Move 5.7.5.4.1, .2, .3, .4, .5, and .6 to 5.7.3.3.3, .4, .5, .6, and .7 SUBSTANTIATION: This reorganization put all the pertinent information together for spot type, beam type and air sampling type smoke detectors and will be easier for the user to follow.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Revise Section 5.7 in the recommendation of Proposal 72-146a to read as follows:5.7 {1999 2-3} Smoke-Sensing Fire Detectors.5.7.1 {1999 2-3.1} General.5.7.1.1* {1999 2-3.1.1*} [MOS] [From 1999 2-3.1.4]The purpose of Section 5.7 shall be to provide information to assist in design and installation of reliable early warning smoke detection systems for protection of life and property. (Refer to Annex B for additional guidance in the application of smoke detectors for flaming fires of various sizes and growth rates in areas of various ceiling heights.)5.7.1.2 {1999 2-3.1.2}Section 5.7 shall cover general area application of smoke detectors in ordinary indoor locations.5.7.1.3 {1999 2-3.1.3}

For information on use of smoke detectors for control of smoke spread, the requirements of Section 5.14 shall apply.5.7.1.4* {1999 2-3.2*} [ROP 72-164] [numbering change]Smoke detectors shall be installed in all areas where required by applicable laws, codes, or standards.5.7.1.5 5.7.5.1 {1999 2-3.6.1} Environment. [MOS]The selection and placement of smoke detectors shall take into account both the performance characteristics of the detector and the areas into which the detectors are to be installed to prevent nuisance alarms or improper operation after installation.Paragraphs 5.7.5.1.1 through 5.7.5.1.3 shall apply.5.7.1.6* 5.7.5.1.1* {1999 2-3.6.1.1*} [MOS]Unless specifically designed and listed for the expected conditions, smoke detectors shall not be installed if any of the following ambient conditions exist:(1) Temperature below 0° C (32° F)(2) Temperature above 38° C (100° F)(3) Relative humidity above 93 percent(4) Air velocity greater than 1.5 m/sec(300 ft/min)5.7.1.7* 5.7.5.1.2* {1999 2-3.6.1.2*}The location of smoke detectors shall be based on an evaluation of potential ambient sources of smoke, moisture, dust, or fumes, and electrical or mechanical influences to minimize nuisance alarms.5.7.1.8 5.7.5.1.3 {1999 2-3.6.1.3}Detectors shall not be installed until after the construction cleanup of all trades is complete and final.Exception: Where required by the authority having jurisdiction for protection during construction. Detectors that have been installed during construction and found to have a sensitivity outside the listed and marked sensitivity range shall be cleaned or replaced in accordance with Chapter 10 at completion of construction.5.7.1.9* 5.7.5.1.4* {1999 2-3.6.1.4*} Stratification. [MOS]The effect of stratification below the ceiling shall be taken into account. The guidelines in Annex B shall be permitted to be used.5.7.2* {1999 2-3.3*} Sensitivity.5.7.2.1 {1999 2-3.3.1}[ MOS]Smoke detectors shall be marked with their nominal production sensitivity and tolerance (percent per foot obscuration), as required by the listing. 5.7.2.2 {1999 2-3.3.2}Smoke detectors that have provision for field adjustment of sensitivity shall have an adjustment range of not less than 0.6 percent per foot obscuration.5.7.2.3 {1999 2-3.3.2}[ MOS]If the means of adjustment of sensitivity is on the detector, a method shall be provided to restore the detector to its factory calibration.5.7.2.4 {1999 2-3.3.2}Detectors that have provision for program-controlled adjustment of sensitivity shall be permitted to be marked with their programmable sensitivity range only.5.7.3 {1999 2-3.4} Location and Spacing.5.7.3.1* {1999 2-3.4.1*} General.5.7.3.1.1 {1999 2-3.4.1.1} [MOS]The location and spacing of smoke detectors shall result from an evaluation based on the guidelines detailed in this code and on engineering judgment. Conditions that shall be included in the evaluation are the following:(1) Ceiling shape and surface(2) Ceiling height(3) Configuration of contents in the area to be protected(4) Burning characteristics of the combustible materials present(5) Ventilation(6) Ambient environment5.7.3.1.2 {1999 2-3.4.1.2}If the intent is to protect against a specific hazard, the detector(s) shall be permitted to be installed closer to the hazard in a position where the detector can intercept the smoke.5.7.3.2* 5.7.3.3* {1999 2-3.4.3*} Spot-Type Smoke Detectors.5.7.3.2.1 5.7.3.3.1 {1999 2-3.4.3.1} [MOS]Spot-type smoke detectors shall be located on the ceiling not less than 100 mm (4 in.) from a sidewall to the near edge or, if on a sidewall, between 100 mm and 300 mm (4 in. and 12 in.) down from the ceiling to the top of the detector. (Refer to Figure A.5.6.2.1.)5.7.3.2.2* 5.7.3.3.2* {1999 2-3.4.3.2*}To minimize dust contamination, smoke detectors, where installed under raised floors, shall be mounted only in an orientation for which they have been listed.5.7.3.2.3 5.7.3.5 {1999 2-3.4.5} Smooth Ceiling Spacing.5.7.3.5.1 {1999 2-3.4.5.1} [MOS]On smooth ceilings, spacing for spot-type smoke detectors shall be in accordance with the following.5.7.3.2.3.1 5.7.3.5.1.1 {1999 2-3.4.5.1.1}[ MOS]Spacing of 9.1 m (30 ft) shall be permitted to be used as a guide.5.7.3.2.3.2 5.7.3.5.1.2 {1999 2-3.4.5.1.1}In all cases, the manufacturerís documented instructions shall be followed.5.7.3.2.3.3 5.7.3.5.1.3 {1999 2-3.4.5.1.1}Other spacing shall be permitted to be used depending on ceiling height, different conditions, or response requirements.5.7.3.2.3.4 5.7.3.5.1.4 {1999 2-3.4.5.1.1}For the detection of flaming fires, the guidelines in Annex B shall be permitted to be used.5.7.3.2.3.5* 5.7.3.5.1.5* {1999 2-3.4.5.1.2*}

328

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAFor smooth ceilings, all points on the ceiling shall have a detector within a distance equal to 0.7 times the selected spacing.5.7.3.2.4* 5.7.3.6* {1999 2-3.4.6*} Solid Joist and Beam Construction. [ROP 72-174]For solid joist and beam construction, spacing for spot-type smoke detectors shall be inaccordance with the following.5.7.3.2.4.1 Solid joists shall be considered equivalent to beams for smoke detectorspacing guidelines.5.7.3.2.4.2* 5.7.3.6.1* {1999 2-3.4.6.1*} Level Ceilings. [ROP 72-174]For level ceilings the following shall apply.(a) For ceiling heights of 3.66 m (12 ft) or lower and beam depths of 300 mm (1 ft) or less, smooth ceiling spacings running in the direction parallel to the run of the beams shall be used and 1/2 the smooth ceiling spacing shall be in the direction perpendicular to the run of the beams. Spot-type detectors shall be permitted to be located either on the ceiling or on the bottom of the beams.(b) For beam depths exceeding 300 mm (1 ft) or for ceiling heights exceeding 3.66 m (12 ft), spot-type detectors shall be located on the ceiling in every beam pocket.5.7.3.6.2* {1999 2-3.4.6.2*} Sloped Ceilings. [MOS]5.7.3.2.4.3* 5.7.3.6.2.1 {1999 2-3.4.6.2} [MOS]For sloped ceilings For beamed ceilings with beams running parallel to (up) the slope,spacing shall comply with the following.(a) The spacing for level beamed ceilings shall be used.(b) The ceiling height shall be taken as the average height over slope.(c) For slopes greater than 10 degrees, the detectors located at one-half the spacing from the low end shall not be required.(d) Spacings shall be measured along a horizontal projection ceilings.5.7.3.2.4.4 5.7.3.6.2.2 {1999 2-3.4.6.2} [MOS]For sloped ceilings For beamed ceilings with beams running perpendicular to (across) slope, spacing shall comply with the following.(a) The spacing for level beamed ceilings shall be used. (b) The ceiling height shall be taken as the average height over slope.5.7.3.2.4.5 5.7.3.6.2.3 {1999 2-3.4.6.2} [MOS]For sloped ceilings with For solid joists, the detectors shall be located on the bottom of the joist5.7.3.3 5.7.3.2 {1999 2-3.4.2} Air Sampling-Type Smoke Detector.5.7.3.3.1 5.7.3.2.1 {1999 2-3.4.2}Each sampling port of an air sampling-type smoke detector shall be treated as a spot-type detector for the purpose of location and spacing.5.7.3.3.2 5.7.3.2.2 {1999 2-3.4.2}Maximum air sample transport time from the farthest sampling point shall not exceed 120 seconds.5.7.5.4 {1999 2-3.6.4} Air Sampling-Type Detectors.5.7.3.3.3* 5.7.5.4.1* {1999 2-3.6.4.1*}Sampling pipe networks shall be designed on the basis of and shall be supported by sound fluid dynamic principles to ensure required performance.5.7.3.3.4 5.7.5.4.2 {1999 2-3.6.4.1} [MOS]Sampling pipe network design details shall include calculations showing the flow characteristics of the pipe network and each sample port.5.7.3.3.5* 5.7.5.4.3* {1999 2-3.6.4.2*}Air-sampling detectors shall give a trouble signal if the airflow is outside the manufacturerís specified range.5.7.3.3.6 5.7.5.4.4 {1999 2-3.6.4.2}The sampling ports and in-line filter, if used, shall be kept clear in accordance with the manufacturerís documented instructions.5.7.3.3.7 5.7.5.4.5 {1999 2-3.6.4.3}Air-sampling network piping and fittings shall be airtight and permanently fixed.5.7.3.3.8 5.7.5.4.6 {1999 2-3.6.4.3}Sampling system piping shall be conspicuously identified as SMOKEDETECTOR SAMPLING TUBE. DO NOT DISTURB, as follows:(1) At changes in direction or branches of piping(2) At each side of penetrations of walls, floors, or other barriers(3) At intervals on piping that provide visibility within the space,but no greater than (6m) 20 ft.5.7.3.4* {1999 2-3.4.4} Projected Beam-Type Smoke Detectors.[ROP 72-168] [MOS]5.7.3.4.1 {1999 2-3.4.4} [ROP 72-168] [MOS]Projected beam-type smoke detectors shall be located in accordance with the manufacturerís documented instructions. 5.7.3.4.2 {1999 2-3.4.4}The effects of stratification shall be evaluated when locating the detectors.5.7.3.4.3 {1999 2-3.4.4.1}The beam length shall not exceed the maximum permitted by the equipment listing.5.7.3.4.4 {1999 2-3.4.4.2}If mirrors are used with projected beams, the mirrors shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturerís documented instructions.5.7.3.4.5 {1999 2-3.4.6.3} [MOS] [relocated text]A projected beam-type smoke detector shall be equivalent to a row of spot-type smoke detectors for level and sloping ceiling applications.5.7.5.3 {1999 2-3.6.3} Projected Beam-Type Detectors.5.7.3.4.6 5.7.5.3.1 {1999 2-3.6.3.1}Projected beam-type detectors and mirrors shall be mounted on stable surfaces to prevent false or erratic operation due to movement.5.7.3.4.7 5.7.5.3.2 {1999 2-3.6.3.1}The beam shall be designed so that small angular movements of the light

source or receiver do not prevent operation due to smoke and do not cause nuisance alarms.5.7.3.4.8* 5.7.5.3.3* {1999 2-3.6.3.2*}The light path of projected beam-type detectors shall be kept clear of opaque obstacles at all times.5.7.3.5* 5.7.3.7* {1999 2-3.4.7*} Peaked. [MOS]Detectors shall first be spaced and located within 900 mm (3 ft) of the peak, measured horizontally. The number and spacing of additional detectors, if any, shall be based on the horizontal projection of the ceiling.5.7.3.6* 5.7.3.8* {1999 2-3.4.8*} Shed. [MOS]Detectors shall first be spaced and located within 900 mm (3 ft) of the high side of the ceiling, measured horizontally. The number and spacing of additional detectors, if any, shall be based on the horizontal projection of the ceiling.5.7.3.7 5.7.3.9 {1999 2-3.4.9} Raised Floors and Suspended Ceilings.Spaces beneath raised floors and above suspended ceilings shall be treated as separate rooms for smoke detector spacing purposes. Detectors installed beneath raised floors or above suspended ceilings, or both, including raised floors and suspended ceilings used for environmental air, shall not be used in lieu of providing detection within the room.5.7.3.7.1 5.7.3.9.1 {1999 2-3.4.9.1} Raised Floors. [MOS]For raised floors the following shall apply.(a) Detectors installed beneath raised floors shall be spaced in accordance with 5.7.3.1, 5.7.3.1.2, and 5.7.3.3.2 5.7.3.2.2.(b) Where the area beneath the raised floor is also used for environmental air, detector spacing shall also conform to 5.7.4.1 and 5.7.4.2.5.7.3.7.2 5.7.3.9.2 {1999 2-3.4.9.2} Suspended Ceilings. [MOS]For suspended ceilings the following shall apply. (a) Detector spacing above suspended ceilings shall conform to the requirements of 5.7.3 for the ceiling configuration.(b) Where detectors are installed in ceilings used for environmental air, detector spacing shall also conform to 5.7.4.1 and 5.7.4.2.5.7.3.8 5.7.3.10 {1999 2-3.4.10} Partitions. [MOS](a) Where partitions extend upward to within 460 mm (18 in.) of the ceiling, they shall not influence the spacing.(b) Where the partition extends to within less than 460 mm (18 in.) of the ceiling, the effect of smoke travel shall be evaluated in the reduction of spacing.5.7.4 {1999 2-3.5} Heating, Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning (HVAC).5.7.4.1* {1999 2-3.5.1*}In spaces served by air-handling systems, detectors shall not be located where airflow prevents operation of the detectors.5.7.4.2 {1999 2-3.5.2} [MOS]Detectors installed in plenums shall comply with the 5.7.4.2.1 and 5.7.4.2.2.5.7.4.2.1 {1999 2-3.5.2.1}In under-floor spaces and above-ceiling spaces that are used as HVAC plenums, detectors shall be listed for the anticipated environment as required by 5.7.1.6 5.7.5.1.1. Detector spacings and locations shall be selected based on anticipated airflow patterns and fire type.5.7.4.2.2* {1999 2-3.5.2.2*} [MOS]Detectors placed in environmental air ducts or plenums shall not be used as a substitute for open area detectors. Where detectors are used for the control of smoke spread, the requirements of Section 5.14 shall apply. Where open area protection is required, 5.7.3 shall apply.5.7.5 {1999 2-3.6} Special Considerations.5.7.5.1 5.7.5.2 {1999 2-3.6.2} Spot-Type Detectors.5.7.5.1.1 5.7.5.2.1 {1999 2-3.6.2.1}Smoke detectors that have a fixed temperature element as part of the unit shall be selected in accordance with Table 5.6.1.1.1 for the maximum ceiling temperature expected in service.5.7.5.1.2* 5.7.5.2.2* {1999 2-3.6.2.2*}Holes in the back of a detector shall be covered by a gasket, sealant, or equivalent means, and the detector shall be mounted so that airflow from inside or around the housing does not prevent the entry of smoke during a fire or test condition.5.7.5.2* 5.7.5.5* {1999 2-3.6.5*} High Rack Storage.Where smoke detectors are installed to actuate a suppression system, NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, shall apply.5.7.5.3 5.7.5.6 {1999 2-3.6.6} High Air-Movement Areas.5.7.5.3.1 5.7.5.6.1 {1999 2-3.6.6.1} General.The purpose and scope of 5.7.5.3 5.7.5.6 shall be to provide location and spacing guidance for smoke detectors intended for early warning of fire in high air-movement areas.Exception: Detectors provided for the control of smoke spread are covered by the requirements of Section 5.14.5.7.5.3.2 5.7.5.6.2 {1999 2-3.6.6.2} Location.Smoke detectors shall not be located directly in the airstream of supply registers.5.7.5.3.3* 5.7.5.6.3* {1999 2-3.6.6.3*} Spacing.Smoke detector spacing shall be in accordance with Table 5.7.5.3.3 5.7.5.6.3 and Figure 5.7.5.3.3 5.7.5.6.3.Exception: Air-sampling or projected beam smoke detectors installed in accordance with the manufacturerís documented instructions.Figure 5.7.5.3.3 5.7.5.6.3 High air-movement areas (not to be used for under-flooror above-ceiling spaces).[Insert Figure 2-3.6.6.3 from NFPA 72 1999]Table 5.7.5.3.3 5.7.5.6.3 Smoke Detector Spacing Based on Air Movement[Insert Table 2-3.6.6.3 from NFPA 72 1999]

329

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA5.7.5.3.4 5.7.5.6.4 {1999 2-3.6.6.4} HVAC Mechanical Rooms. [ROP 72-178a][MOS]Where heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) mechanical rooms are used as an air plenum for return air, the spacings of smoke detectors shall not be required to be reduced based on the number of air changes.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Editorial changes have been made to comply the NFPA Manual of Style. The revised text also incorporates the revisions of the action of Comment 72-134 (Log #330). The committee recognizes that the changes made by the Committee Actions on Comment 72-147 (Log #150), Comment 72-149 (Log #148), and Comment 72-151 (Log #147) will need to be reflected in the organizational changes made by Comment 72-133 (Log #332).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-(Log #330)

Committee: SIG-IDS72-134-(Chapter 2 [2002 Ed. 5.7.5.1]) : Accept SUBMITTER: Kenneth W. Dungan, Risk Technologies, LLCCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-146aRECOMMENDATION: Reorganize Section 5.7 as follows: Move 5.7.5.1 to new 5.7.1.5 and delete last sentence. Move 5.7.5.1.1 to new 5.7.1.6. Move 5.7.5.1.2 to new 5.7.1.7. Move 5.7.5.1.3 to new 5.7.1.9. Move 5.7.5.1.4 to new 5.7.1.8. SUBSTANTIATION: These items are not “special considerations” but rather general requirements of smoke sensing detector and should be stated up front regarding their selection, placement and location.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-135-(2-1.3) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-147RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed in the voting. The committee should recognize that performance objectives do already exist in the code. Although more structured performance-based requirements (such as those in NFPA 101) may be desirable, this should not preclude the introduction of appropriate performance-based considerations in the text of the existing requirements. The committee should recognize that performance-based terminology already exists in other NFPA documents, and this code should use terminology consistent with these other documents. For information refer to NFPA 101 and NFPA 550. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the Technical Correlating Committee’s recommendation to reconsider the comments in expressed in voting. The committee, through its actions on Comment 72-144 (Log #152) and Comment 72-147 (Log #150), has incorporated performance-based design as an alternative method for the selection, location and spacing of initiating devices. The proposed changes offer specific and enforceable language for performance-based systems.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-136-(2-1.3) : TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the action on Comment 72-136 (comment only) be reported as “Hold” consistent with Section 4-4.6.2.2 of the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects.SUBMITTER: John M. Cholin, J.M. Cholin Consultants, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-147RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: 2.1.3.2 Where subject to mechanical or environmental damage, an initiating device shall be protected. A mechanical guard used to protect a heat, smoke

or radiant energy sensing detector shall be listed for use with the detector. SUBSTANTIATION: The adopted text could be construed to not apply to radiant energy sensing detectors. There have been numerous occasions where windows have been placed in front of flame detectors rendering them blind to the fires it was intended to detect. Radiant energy sensing detectors should be included in this paragraph. Also, the language should be broadened to include long-term environmental affects such as the accumulation of dirt, ice or other coatings that could degrade performance.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Requirements for environmental protection are adequately addressed in manufacturer’s instructions and elsewhere in the code.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 26 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & OuimetteEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: MCCORMICK: Clarified wording for 2.1.3.2 should have been accepted or accepted in principle in part and reworked. The comment recognizes that multiple types of damage occur in industrial and other environments to all types of initiating devices, some in very hazardous environments. The type and extent of potential damage needs to be more clearly defined to the end user so an evaluation for proper protection can be made. To protect the integrity of the initiating device by use of listed protection means the code must have enforceable language, which applies to the myriad of potential damage and protection scenarios not just impact damage to heat and/or smoke detectors.

————————————————-


72-137-(2-1.3) : Accept SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-147RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept in Principle in Part, deleting Section 2-1.3.6. SUBSTANTIATION: The Technical Correlating Committee has announced the formation of a task group on Performance-Based Objectives. Although the Technical Committee changed, “...upon the most probable fire scenarios relevant...” to “...upon the design objectives of the system...”, both statements include performance-based terms. Furthermore, the committee text, “...and upon the design objectives of the system as stipulated by relevant Codes and Standards...” adds more confusion for anyone who uses NFPA 72 in conjunction with non-NFPA building and fire codes. The majority of codes and standards that refer to NFPA 72 do not refer to design objectives of a fire alarm system other than manual, automatic, or both. We believe Section 2-1.3.6 should be deleted and moved to the performance-based chapter being considered by the task group.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 24 NEGATIVE: 3 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & OuimetteEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: CHOLIN: The action of the committee removes from the document a proposed requirement that the fire alarm system be rationally designed, based upon the fire hazards and the capabilities of the detection devices chosen. This language was offered in Proposal 72-147 based upon our experience in several litigation support projects where utterly inappropriate detection was selected, installed and represented to be in compliance with the National Fire Alarm Code to the detriment of the owner and occupants of the building. A poorly written specification or a design/build contract left the owner and occupants vulnerable to the ignorant or unscrupulous contractor. Since there was nothing in the National Fire Alarm Code that said that the system had been designed properly, the legal system let the contractors get away with it. This is not good for the fire protection industry. Instead of dealing with the core issue, the technical committee was led to delete the whole paragraph out of the fear that this language somehow had something to do with the concept of performance-based design. There was compromise wording offered: “The selection of the type of initiating device(s) shall be based upon the fire hazards in the area, compartment or location being protected and upon the design objectives of the fire alarm system.” that would have addressed the need and any such concerns. That language would have provided a legal basis for recovery where needed. Instead, the technical committee adopted an irrational, knee-jerk reaction at the urging of a few rather than adopting considered and constructive compromise. Consequently, there is nothing in the minimum compliance standard that can be construed to prohibit the use of heat detectors for occupant evacuation or smoke detectors for an isopropanol dispensing and storage room. I urge the technical committee to reverse the voice vote and reject the comment. MARRION: Accepting this proposal removes a very important concept requiring that detection systems need to be designed based on: The most probable fire scenarios relevant to the area, the characteristics of the compartment which it is meant to detect, and the performance objectives established for the system.

330

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA This is not a performance based design requirement as the committee states in their substantiation, but a common sense design methodology for properly designing a system, whether prescriptive or performance based. It is unclear how the committee feels that one does not need to include “most probable fire scenarios” or “design objectives of the systemî in the proper design of a detection system. In the Scope section of the Initiating Devices Chapter, it states: Chapter 2 shall cover minimum requirements for performance, selection, use and location of automatic fire detection devices, sprinkler waterflow detectors, manually activated fire alarm stations, and supervisory signal initiating devises, including guard tour reporting used to ensure timely warning for the purposes of life safety and the protection of a building, space, structure, area or object. There appears to be no conflict with our scope in accepting what was originally proposed, and is clearly within the realm of what this Chapter is intended to be requiring of those for properly designing systems. WENZEL: Nowhere in this introductory section, outlining requirements for a very important part of the fire alarm system, does NFPA 72 say that the fire alarm system using this component has to work, or be designed with any kind of rational process. 2.1.3.6 was an attempt to do this at the grassroots level of this section, and the Technical Correlating Committee modified words to at least get the term “objectives” in the process. 2.1.3.6 put some onus on the designer/specifier to do more than just hang detectors and provide guards, which is pretty much what the rest of 2.1.3 says. It was intended to get the designer/specifier to think about how the components he/she is using fit into the entire package. It’s too bad the committee saw fit to lose the whole section. I want to go on record as against this, and hope the technical committee restores at least the Technical Correlating Committee wording.

————————————————-(Log #28)

Committee: SIG-IDS72-138-(2-1.4.2.4 Exception) : Accept SUBMITTER: Martin H. Reiss, The RJA Group, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-149RECOMMENDATION: Accept proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: Spacing of detectors should follow the requirements of this code if they are installed, even if they are non-required. The public and Authority Having Jurisdiction would assume that they meet the requirements. Spacing for just a special hazard location detection is covered in 2-1.4.3.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 25 NEGATIVE: 2 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & OuimetteEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: O’CONNOR: The installation of detectors that are not required can provide a significant benefit for a particular room, space or property whether or not the specific spacing rules of Chapter 2 are followed. In many instances, the Authorities Having Jurisdiction requests an added detector for a particular room or space as an added measure of fire detection without imposing specific spacing rules. Also, the Committee action on this item precludes an owner from installing non-required additional detectors due to the added costs that may result from applying the spacing rules to non-required detectors. Also, this change ignores that non-required detectors can be provided on a performance-design basis and with added benefit to any given situation. ROBERTS: I strongly disagree with the committee action on Proposal 72-149. The issue here is non-required detection, above and beyond anything invoked by NFPA 72, the applicable building code or any statute. This action effectively prohibits any fire detection less than would be required for complete coverage in the involved area(s), even if the building would be in full compliance with no detection at all. I can give many firsthand examples where the building owner wanted more protection than required by minimum code, but simply did not have the funds to install detection devices at normal “NFPA 72” spacing. Therefore, non-required detectors were installed at strategic locations such as corridors, large storage spaces, and open plan office areas, but not in sufficient quantity to meet regular spacing criteria. Often this was Phase 1, with planned later upfit of more devices. Do we really want to discourage incremental efforts to improve fire protection? Is it really necessary for us to say, “All or nothing” when the code requires nothing? This action will inevitably have the opposite effect of that intended. It will discourage the installation of supplementary, non-required fire detection. As a result, some buildings and their occupants will have less protection, fire alarm installation and service companies will have less business, and the Authorities Having Jurisdiction (including me) who enforce NFPA 72 will be seen as impeding fire protection. What’s wrong with this picture?

————————————————-(Log #220)

Committee: SIG-IDS72-139-(2-1.4.2.4 Exception) : Accept in Part SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-149RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the proposal and Accept in Principle. Retain Section 2-1.4.2.4, adding an asterisk and delete the exception. Also,

delete Section 2-1.4.3 but move its text to new Annex Section A-2.1.4.2.4* and change “shall” to “should”. SUBSTANTIATION: We disagree with the committee statement. The committee should either explain why they do not feel this is redundant material, or take the action we suggest. The exception to 2-1.4.2.4 and Section 2.1.4.3 permit non-required detectors to be installed without the prescriptive spacing requirements of the Chapter. That was the intent of the original submitter. The exception has been the source of considerable arguments regarding the spacing of non-required detection devices.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Part The committee accepts the deletion of the exception. The committee rejects the relocation of Section of 2-1.4.3.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the committee action on Comment 72-138 (Log #28). The submitter did not provide substantiation for the relocation of Section 2-1.4.3. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-140-(2-1.5) : Reject SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-150RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept in Principle with additional text to the new Section so it reads: “...either with separate signage within 2 inches of the device or on the device itself...” (remainder as accepted). SUBSTANTIATION: We believe this satisfies the concern in Mr. Ellner’s Comment on Affirmative Vote.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter did not provide justification for the 2 inch criteria in lieu of some other means which would achieve the same end. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-141-(2-1.5 (New) ) : Accept SUBMITTER: Wolfgang Koch, MinimaxCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-150RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire section. SUBSTANTIATION: We appreciate any effective means to substantially reduce accidental discharge of suppression systems. However, there is no evidence that by marking devices such as detectors as proposed, the potential for accidental discharge of suppression systems would substantially be minimized. The size of the proposed marking is too small to be legible from a distance on the one hand, and too large to be attached (or maybe permanently provided by the manufacturer) to existing detectors, on the other hand. Furthermore, the effect of written language is often questionable. In many cases, the device would be installed at ceilings or even in confined spaces, such as it would be for many industrial applications or floor voids. The alternative signage at, and not on the device, included in the proposal would not help much either but this either way installation cost would be increased considerably. The least thing we all want to achieve is that fire suppression systems would become too expensive for the end-user, so that no suppression system would be installed at all. More viable options could include separate warning signs located at entrances to protected areas indicating that the area is protected by a special hazards fire suppression system.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & OuimetteCOMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: CHOLIN: The proposed text (Proposal 72-150) seeks to address the training problem of one vendor by placing an installation burden on some other vendor. The revision (Comment 72-141) makes a bad situation worse, not better. Even if we were to assume that the training problem of the first vendor justified the added installation burden of the second, the language of the original proposal did not allow alternative means that would be far more cost-effective. I urge the technical committee to affirm the voice vote and accept the comment.

331



72-142-(2-1.5 [2002 Ed. 5.5] (New) ) : Accept SUBMITTER: John A. Chetelat, NOTIFIER/Rep. Fire Suppression Systems Association (FSSA)COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-150 or 72-146aRECOMMENDATION: Delete entire section. SUBSTANTIATION: The submitter did not submit data to support his proposal that devices, marked as proposed, would substantially minize the potential for accidental discharge of suppression systems. The proposed wording of paragraph 2-1.5, related to marking of certain initiating devices is flawed. The size of the proposed marking(s) (e.g., at least 3/8 in. high) to be attached to the device is impractical. In many, if not most applications, signage or marking of this type would be unreadable or illegible when devices are mounted at ceiling level. This limitation is even greater considering applications such as mechanical or electrical equipment room with open/high ceilings, which also commonly have numerous obstructions such as miscellaneous piping, duct work, open joist and other construction obstacles. Although the proposed wording does permit for the use of “separate signage”, the referenced wording only provides direction for the marking located at or on the device. It does not provide definition nor direction for alternate use of signage in other locations that would be more accessible, legible and, therefore, more practical in attempting to reduce the occurrences of accidental discharge of suppression systems. Other signage options could include device position diagrams located at control panels or separate warning signs located at entrances to protected areas indicating the area is protected by a special hazards system.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-143-(2-2.1) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-151RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed in the voting. The committee should recognize that performance objectives do already exist in the code. Although more structured performance-based requirements (such as those in NFPA 101) may be desirable, this should not preclude the introduction of appropriate performance-based considerations in the text of the existing requirements. The committee should recognize that performance-based terminology already exists in other NFPA documents, and this code should use terminology consistent with these other documents. The committee should also recognize that the NFPA Manual of Style prohibits reference to a nonmandatory portion of the code from a mandatory portion of the code. For information refer to NFPA 101 and NFPA 550. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. The Technical Correlating Committee has appointed a task group to address the formulation of a framework of performance-based requirements for a future edition of NFPA 72. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee to reconsider the comments expressed in voting. Refer to the committee action and statement on Comment 72-144 (Log #152).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-144-(2-2.1) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: John M. Cholin, J.M. Cholin Consultants, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-151RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: 2-2.1 System Design. 2.2.1.1* The heat detection system design documentation shall specify the performance objective of the system. A2.2.1.1 The performance objective of a fire detection system is usually expressed in terms of the size fire the system is intended to detect, measured in kilowatts (kW) or British thermal units per second (Btu/Sec). Typically, the fire alarm system designer does not establish this criterion; it is usually obtained from the design documentation prepared by the engineer of

record for the fire protection strategy for the structure as a whole. Where a prescriptive design is being provided, this requirement is fulfilled by stating in the design documentation that the design conforms to the prescriptive criteria of this code. 2.2.1.2* Performance-based designs shall be executed in accordance with Chapter 5, Performance-based Requirements of NFPA 101-2000, The Life Safety Code. A-2.2.1.2 Appendix B, Engineering Guide for Automatic Fire Detector Spacing, provides a detailed design guide for the implementation of the performance-based design of fire alarm systems, consistent with the performance-based design method outlined in NFPA 101, The Life Safety Code. In a performance-based design environment, the performance objectives for the fire alarm system are NOT established by the fire alarm system designer. They are established by the engineer of record responsible for the fire protection engineering for the facility as a whole. Once the engineer of record has analyzed the fire hazard and assessed the risk, a set of overall goals, usually addressing life safety, property protection and mission continuity are adopted for the facility as a whole. A fire protection strategy is developed to achieve those goals and general performance objectives are developed for the facility. These general objectives give rise to specific performance objectives for each fire protection system being employed in the facility. Consequently, the performance objectives and criteria for the fire alarm system are part of a much larger strategy that often relies on other fire protection features, working in concert with the fire alarm system to attain the overall fire protection goals for the facility. In the performance-based design environment, the design engineer has used computational models to demonstrate that the spacing used for automatic fire detectors connected to the fire alarm system will achieve the objectives established for the system, by showing that the system meets the performance criteria established for the system in the design documentation. Consequently, it is imperative that the design objectives and performance criteria to which the system has been designed are clearly stated in the system documentation. 2.2.1.3 Systems that are not designed in accordance with paragraph 2.2.1.2 shall be deemed prescriptive designs and shall be designed in accordance with the prescriptive requirements of this chapter. SUBSTANTIATION: Often, fire detection systems are sold, designed, installed and commissioned without any quantitative evaluation of whether the finished system will serve the intended purpose. This is tantamount to buying a pair of shoes with no regard to size, yet expecting them to fit! All too often fire detection systems fail to perform as expected and when the analysis is performed it is discovered that the system was literally designed to fail. This has undermined the credibility of fire alarms to such an extent that most citizens disregard fire alarm signals. The proposed language implements NFPA’s policy of “dual-track” codes and standards by establishing a “fork in the road” in this section, dealing with smoke detection, to permit the designer the flexibility of selecting that design method that best suits the needs of his/her customer or client. By its very nature, the dual-track structure selected by NFPA permits the incremental incorporation of performance-based language into the document. Indeed, performance-based language has existed as the ONLY alternative in the current section 2-4 of NFPA 72-1999. This language has been in place since the adoption of the 1990 edition of NFPA 72E. The presence of performance-based language in that section has not disrupted the rest of the document over the past 12 years. The proposed language gives the designer the flexibility to design a heat detection system to attain a specific design objective - a given fire of given fuel under given conditions - without the burden of unnecessary, non-contributory devices where the design objective is a fire greater than that used in the listing investigation and using sufficient detectors to achieve the design objective where the design fire is smaller than that used in the listing investigation.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Insert new text for 2-2.1 (and associated appendix material) to read as follows: 2-2.1 General 2-2.1.1* The heat detection design documentation shall state the required performance objective of the system. A-2-2.1.1 The performance objective statement should describe the purpose of the detector placement and the intended response of the fire alarm control unit to the detector activation. This statement can include a narrative description of the required response time of the detectors, a narrative of the sequence of operations, a tabular list of programming requirements or some other method. The performance objective of a fire detection system is usually expressed in terms of time and the size fire the system is intended to detect, measured in kilowatts (kW) or British thermal units per second (Btu/sec). Typically, the fire alarm system designer does not establish this criterion. It is usually obtained from the design documentation prepared by the designer responsible for the strategy of the structure as a whole. Where a prescriptive design is being provided, this requirement is fulfilled by stating in the design documentation that the design conforms to the prescriptive provisions of this code. A-2-2.1.3 In a performance-based design environment, the performance objectives for the fire alarm system are not established by the fire alarm system designer. A fire protection strategy is developed to achieve those goals. General performance objectives are developed for the facility. These general objectives give rise to specific performance objectives for each fire protection system being employed in the facility. Consequently, the performance objectives and

332

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAcriteria for the fire alarm system are part of a much larger strategy that often relies on other fire protection features, working in concert with the fire alarm system to attain the overall fire protection goals for the facility. In the performance-based design environment, the designer uses computational models to demonstrate that the spacing used for automatic fire detectors connected to the fire alarm system will achieve the objectives established by the system, by showing that the system meets the performance criteria established for the system in the design documentation. Consequently, it is imperative that the design objectives and performance criteria to which the system has been designed are clearly stated in the system documentation. 2-2.1.2 Designs not in accordance with paragraph 2-2.1.3 shall be deemed prescriptive designs and shall be designed in accordance with the prescriptive requirements of this chapter. 2-2.1.3 Performance-based designs shall be executed in accordance with 5.3 [2002 edition].[ This new text is additional and does not delete or modify (except the numbering) current material of 2-2.1 (2002 edition 5.6.1)] COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has accepted the concept proposed but has revised the text to more clearly represent the intent of the submitter and to provide additional guidance to the users of the Code.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 26 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & OuimetteEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: ELLNER: 1. Paragraph 2.2.1.1 requires design documentation to state the required performance objective of the system. As section 2.2.1 is proposed to be organized, this performance objective statement is a requirement for all applications of heat detectors - both prescriptive and performance. It is not clear in the standard (nor is it defined) exactly what information and how much detail is required in this statement. I do not believe that this is what the Technical Committee intended in the rewrite. I believe that there is considerable potential for conflict in the application of the proposed standard when an Authority Having Jurisdiction requests this statement from an installer supplying equipment to prescriptive requirements. 2. Paragraphs 2.2.1.2 and 2.2.1.3 taken together are confusing, and subject to misinterpretation. Paragraph 2.2.1.3 requires performance based design (PBD) to be in accordance with (new) 5.3. Paragraph 2.2.1.2 refers to designs not in accordance with 2.2.1.3 - which can be interpreted to mean designs not in accordasnce with 5.3. (I know, it is confusing. Read it again). However, 5.3 is part of this chapter, and must be adhered to as a requirement. The Technical Committee made a good effort to incorporate PBD language into the standard in a short period of time. However, there might have been too much editing and renumbering to get it right the first time. Either reorganize and/or modify this seciton, and have it reviewed for accuracy, or HOLD this proposal for the next cycle. I do not know if the former option is viable at this state of the cycle. This comment should not be interpreted as rejection of incorporating performance language into the standard. It is rejection of publishing as proposed because the proposed wording does not represent a clear and usable standard for customers of the document.

————————————————-(Log #151)

Committee: SIG-IDS72-145-(2-2.1.3) : TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the action on Comment 72-145 (comment only) be reported as “Hold” consistent with Section 4-4.6.2.2 of the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. The Technical Correlating Committee recognizes that research on thermal response coefficient is pending and is anticipated to be completed by the next cycle of the Code.SUBMITTER: John M. Cholin, J.M. Cholin Consultants, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-156aRECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: 2.2.1.3* Heat detectors shall be marked with their operating temperature and thermal response coefficient (TRC) as determined by the nationally recognized testing laboratory listing the device. The requirements for the marking of the device with its TRC shall become effective July 1, 2004. A2.2.1.3 (retain current Annex material) SUBSTANTIATION: When heat detectors are employed to achieve a particular design objective, a credible measure of the rate at which the detector can absorb heat is critical. This measure results in a numerical value for the thermal response coefficient (TRC for heat detectors or RTI for sprinklers). The need for such a metric has been proven over the past 20 years with the work on the high performance sprinkler heads such as the ESFR head. Without a “requirement” for such a metric in the National Fire Alarm Code, the nationally recognized testing laboratories have no directive to develop the test method to determine the TRC. Without a test method, the manufacturing community has no means to provide it to the designers who would use their product. The proposed revised wording extends the effective date to allow the NRTL that is developing the method to complete its work and provide sufficient time for manufacturers to submit product and obtain revised listings. This solution is far better than abandoning the requirement. The current reliance on “listed spacing” only permits the comparison of one detector to others but does not allow the designer to predict when a given detector will respond to a fire of a given size under given environmental conditions. The need for a thermal response metric, TRC, is urgent. Failure to provide for the marking of TRC deprives manufacturers of heat detectors of the opportunity to sell their product into new potential markets simply because

the product’s effectiveness cannot be demonstrated.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The provision of this requirement without an accepted test method is unwarranted. When an acceptable test method is developed and initiated, it can be required by the listing agency.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 24 NEGATIVE: 3 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & OuimetteEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: CHOLIN: The technical committee adopted a requirement for marking heat detectors with their Thermal Response Coefficient (TRC) based upon the notion that “if we establish a requirement with a delayed effective date the Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories (NRTLs) will upgrade their testing standards to ensure that listed product is compliant.” The 3 years subsequent to the adoption of this requirement into the 1999 Edition has been wasted with a dispute between the manufacturers and the NRTLs viewed as the principal listing lab on how to fund an $80,000 research effort to develop the details of the test apparatus and method that will provide the numerical value for TRC with an adequate level of precision. The inclusion of this retroactive requirement did what was intended by the technical committee three years ago; it did precipitate action on this crucially needed parameter for design. It did provide the NRTLs with the feedback they rely upon regarding what is needed regarding their test standards. The manufacturers, speaking through their trade organization, have committed to the research. There is no reason to doubt their sincerity. Unfortunately, no such commitment was offered by the NRTLs represented at the Report on Comments meeting. Furthermore, there appears to be disagreement between UL and FMRC regarding their respective abilities to develop the test apparatus and method to determine TRC for heat detectors. The removal of this requirement from the standard gives a mixed message to the NRTLs. They might conclude that perhaps this performance metric is not as necessary as originally thought. Such a conclusion would be wrong, of course. A validated performance metric for heat detectors in the form of a TRC is every bit as necessary now as it was 3 years ago. Removal of this requirement could be misconstrued as an excuse not to move forward with the task of developing performance metrics for the products we rely upon. It certainly relieves the pressure to get something done. This will leave some manufacturers in an indefensible position in the event of fire loss litigation against them. Furthermore, without a validated performance metric, the manufacturers are denied a market for their technical innovations. Indeed, a test standard without a TRC could be deemed inherently in restraint of trade as it has the effect of denying market opportunity to anyone who designs a better, more responsive heat detector. The technical committee should not put NFPA in a position where it could be seen as facilitating such restraints on the market. Compromise wording was offered to extend the date to 2005 to provide a time schedule that included another complete revision cycle prior to the compliance deadline. Unfortunately, the technical committee did not adopt that language. This matter is too important to leave to chance. I urge the technical committee to reverse the voice vote at the Report on Comments meeting and adopt Comment 72-145. MARRION: This proposal should not be rejected. The requirements for providing Thermal Response Coefficients (TRC) should remain. The industry was provided with an effective date that provided several years for research to be carried out. If this could not be met, then this could have been changed rather than deleting the requirement. This requirement was accepted in the 1999 Edition, indicating that there is general consensus as to the need for this research to be carried out, and it is hoped that the industry will develop the TRC now that this is no longer a requirement. Our industry continues to manufacture, design and install heat detectors which one still cannot predict with a high degree of accuracy how they will respond to varying fire and compartment characteristics due to current test standards. This is the next progression in understanding what we make, sell, design and install. In the Scope Section of the Initiating Devices Chapter it states: “Chapter 2 shall cover minimum requirements for performance selection, use and location of automatic fire detection devices, sprinkler waterflow detectors, manually activated fire alarm stations, and supervisory signal initiating devices, including guard tour reporting used to ensure timely warning for the purposes of life safety and the protection of a building, space structure, area or object.” As seen, we as a committee should be striving to provide a minimum level of understanding of how these devices work/operate to help “ensure timely warning for the purposes of life safety and the protection of a building, space, structure, area or object.” WENZEL: I guess that this will go away, and we will never get the NRTLs to come up with an acceptable metric by which the field of heat detectors is level in regards to thermal response and sensitivity. This rejected section has a date that should be achievable; however, by deleting the whole section, there is no longer any parameters for the development of a test for sensitivity. The technical committee felt that the time in the previous edition of the standard was sufficient, and it wasnít accomplished due to lack of funding. Now, it appears the industry will come forward with funding, but the requirement has left. I fear that without a time window, other things will intervene. The wording in the proposal should stand, and this should be accepted.

333



72-146-(2-3.1) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-163RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed in the voting. The committee should recognize that performance objectives do already exist in the code. Although more structured performance-based requirements (such as those in NFPA 101) may be desirable, this should not preclude the introduction of appropriate performance-based considerations in the text of the existing requirements. The committee should recognize that performance-based terminology already exists in other NFPA documents, and this code should use terminology consistent with these other documents. The committee should also recognize that the NFPA Manual of Style prohibits reference to a nonmandatory portion of the code from a mandatory portion of the code. For information refer to NFPA 101 and NFPA 550. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. The Technical Correlating Committee has appointed a task group to address the formulation of a framework of performance-based requirements for a future edition of NFPA 72. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee to reconsider the comments expressed in voting. Refer to the committee action and statement on Comment 72-147 (Log #150). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-147-(2-3.1.1) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: John M. Cholin, J.M. Cholin Consultants, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-163RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 2.3.1.1* The smoke detection system design documentation shall specify the performance objective of the system. A2.3.1.1 The performance objective of a fire detection system is usually expressed in terms of the size fire the system is intended to detect, measured in kilowatts (kW) or British thermal units per second (Btu/sec). Typically, the fire alarm system designer does not establish this criterion; it is usually obtained from the design documentation prepared by the engineer of record for the fire protection strategy for the structure as a whole. Where a prescriptive design is being provided, this requirement is fulfilled by stating in the design documentation that the design conforms to the prescriptive criteria of this code. 2.3.1.2* Performance-based designs shall be executed in accordance with Chapter 5, Performance-Based Requirements of NFPA 101-2000, The Life Safety Code. A2.3.1.2 Appendix B, Engineering Guide for Automatic Fire Detector Spacing, provides a detailed design guide for the implementation of the performance-based design of fire alarms systems, consistent with the performance-based design method outlined in NFPA 101, The Life Safety Code. In a performance-based design environment, the performance objectives for the fire alarm system are NOT established by the fire alarm system designer. They are established by the engineer of record responsible for the fire protection engineering for the facility as a whole. Once the engineer of record has analyzed the fire hazard and assessed the risk, a set of overall goals, usually addressing life safety, property protection and mission continuity are adopted for the facility as a whole. A fire protection strategy is developed to achieve those goals and general performance objectives are developed for the facility. These general objectives give rise to specific performance objectives for each fire protection system being employed in the facility. Consequently, the performance objectives and criteria for the fire alarm system are part of a much larger strategy that often relies on other fire protection features, working in concert with the fire alarm system to attain the overall fire protection goals for the facility. In the performance-based design environment, the design engineer has used computational models to demonstrate that the spacing used for automatic fire detectors connected to the fire alarm system will achieve the objectives established for the system, by showing that the system meets the performance criteria established for the system in the design documentation. Consequently, it is imperative that the design objectives and performance criteria to which the system has been designed are clearly stated in the system documentation. 2.3.1.3* Systems that are not designed in accordance with paragraph 5.3.1.2 shall be deemed prescriptive designs and shall be designed in accordance with the prescriptive requirements of this chapter. A2.3.1.3 [Insert current wording of A-2-3.2 from NFPA 72-1999] 2.3.1.4 The prescriptive requirements in this section shall be applied only

where detectors are installed in ordinary indoor locations. 2.3.1.5 Where smoke detectors are being installed to control the spread of smoke, they shall be installed in accordance with the requiremetns of Section 5-10 of this chapter. 2.3.1.6 Smoke detctors shall be installed in all areas where required by applicable laws, codes or other NFPA Standards. SUBSTANTIATION: Often, fire detection systems are sold, designed, installed and commissioned without and quantitative evaluation of whether the finished system will serve the intended purpose. All too often fire detection systems fail to perform as expected and when the analysis is performed it is discovered that the system was literally designed to fail. This has undermined the credibility of fire alarms to such an extent that most citizens disregard fire alarm signals. The proposed language implements NFPA’s policy of “dual-track” codes and standards by establishing a “fork in the road” in this section, dealing with smoke detection, to permit the designer the flexibility of selecting that design method that best suits the needs of his/her customer or client. By its very nature, the dual-track structure selected by NFPA permits the incremental incorporation of performance-based language into the document. Indeed, performance-based language has existed as the ONLY alternative in the current section 2-4 of NFPA 72-1999. This language has been in place since the adoption of the 1990 edition of NFPA 72E. The presence of performance-based language in that section has not disrupted the rest of the document over the past 12 years. The proposed language gives the designer the flexibility to design a smoke detection system to attain a specific design objective - a given fire of given fuel under given conditions - without the burden of unnecessary, non-contributory devices where the design objective is a fire greater than that assumed in the listing investigation and using sufficient detectors to achieve the design objective where the design fire is smaller than that assumed in the listing investigation.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Revise Section 2-3.1 (and associated appendix material) to read as follows: 2-3.1 General 2-3.1.1* The smoke detection design documentation shall state the required performance objective of the system. A-2-3.1.1 The performance objective statement should describe the purpose of the detector placement and the intended response of the fire alarm control unit to the detector activation. This statement can include a narrative description of the required response time of the detectors, a narrative of the sequence of operations, a tabular list of programming requirements or some other method. The performance objective of a fire detection system is usually expressed in terms of time and the size fire the system is intended to detect, measured in kilowatts (kW) or British thermal units per second (Btu/sec). Typically, the fire alarm system designer does not establish this criterion. It is usually obtained from the design documentation prepared by the designer responsible for the strategy of the structure as a whole. Where a prescriptive design is being provided, this requirement is fulfilled by stating in the design documentation that the design conforms to the prescriptive provisions of this code. 2-3.1.2* Designs not in accordance with paragraph 2-3.1.3 shall be deemed prescriptive designs and shall be designed in accordance with the prescriptive requirements of this chapter. A-2-3.1.2. Insert the wording A-2-3.2 from NFPA 72 1999 2-3.1.3* Performance-based designs shall be executed in accordance with 5.3 [2002 edition]. A-2-3.1.3 In a performance-based design environment, the performance objectives for the fire alarm system are not established by the fire alarm system designer. A fire protection strategy is developed to achieve those goals. General performance objectives are developed for the facility. These general objectives give rise to specific performance objectives for each fire protection system being employed in the facility. Consequently, the performance objectives and criteria for the fire alarm system are part of a much larger strategy that often relies on other fire protection features, working in concert with the fire alarm system to attain the overall fire protection goals for the facility. In the performance-based design environment, the designer uses computational models to demonstrate that the spacing used for automatic fire detectors connected to the fire alarm system will achieve the objectives established by the system, by showing that the system meets the performance criteria established for the system in the design documentation. Consequently, it is imperative that the design objectives and performance criteria to which the system has been designed are clearly stated in the system documentation. 2-3.1.4 The prescriptive requirements in this section shall be applied only where detectors are installed in ordinary indoor locations. 2-3.1.5 Where smoke detectors are being installed to control the spread of smoke, they shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of Section 2-10 of this chapter. 2-3.1.6 Smoke detectors shall be installed in all areas where required by applicable laws, codes or standards.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has accepted the concept proposed but has revised the text to more clearly represent the intent of the submitter and to provide additional guidance to the users of the Code. The committee recognizes that these changes will need to be reflected in the committee action on Comment 72-133 (Log #332).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 26 NEGATIVE: 1

334

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & OuimetteEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: ELLNER: 1. Paragraph 2.3.1.1 requires design documentation to state the required performance objective of the system. As section 2.3.1 is proposed to be organized, this performance and objective statement is a requirement for all applications of heat detectors - both prescriptive and performance. It is not clear in the standard (nor is it defined) exactly what information and how much detail is required in this statement. I do not believe that this is what the Technical Committee intended in the rewrite. I believe that there is considerable potential for conflict in the application of the proposed standard when an Authority Having Jurisdiction requests this statement from an installer supplying equipment to prescriptive requirements. 2. Pargaraphs 2.3.1.2 and 2.3.1.3 taken togeher are confusing, and subject to misinterpretation. Paragraph 2.3.1.3 requires performance based design (PBD) to be in accordance with (new) 5.3. Paragraph 2.3.1.2 refers to designs not in accordance with 2.3.1.3 - which can be interpreted to mean designs not in accordance with 5.3. (I know, it is confusing. Read it again.) However, 5.3 is part of this chapter, and must be adhered to as a requirement. The Technical Committee made a good effort to incorporate PBD language into the standard in a short period of time. However, there might have been too much editing and renumbering to get it right the first time. Either reorganize and/or modify this section, and have it reviewed for accuracy, or HOLD this proposal for the next cycle. I do not know if the former option is viable at this stage of the cycle. This comment should not be interpreted as rejection of incorporating performance language into the standard. It is rejection of publishing as proposed because the proposed wording does not represent a clear and usable standard for customers of the document.

————————————————-


72-148-(2-3.2) : Hold SUBMITTER: John M. Cholin, J.M. Cholin Consultants, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-165RECOMMENDATION: Add new text as follows: 2.3.2* Smoke Detector Performance metrics. 2.3.3.1 Smoke detectors shall be marked with the smoke detector Sensitivity Factor, expressed in terms of grams per cubic meter and percent per foot obscuration, for smoke from four (4) types of fires: a) well-ventilated cellulosic, b) under-ventilated cellulosic, c) well-ventilated plastic/petroleum and d) under-ventilated plastic/petroleum 2.3.3.2 Smoke detectors shall be marked with the smoke detector Smoke Entry Coefficient that quantifies the time delay for smoke entry as a function of ceiling jet velocity. 2.3.3.3 The requirements for marking smoke detectors with the performance metrics established in paragraphs 2.3.3.1 and 2.3.3.2 shall become effective on June 1, 2006. A2.3.3 In order to predict the response of a smoke detection system in a given fire scenario and given compartment, plume and ceiling jet dynamics are used to predict the smoke concentration at the detector location within the compartment. Since for a given fire of given fuel and ventilation rate a correlation can be developed between heat release and smoke yield, ceiling jet gas temperature can be correlated to the smoke mass per unit volume. Such correlations can be used to infer smoke density in smoke mass per unit volume at a given detector location from plume and ceiling jet correlations. Detector response can be predicted if two parameters are know: Sensitivity Factor and Smoke Entry Coefficient. SUBSTANTIATION: The nationally recognized testing laboratories (NRTLs) rely on the National Fire Alarm Code for guidance on how specific listed products are to be used. The NRTLs use the NFAC to determine what type of product testing is necessary to ensure that their testing protocols verify the applicability of the product to its intended use. For many years, the design of smoke detection systems has been based upon an assumed listed spacing yet when one carefully reads the NRTL test protocol one discovers that there is no listed spacing for smoke detectors. Consequently, there is no technical basis for the designs stemming from this standard nor for the notion that a smoke detection system is adequate for any particular intended purpose. Before the efficacy of smoke detectors can be predicted for any specific objective there must exist experimentally validated performance metric for smoke detectors. There is general consensus that there are two parameters that must be quantified before the performance of a smoke detector can be predicted. The first is the fundamental sensitivity of the device; the quantity of smoke necessary to initiate a fire alarm signal. This necessitates a measure of smoke concentration. All of the other fields of physics and physical chemistry use mass per unit of volume or mass per unit of mass for quantifying the concentration of an aerosol such as smoke. This proposal proposes the adoption of that same strategy for the fire protection community. The second metric is a measure of the time interval between the attainment of sufficient smoke concentration outside the detector and the occurrence of an alarm signal. It is a smoke entry delay factor. The rate of smoke movement into the detector is a function of the pressure differential between the outside and inside of the unit. Thus, the pressure differential across the detector is a function of the ceiling jet velocity at the detector location. The response delay

factor should thus be expressed in terms of time per unit of velocity. No design, whether prescriptive or performance-based, can be validated without smoke detector performance metrics. Currently, no credible performance metric for smoke detectors exist leaving the engineers, users and enforcers with no means to demonstrate the efficiacy of a given design and the manufacturers with no means to demonstrate the contribution their products make to the fire-safety of the facility. Both the manufacturers and UL have opined that the current sensitivity marked on the detector is valid ONLY in the contex of the UL 268 smoke box and cannot be used for design. Furthermore, the sensitivity marked on the detecor is burdened by the limitations of the UL 5-foot light beam measurement method. This leaves the results of the full scale room fire tests as the only currently available quantification of detector response. Unfortunately, the optical obscuration of the smoke at the detector location can range up to 40%/ft. during some of these tests. When this performance metric is used to predict smoke detector response to a design fire, the resulting design is excessively conservative. Unless credible performance metrics for smoke detector performance are provided as part of the listing, the use of smoke detectors for life safety objectives is impossible to justify. The proposal provides the NRTLs with the necessary guidance to begin the process of developing performance metrics for smoke detectors as well as sufficient time to organize, perform and analyze the needed research. The research might eventually demonstrate that a different form of metric is preferable to that proposed. That potentiality can be addressed in a subsequent revision cycle. However, without a requirement in the standard there will be no incentive to do the requisite research needed to eventually resolve this long-standing deficiency in the National Fire Alarm Code.COMMITTEE ACTION:HoldCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The comment is being held for further study in accordance with NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects Section 4-4.6.2.2(c). Although the committee agrees with much of the substantiation of the comment, it disagrees that the committee should create requirements for the listing of smoke detectors before the research is done to develop the appropriate test methods and parameters.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 25 NEGATIVE: 2 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & OuimetteEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: CHOLIN: The technical committee should recognize that valid performance metrics are needed if the design of smoke detection systems is ever to be legitimately relied upon for life-safety and property conservation. We are mandating the use of a product without having any measure of how well that product performs its intended task. This places all of the participants in the chain of commerce involving the sale of smoke detection systems in unnecessary legal jeopardy against which there is limited defense. The current tests conducted by the NRTLs do not produce sufficient information about the performance of the listed product to enable the system designer to predict whether the detector will respond to a given fire scenario. The design of the smoke detection portion of a fire alarm system based upon the prescriptive design rules in this standard is, at best, a guess. Yet, we expect people to rely on these systems for life-safety. Indeed, in many cases we require that people rely on smoke detection for life-safety purposes knowing full well that we only have crude estimates, at best, of when such a system will respond to an actual fire. Ostensibly the NRTLs rely on the technical committee for critical feedback regarding what issues need to be addressed in their test standards. Performance metrics are the most important issue regarding smoke detection. Without a valid performance metric, the specter of the “false alarm problem” will not be resolved. Without validated performance metrics, the spacing rules for smoke detectors are merely guesses. Without a validated performance metric, the manufacturers are denied a market for their technical innovations. Indeed, a test standard without a validated performance metric could be deemed inherently in restraint of trade as it has the effect of denying market opportunity to anyone who designs a better, more responsive smoke detector. The technical committee should not put NFPA in a position where it could be seen as facilitating such restraints on the market. The technical committee should speak loud and clear to both the NRTLs and to the public. The technical committee will not stand for obfuscation. We need to know how well a smoke detector does its job so we can intelligently design systems with them. I urge the technical committee members to adopt Comment 72-148. MARRION: This proposal should have been accepted. There is an effective dated proposed of June 1, 2006 providing a 4.5 year period for research to be carried out to understand what it is the industry has been making, producing, designing and installing for the last 80 years. Similar wording/requirements have been proposed in several previous revision cycles and we are still not appreciably closer to a performance metric for predicting response of smoke detectors. It is critical that we develop requirements to be able to predict what it is that is being sold and installed. Previous research indicates there are paths forward, please see my comments in the ROP on the same proposal.

————————————————-

335



72-149-(2-3.3.1) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: John M. Cholin, J.M. Cholin Consultants, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-166RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 2.3.3.1 Smoke detectors shall be marked with their nominal production sensitivity (percent per ft obscuration), as required by the listing. 2.3.3.1.1 The marked production sensitivity shall include the production tolerance about the nominal value. 2.3.3.1.2* The production sensitivity shall only be used as a benchmark for periodic testing and shall not be used as a basis for design. A2.3.3.1.2 The percentage per foot sensitivity marked on the smoke detector is derived from testing in a smoke chamber, usually referred to as the UL 268 Smoke Box. The measurements derived from this measurement apparatus are only valid in the context of the apparatus and cannot be used outside the context of the smoke box. The polychromatic light source employed in the smoke box results in measurements that are highly dependent upon smoke color and does not account for variations light transmission as a function of wavelength that occurs as fuels and fire ventilation rates change or as smoke ages. Furthermore, the measurement apparatus uses a measurement of light obscuration by smoke to infer a measure of light reflectance when there is no correlation between these two optical characteristics. SUBSTANTIATION: Both the manufacturer and UL have opined that the current sensitivity marked on the detector is valid ONLY in the context of the UL 268 smoke box and cannot be used for design. It is to be used for quality control during the manufacturing process and for the evaluation of installed detectors during annual inspection, test and maintenance programs. Unfortunately, many mistake the sensitivity printed on the detector as its actual sensitivity in the context of a fire in the protected space. We have seen “performance-based designs” where an over-zealous “engineer” has used the marked sensitivity on the detector and rather tenuous correlations between smoke obscuration and temperature rise to predict smoke detector activations. This can lead to serious design errors especially when the fuel loads in the protected space and polymeric in nature and apt to produce a black smoke that has profoundly different optical characteristics than the carefully controlled light gray smoke obtained in the UL 268 Smoke Box. While I continue to believe that the qualify assurance and annual inspection, test and maintenance objectives can be best achieved by including detector sensitivity in the detector bulletin, this revised language clarifies how the marked sensitivity is to be used and reduces the likelihood of misinterpretation.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Revise the submitter’s recommendation to read as follows: 2-3.3.1* Smoke detectors shall be marked with their nominal production sensitivity and tolerance (percent per ft obscuration), as required by the listing. A-2-3.3.1 The production sensitivity range should only be used as a benchmark for testing and should not be used as the sole basis for selection of devices. The percent per foot sensitivity marked on the smoke detector is derived from testing in a smoke chamber, usually referred to as the UL 268 Smoke Box. The measurements derived from this measurement apparatus are only valid in the context of the apparatus and cannot be used outside the context of the smoke box. The polychromatic light source employed in the smoke box results in measurements that are highly dependent upon smoke color and does not account for variations light transmission as a function of wavelength that occurs as fuels and fire ventilation rates change or as smoke ages. Furthermore, the measurement apparatus uses a measurement of light obscuration by smoke to infer a measure of light reflectance when there is no correlation between these two optical characteristics.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee believes the reference to design basis are appropriate Annex material. The committee recognizes that these changes will need to be reflected in the committee action on Comment 72-133 (Log #332).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-150-(2-3.4.1) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-167RECOMMENDATION: While the Technical Correlating Committee recognizes that particularly for low energy, smoldering fires, smoke flow may be due to factors other than ceiling jet and plume dynamics, nevertheless, it was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed in the voting. During the public comment period, the submitter may wish to address the issue expressed in the first sentence of the committee statement. The committee should recognize that performance objectives do already exist in the code. Although more structured performance-based requirements (such as those in NFPA 101) may be desirable, this should not preclude the introduction of appropriate performance-based considerations in the text of the existing requirements. The committee should recognize that performance-based terminology already exists in other NFPA documents, and

this code should use terminology consistent with these other documents. The committee should also recognize that the NFPA Manual of Style prohibits reference to a nonmandatory portion of the code from a mandatory portion of the code. For information refer to NFPA 101 and NFPA 550. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. The Technical Correlating Committee has appointed a task group to address the formulation of a framework of performance-based requirements for a future edition of NFPA 72. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee to reconsider the comments expressed in voting. Refer to the committee action and statement on Comment 72-151 (Log #147).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-151-(2-3.4.1) : Accept in Part SUBMITTER: John M. Cholin, J.M. Cholin Consultants, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-167RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: 2.3.4.1* General. A2.3.4.1 For operation Except in the case of smoldering, low-energy fires, all smoke detectors, regardless or the type of technology usually rely on the plume and ceiling jet produced by the fire to transport the smoke upward and across the ceiling to the detector, sampling port or projected sensing light beam. depend on smoke entering the sensing chamber or light beam. If Once sufficient concentration is present attained at the detector, sampling port or sensing light beam location and, in the case of spot type detectors, sufficient flow velocity is attained to overcome the flow resistance into the sensing chamber, the detector responds with an alarm signal operation is obtained Detectors are usually mounted at the ceiling plane to take advantage of the lateral flow provided by the plume and of the ceiling jet. Since detectors are usually mounted on the ceiling, response time depends on the nature of the fire. A hot, energetic fire produces large plume velocities and temperatures and hot, fast ceiling jets. A hot fire rapidly drives the smoke up to the ceiling. This minimizes the time it takes for the smoke to travel to the detector. A smoldering fire produces little, if any plume and no appreciable ceiling jet. Far more time elapses between ignition and detection under this circumstance. A smoldering fire, such as in a sofa, produces little heat; therefore the time for smoke to reach the detector is increased. 2.3.4.1.1 The location and spacing of smoke detectors shall be based upon the anticipated predicted smoke flows due to the plume and ceiling jet dynamics produced by the anticipated fire as well as any pre-existing ambient air flows that might exist in the context of the protected compartment. The location and spacing of smoke detectors shall result from an evaluation based on the guidance detailed in this code and on engineering judgment. Some of the conditions that shall be included in the evaluation are the following: 2.3.4.1.2 The design shall account for the contribution of the following factors in predicting detector response to the anticipated fires to which the system is intended to respond. design fire: 1. Ceiling shape and surface 2. Ceiling height 3. Configuration of contents in the protected area 4. Combustion characteristics and probable equivalence ratio of the anticipated fires involving of the fuel loads within the protected area 5. Compartment Ventilation and probable equivalence ration of the anticipated fires 6. Ambient temperature, pressure, altitude, humidity and atmosphere. 2.3.4.1.2* Where smoke detection is employed to provide protection against a specific hazard or protect a specific asset, the location and spacing of detectors shall be determined using the performance-based design methods. outlined in Appendix B of this document. If the intent is to protect against a specific hazard, the detector(s) shall be permitted to be installed closer to the hazard in a position where the detector can intercept the smoke. A5.3.4.1.3 Refer to Appendix B.SUBSTANTIATION: The current text in the appendix does not address air sampling detection and creates a misapprehension regarding the fire that is apt to occur from the ignition of a modern sofa. (Current furnishings are often covered in polyolefin fabric and padded with polyurethane foam. NIST testing shows that such furnishings can produce a 3 MW fire within minutes of ignition.) The revised text more accurately describes the phenomena and uses language that is more consistent with that currently employed in fire protection engineering. Requirements in 2.3.4.1.1 were clarified and restated using enforceable language. The former language required an evaluation based upon the content of this chapter yet the chapter did not provide any criteria upon which to base an evaluation. The former language mandated the exercise of “engineering judgment” when such a requirement is inherently unenforceable. The factors affecting the design were separated into a separate subparagraph for clarity and consistency with the MOS.

336

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA The language in 2-3.4.1.2 provides no meaningful requirements. According to Webster’s dictionary, the term “intercept” means “to halt or actively interrupt the intended progress.” This is a physical impossibility for an inanimate object that is elsewhere in the document required to be securely fastened in place. Thus, the proposed wording more clearly expresses the intent of the subparagraph. The proposed text instructs the user to employ a legitimate engineering method when a non-prescriptive design is being developed. The mandatory reference to a non-mandatory portion of the document has been addressed by moving the reference Appendix B to the Annex.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Part The committee accepts the submitter’s recommendation except for the changes proposed to 2.3.4.1.2* (which should have been numbered 2.3.4.1.3) and related section A.5.3.4.1.3. Retain current section 2-3.4.1.2 of the 1999 NFPA 72, renumbered to become 2-3.4.1.3.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The intent of paragraph 2-3.4.1.2 was to allow detectors to be placed below the ceiling for a specific hazard where the detector would intercept the smoke. The committee recognizes that these changes will need to be reflected in the committee action on Comment 72-133 (Log #332).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-152-(2-3.4.5) : Reject SUBMITTER: John M. Cholin, J.M. Cholin Consultants, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-169RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: “Prescriptive Design Smoooth Ceiling Spacing”. SUBSTANTIATION: Our comment on 72-163 has addressed the structural issues used by the Technical Committee as a basis for rejection of that proposal. In the event that the Technical Committee acts affirmatively on that comment, this language will be necessary to provide a clear organizational outline to facilitate proper use of this chapter. The current text did not provide for engineered design of smoke detection systems. This addition distinguishes prescriptive designs from performance-based designs developed using the method outlined in Chapter 5 of NFPA 101, The Life Safety Code, and in Appendix B of this document.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the committee action and statement on Comment 72-133 (Log #332).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-153-(2-3.4.5.1.1) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-163 and 72-171RECOMMENDATION: Add new appendix text as follows: A-2-3.4.5.1.1 There is no such thing as a “listed spacing” or “required spacing” for spot-type smoke detectors in NFPA 72. Any spacing that performs the required function(s) and/or provides the required level of protection and is acceptable to the Authority Having Jurisdiction is acceptable. SUBSTANTIATION: A. 2-3.4.5.1.1 is currently misinterpreted to require spot-type smoke detectors to be installed on 30 ft centers. Many thousands of man-hours and many millions of dollars are wasted every year enforcing and complying with a requirement that does not actually exist. B. The false implication that there is a technical basis for spacing spot-type smoke detectors 30 ft on center produces “cookbook” one-size-fits-all solutions to fire problems which in fact vary by orders of magnitude. While a 30-ft standard spacing is convenient from an enforcement standpoint, that convenience is only obtained at substantial and often unnecessary cost to the consumer. For example, ROP 72-171 would reduce the “guide” spacing to 25 ft on center and thereby increase the number of detectors by 30% for a decrease in the worst case detection time of however long it takes smoke to move an additional 2.5 ft. Probably a second or two improvement at the most, for only 130% of what we’re paying now. Conversely, increasing the spacing to 50 ft on center would REDUCE the number of detectors, and their associated costs, by 64% in exchange for delaying the worst case detection for however long it takes smoke to move an additional 10 ft. How long is that and is the difference worth quadrupling the cost of the smoke detection, particularly considering that a 60 second detection window is perfectly acceptable for alarm verification? Clearly, this paragraph has had, and continues to have, a huge, unwarranted impact on system cost. C. As noted in Mr. Cholin’s comment on negative, the committee statement that “the guide of 30 ft was based on fire testing and has been successfully applied for the last 20 years” is both unsubstantiated and indeterminate. The fact is that there is no argument that the appropriateness of any particular

detector spacing can only be determined through qualified engineering analysis, including definition of a design basis fire or fires. The real difficulty, and the real reason the committee rejected ROPs 72-163 and 72-171, is that there is no consensus on what design-basis fire(s) to use, and very little competence in the industry and among Authorities Having Jurisdiction with respect to the available methodologies. The objective is fine, but it’s going to take time to sort out the particulars. This proposal provides an alternative that addresses at least some of the submitter’s concerns, on both ROP 72-163 and ROP 72-171, without changing the requirements of the standard. It is an appropriate interim step towards performance-based design. D. This is not an “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it” situation; the countless man-hours and millions of dollars that will be saved by Authorities Having Jurisdiction and building owners across the country provide ample reason for clarifying this constantly misinterpreted paragraph. E. There is no “insufficient technical substantiation” argument here either, because there is no required smoke detector spacing now and this proposal doesn’t seek to establish one. COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to committee action and statement on Proposal 72-154.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-154-(2-3.4.5.1.1) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: John M. Cholin, J.M. Cholin Consultants, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-171RECOMMENDATION: Add new text as follows: “A2.3.4.5.1.1 While it is permissible to use a 30 foot spacing as a guide for prescriptive designs, the use of such a spacing is based upon customary practice in the fire alarm community, not validated, peer-reviewed testing. The full-scale fire tests conducted by UL in the course of the listing investigation place the detector 17 ft from the test fire, implying a 25-ft spacing. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that the spacing used should be based upon a desired response to a fire of given size (heat release rate). However, the prescriptive criteria in this Code not do that. Nor does this Code do not provide any insight or guidance regarding the size of the fire to which a system designed with the permitted 30-ft spacing will respond. Where there are explicit performance objectives for the response of the smoke detection system, the performance-based design methods outlined in Appendix B should be used. SUBSTANTIATION: The Technical Committee’s action on this proposal did not comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects as it failed to identify the basis upon which it relied for the retention of the permission to use a 30 ft spacing. While the Technical Committee alleges that insufficient substantiation was provided, the Technical Committee did not dispute the substantiation offered - that the only testing relevant to current detectors is the UL full-scale fire test which implies a spacing of 25 ft. How much more substantiation does the Technical Committee need over and above the UL Listing Reports of all of the currently available smoke detectors? Is the Technical Committee prepared to make public the testing upon which it relies for its actions? Is the Technical Committee unaware of the many recovery actions alleging failure to respond to a fire in a manner consistent with the representations made at the time of sale? The proposed annex language provides critical background information necessary for the proper interpretation of the permissive language currently in 2.3.4.5.1.1.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Revise the submitter’s recommendation to read as follows: A-2.3.4.5.1.1 The 30 foot spacing is a guide for prescriptive designs, the use of such a spacing is based upon customary practice in the fire alarm community. Where there are explicit performance objectives for the response of the smoke detection system, the performance-based design methods outlined in Annex B should be used.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee thought the purpose of the comment to emphasize alternatives to the 30 foot spacing guideline should be presented as annex material with verbiage consistent to performance design requirements previously approved by the committee. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-155-(2-3.4.6) : Reject SUBMITTER: John M. Cholin, J.M. Cholin Consultants, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-173RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 2.3.4.6 Prescriptive Design Spacing Adjustments for Ceilings with Exposed

337

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAJoists and Beams. SUBSTANTIATION: Our comment on 72-163 has addressed the structural issues used by the Technical Committee as a basis for rejection of that proposal. In the event that the Technical Committee acts affirmatively on that comment, this language will be necessary to provide a clear organizational outline to facilitate proper use of this chapter. The current text did not provide for engineered design of smoke detection systems. This addition distinguishes prescriptive designs from performance-based designs developed using the method outlined in Chapter 5 of NFPA 101, The Life Safety Code, and in Appendix B of this document.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The heading was deleted by the committee action on Comment on 72-133 (332).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-155a-(2-3.4.6.3) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Initiating Devices for Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-146aRECOMMENDATION: Revise 2-3.4.6.3 to insert the word “considered” after the words “shall be.” SUBSTANTIATION: The revised text is an editorial change to reflect the committee’s intent that a beam detector be considered as equivalent to a row of spot detectors for spacing requirements.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-156-(2-3.6.1.3) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-176RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee statement does not address the substantiation provided in the proposal. The fact that there is an exception does not make the requirement appropriate. B. The proposed text puts the Committee’s intent in the body of the standard, and eliminates both the scope issue raised in the proposal and the need for the exception.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reaffirms its original action on Proposal 72-176. The committee responds to the submitters original substantiation with the following: It is the committee’s prerogative to recommend against installing smoke detectors during construction which could affect the performance of the detector. The Code does not prohibit installations during construction but requires appropriate maintenance to assure their performance.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-(Log #143)

Committee: SIG-IDS72-157-(2-3.6.1.4) : Reject SUBMITTER: John M. Cholin, J.M. Cholin Consultants, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-178RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 2.3.6.1.4* Stratification. Where ceiling heights exceed 10 ft, performance-based designs shall be used in accordance with 2.3.1.1 and 2.3.1.2 of this Chapter. SUBSTANTIATION: The current language “requires” that the potential for stratification “shall be taken into account”. But it supplies no specific criteria provided that would permit an independent determination of whether this requirement had been complied with. Consequently, this is an unenforceable requirement. The current text provides no method for evaluating the impact of high ceilings on the performance of the system. Since our comment regarding 72-163 has addressed the structural issues the Technical Committee relied upon for its rejection if the Technical Committee acts favorably on that comment it will be able to also act favorably on this as it directs the user to the beginning of the sections where a design basis is selected. Performance-based design methods provide means by which the response of detectors can be predicted for given fire scenarios. The use of plume divergence correlations based upon heat release rate and compartment height, permit credible prediction of detector performance once a performance correlation is selected.

This revision leads the user to performance-based designs developed using the method outlined in Chapter 5 of NFPA 101, The Life Safety Code, and in Annex B of this document.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The effects of stratification should be always considered regardless of ceiling height since stratification may be caused by a variety of parameters in addition to ceiling height.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-158-(2-6 [2002 Ed. 5.10.4 (New)]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Jon Nisja, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-146aRECOMMENDATION: Add new section to read: 5-10.4 Where systems are installed in occupancies with multiple tenant spaces served by one system riser. The system shall be provided with listed water flow detection devices to identify the protected area where water is flowing. SUBSTANTIATION: In multiple tenant buildings served by one system riser there are no current requirements to address the importance to firefighting personnel in the identification as to where in the building the water is flowing. This present situation causes unnecessary time delays and contributes to the potential for unnecessary property damage due to forcible entry in events where the flow detection device has actuated falsely. The loss is property damage. The proposal will assist fire departments in their discovery of alarm status.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The recommendation is outside the scope of the committee.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & OuimetteCOMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: MCCORMICK: The comment introduces new material, which has not been out for public comment. Additional waterflow alarms in some multi-tenant occupancies may be warranted but practical limitations also need to be defined since requiring a waterflow for every tenant space regardless of size would not be cost-effective or warranted.

————————————————-(Log #222)

Committee: SIG-IDS72-159-(2-6.3) : Accept SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-180RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept in Principle. SUBSTANTIATION: Comment on Committee Statement - did someone on the Technical Committee submit the intent of this proposal to the NFPA 13 Technical Committee?COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-(Log #8)

Committee: SIG-IDS72-160-(2-8.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-182RECOMMENDATION: Accept the original proposal while leaving 2-8.2.3 and 2-8.3 in the code and renumbered as 2-8.2.1.4 and 2-8.3, respectively or as the committee sees fit. SUBSTANTIATION: I don’t believe the original proposal asked for these to be deleted as the committee implied. The scope of when manual stations are to be provided are properly covered in the other codes and should not be identified in this code to be “throughout” as indicated by the proposer. 2-8.2.1 could be rewritten to say “Manual fire alarm boxes shall be located so they are unobstructed and accessible.”, while letting the “where” up to the building codes.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee acknowledges that the Committee Statement on Proposal 72-182 was misleading. However, the action is reaffirmed because the current wording addresses the minimum requirements for manual fire alarm boxes. This does not prohibit building codes from modifying requirements in specific installations.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

338



72-161-(2-8.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Michael Minieri, SimplexGrinnell LPCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-182RECOMMENDATION: The committee should ACCEPT or otherwise adopt revisions to meet the intent of the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: Both sentences in the Committee’s Statement are blatantly false, (1) The submittal does NOT propose the removal of ANY current language. (2) 2-8.2.1 through 2-8.2.4 are all SHALL statements, without the qualification that such devices must first be required by another section of the Code. NFPA 101, 9.6.2.5 is a CLEAR example of a provision that APPEARS TO BE and has long been erroneously PERCEIVED TO BE in conflict. This proposal provides the CLARITY of intent that the committee has long been criticized for not providing when given the opportunity.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the committee action and statement on Comment 72-160 (Log #8).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-162-(2-8.4) : Reject SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-185RECOMMENDATION: Delete the text or move it to the appendix. SUBSTANTIATION: This is not the correct information for all manual station within buildings. For general evacuation, where leaving the building is appropriate, it is, but for other occupancies it is not. In health care, the nurse pulls the manual station to summon help to that location. I recommend that you place the information in the annex as it is explanatory information for general evacuation systems where they leave the building.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: This applies only to local systems and hospitals are usually required to have offsite monitoring.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-162a-(2-8.4) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Initiating Devices for Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-185RECOMMENDATION: Delete the wording “for the municipality” in the recommendation of proposal 72-185. SUBSTANTIATION: The instructions to call the “fire department” are more clear than the municipality.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-163-(2-10.1 [2002 Ed. 5.14.1.1 (New) ]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Jon Nisja, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-146aRECOMMENDATION: Add a new 5.14.1.1 to read: Smoke detectors used to prevent smoke spread shall be capable of initiating control of fans, dampers, doors, and other equipment when all other devices on the same

circuit have been manually or automatically placed in the alarm condition. SUBSTANTIATION: The wording in 3-9.3.2 of the 1999 edition seems to have been deleted in the proposal. This brings that language back into the document. Also, there have been many cases where control functions on the circuit have not worked due to not enough power available.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The recommendation is outside the scope of the committee.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-164-(2-10.6) : Reject SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-191RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that this Proposal be referred to the Technical Committee on Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems for action. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: As the submitter has stated, the proposed requirements are not prohibited by the current text of 3.9.6.2 (6.15.6.2, 2002). The issue raised by the submitter in regard to smoke detectors with a secondary power source is covered in Section 3.9.6.4. The committee affirms that it is not a requirement of this code that all devices cause closure of all smoke doors.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: LARRIMER: I disagree with the committee statement. Section 3-9.6.4 does not have anything to do with smoke detectors that have a secondary power source as indicated. It only states that magnetic hold open devices need not be backed up with batteries (i.e., loss of power and the doors may close). The committee did not clarify that smoke detectors installed to only close one door need not be connected to the fire alarm system. In fact, they seem to indicate that if one is installed that it must be connected to the fire alarm system with their statement on Proposal 72-289. This is the same issue as identified in Comments 72-74 and 72-75 and it is still not clear. The committee should clarify that a smoke detector used solely for a fire safety control function whether it be fan shut down or closing of a door or whatever, is not required by this code to be connected to the fire alarm system. Or say the opposite, but clarify the issue for the users of the code.

————————————————-


72-165-(2-10.6.5.1.1) : Accept SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-192RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: “If the depth of wall section above the door is 24 in. (610 mm) or less, one ceiling mounted or wall mounted detector shall be required on one side of the doorway only. Figure 2-10.6.5.1.1 parts A or B shall apply. SUBSTANTIATION: This will allow frame mounted detectors as well as detectors that meet 2-3.4 that are wall mounted to be used. I don’t believe that allowing only ceiling mounted detectors was the intent.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

339



72-165a-(Figure 2-10.6.5.1.1) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Initiating Devices for Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-192,193,194RECOMMENDATION: Revise Figure 2-10.6.5.1.1 in accordance with the following.

SUBSTANTIATION: Revisions are made to correlate with the changes made through the committee actions on Comments 72-165,166,167.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-166-(2-10.6.5.1.2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-193RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: “...ceiling-mounted or wall mounted detectors...”. SUBSTANTIATION: Detectors are listed to be installed on the wall as well as on the ceiling and would provide the necessary detection for smoke control.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-167-(2-10.6.5.1.2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-194RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: “...ceiling-mounted or wall mounted detectors...”. SUBSTANTIATION: Detectors are listed to be installed on the wall as well as on the ceiling and would provide the necessary detection for smoke control.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-(Log #12)

Committee: SIG-IDS72-168-(2-10.6.5.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-196RECOMMENDATION: Add an exception to read as follows: “Exception: Where special considerations as defined in 2-3.6 would not permit a detector to be installed in the space, the detectors can be placed on the opposite side of the door.” SUBSTANTIATION: There are many instances where there is a need to hold open doors to rooms that may have conditions that would trigger nuisance alarms due to the ambient conditions such as laundries and mechanical rooms with dust/steam. This exception would allow the detector to be placed so that nuisance alarms would not occur. The other options open to the user are, to restrict the door from being held open by magnets, (this will have the users bringing out the wood chocks creating a more unsafe environment), or place the detector in the room in violation of 2-3.6.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Section 2-10.6.6.2 adequately addresses the submitter’s concerns.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-169-(Chapter 3 [2002 Ed. Chapter 6]) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-198aRECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed in the voting by Larrimer. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. The Technical Correlating Committee advises that Chapter Scopes (Application) statements are the responsibility of the Technical Correlating Committee and the Technical Correlating Committee accepts the Committee Action concerning Section 6.1. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee has reviewed the comment and affirms that the references are correct.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-170-(Chapter 3 [2002 Ed. 6.9.4.3, 6.9.4.5, 6.9.9.2, and 6.15.2.8]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-198aRECOMMENDATION: Delete 6-9.4.3, 6-9.4.5, 6-9.9.2, and 6-15.2.8. SUBSTANTIATION: A. These requirements explicitly violate the intent of the standard as stated in 1-2.1: “It is the intent of this code to establish the required levels of performance, extent of redundancy, and quality of installation but not to establish the methods by which these requirements are to be achieved.” It is not within the purview of the Chapter 3 committee to modify the intent of the standard. B. Obviously, routing cable through a 2-hour fire rated enclosure does not ensure that it will not be exposed to fire. Flammable liquid storage rooms are often 2-hour rated enclosures. If this option is to be effective - and this submitter is highly doubtful of the proposition that buildings should be built to protect the fire alarm system - the 2-hour rated enclosure must be dedicated to the fire alarm cable. Since nobody is going to do this, it’s a pointless

340

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAalternative. C. No substantiation has been provided demonstrating that there is a survivability problem with notification appliance circuits, fire command center circuits, firefighter telephone circuits, or smoke control circuits that needs to be fixed, or that such a problem, if it exists, will be fixed by the proposed requirements. D. No documentation has been provided to substantiate the claim that CI cable or other 2-hour fire-rated cable will actually provide any improvement over other types of wiring with respect to maintaining the operability of fire alarm systems or critical system functions under actual fire conditions. No actual fire testing of systems has been conducted to substantiate this claim and no actual fire history been cited. E. No documentation has been provided to substantiate the relationship, if any, between UL’s listing tests for fire-rated cables and the conditions such cables might be exposed to in an actual fire. This is important because, as noted in the definition of “fire-rating” in Chapter 1, “Fire Rating” means: “The classification indicating in time (hours) the ability of a structure or component to withstand a standardized fire test. This classification does not necessarily reflect performance of rated components in an actual fire.” For example, when CI cable is heated for a minute or so on a kitchen stove and then bent 90 degrees in two planes, the fire-resistant insulation flakes off. While this is not a particularly “scientific” test, it does suggest that the “survivability” of CI cable in an actual fire likely depends as much on the integrity of the cable supports as it does on the cable itself. Other fire-rated cable types may have the same or similar limitations. There are presently NO REQUIREMENTS for CI cable supports, noncombustible or otherwise, in NFPA 72. F. Under fire/firefighting conditions, it is not clear how provision of fire resistive cable can possibly ensure the operability of a fire alarm system comprised largely of electrically operated plastic devices, with listed operating temperatures of (typically) no more than 120°F, which promptly short out in the presence of water. Because system operability is dependent on multiple, interconnected components, the overall system “survivability” under fire conditions is no better than the “survivability” of most vulnerable component exposed to the fire. G. At best, assuming adequate noncombustible supports, requirements for CI or other fire-resistive cable only protect the cable; they do not ensure the operability of the fire alarm system or any critical system functions under fire conditions. Even if CI or other fire-resistive cable is part of the solution to a “survivability” problem - a problem that remains to be substantiated - such cables are obviously not a complete solution. H. When the objective is system operability and that operability is dependent on multiple, interconnected system components, most of which are more vulnerable to fire and water than the interconnecting cables, an incomplete solution is NO solution. NFPA 72 should not be mandating expensive, unproven, partial solutions to hypothetical problems. I. These CI cable requirements have been being pushed since the NFPA annual meeting in May 1996, in several different sections of the code, at the behest of the manufacturer (Rockbestos-Suprenant Cable Corp.) and with the apparent assistance of special experts on both the Technical Committees and the Technical Correlating Committee. This is occurring despite the unambiguous violation of the intent of the standard as stated in 1-2.1, the clear lack of technical substantiation, and the obvious fact that protecting cable doesn’t ensure system functionality - which is the sole, presumed, and highly questionable benefit offered as justification. 1) In order to ensure that the integrity of the consensus standards making process is not “FOR SALE,” it would be appropriate for the ROC to record which NFPA 72 Technical Committee and Technical Correlating Committee members are now, or who have previously, been retained by the submitter pursuant to the objective of getting these requirements into NFPA 72. COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT:The requirements for fire alarm circuit survivability apply only to a small percentage of systems in which building occupants are only partially evacuated or relocated in the event of a fire. The submitter is under the false impression that the intent of the survivability requirements is to assure the complete operability of the fire alarm system under all possible fire conditions. This is not, nor has it ever been, the intent of the survivability requirements. The committee recognizes, and the code reflects, the fact that direct fire attack of fire alarm system components can compromise the operation of the circuits, devices, and appliances serving the immediate fire area. The survivability requirements are intended to minimize the possibility of attack by fire interrupting communication to areas outside the fire area. For example, circuits that serve various floors in a multi-floor building may run through areas where they could be exposed to fire before they reach the floor(s) they serve. Providing fire rated construction, a fire rated cable assembly, or protection of the area by a fire sprinkler system minimizes the possibility of impairment of service to areas outside the fire area. That specific fire alarm devices and components can be compromised by direct exposure to a fire is recognized and is addressed by current code language in (new) 6.9.4.2 which states, “Survivable fire alarm systems shall be designed and installed such that attack by fire within an evacuation signaling zone shall not impair control and operation of the notification appliances outside the evacuation signaling zone.” This language recognizes that fire attack may impair circuits in the immediate fire area while minimizing impairment of circuits that serve areas outside the immediate fire area. This is the same requirement that has appeared in previous editions of the code. The submitter states that there have been no specific fire tests to show that fire rated cable assemblies perform better than non-fire rated assemblies. This assertion is no more valid than an assertion that there is no proof that a fire

rated door will last longer than a non-fire rated door when exposed to a fire, or that any other fire rated assembly will not last longer than a similar non-fire rated assembly. While there have been no specific fire tests on fire alarm systems as a whole, anyone familiar with fire protection and fire testing can examine the available fire test methods and listing procedures, and understand that a cable assembly that has passed a fire exposure test will survive longer in a given fire than a wire, cable, or assembly that cannot pass the fire exposure test. This is fire protection at its most basic level. The submitter’s assertion that survivability requirements were formulated in 1996 in order to market CI cable is also false. The requirements for survivability and the use of 2-hour fire rated cable assemblies as one method of meeting survivability requirements predate the introduction of CI cable to the market or its introduction to the National Fire Alarm Code. Lastly, the submitter makes totally unsubstantiated, and false accusation that a specific manufacturer has unduly influenced members of the technical committee and that the NFPA committee process might be corrupt and “FOR SALE.” Anyone who chooses to actively participate in the committee process will quickly find that these accusations are patently false and have no basis in fact. For the record the facts are: 1. All actions taken by the Technical Committee were in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. 2. There have been no attempts by any manufacturer or any individuals to influence the committee concerning the topic other than the submission and discussion of proposals and comments during Technical Committee meetings as part of the normal NFPA technical committee process. 3. At various times two members of the committee have been engaged to provide consulting services for a manufacturer of CI cable during two different code cycles. In accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects, both members identified themselves to the committee as a consultant to a CI cable manufacturer during committee deliberations. Their actions were limited to discussion of the proposals or comments they submitted. 4. There is more than one manufacturer of CI cable. 5. The Technical Committee has acted consistently concerning requirements for survivability of fire alarm system circuits. These actions have been upheld by the Technical Correlating Committee, the NFPA membership during adoption of the standard, and by the NFPA Standards Council in issuing the document. There are avenues of appeal to the NFPA membership, the NFPA Standards Council and the NFPA Board of Directors if the actions of the Technical Committee are deemed inappropriate. None of these avenues of appeal have been initiated for any actions taken by this Technical Committee. The committee understands that the reference in the recommendation should be to 6-9.9.2, not 6-9.2.2. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: DUMAIS: As the committee is aware, the submitter drafted most of the current appendix text explaining the intent of this section of the code and participated extensively in the development of these requirements, including last cycle’s survivability task group. Consequently, he is under no “false impression that the intent of the survivability’s requirements is to assure the complete operability of the fire alarm system under all possible fire conditions.” The committee’s comment on fire testing implies conclusions about the performance of fire rated products in real fires which the definition of “fire-related” in Chapter 1 explicitly points out are invalid. Fire-rated products do not necessarily last longer or remain operable longer in real fires than unrated products, and no one at UL or FM will tell you that they do. The fact is that NO FIRE TESTING has been done to demonstrate that using CI cable in lieu of conventional cable provides any improvement in SYSTEM survivability under anything remotely approaching realistic building fire conditions. Consequently, considering the total absence of any corroborating fire history, the “survivability” justification for the increased cost of providing CI cable is, at this point, purely hypothetical. The submitter did not assert that survivability requirements were formulated in 1966 in order to market CI cable; he asserted that specific requirements for CI cable have been pushed on the Technical Committees and on the Technical Correlating Committee by committee members who happened to be paid consultants for a manufacturer of CI cable; an assertion corroborated by this committee statement. Neither did the submitter assert that a specific manufacturer has unduly influenced members of the technical committee or the consensus standards making process. He simply pointed out that the Technical Committee was accepting proposals mandating the use of CI cable “despite the unambiguous violation of the intent of the standard in 1-2.1, the clear lack of technical substantiation, and the obvious fact that protecting cable doesn’t ensure system functionality” at the same time certain committee and Technical Correlating Committee members were being paid by a CI cable manufacturer to try and get these requirements into the code. All of these issues were enumerated in the comment substantiation, though the committee chose to attack the submitter rather than addressing them. Under these circumstances, and as the committee apparently agrees, it’s entirely appropriate to put the facts on record so the the public knows that at least the rules regarding conflicts of interest were followed. In addition to the above, the committee statement ignores the committee actions on several other proposals pertaining to CI cable requirements. The action on this comment should have been ACCEPT.

341



72-171-(Chapter 3 [2002 Ed. Chapter 6]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-198aRECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on this proposal does not comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects because the revised text contains numerous changes that go far beyond the “manual of style” justification for the proposal. B. Combining changes resulting from public proposals with wholesale “manual of style” changes pursuant to a committee proposal makes it very difficult to track all of the changes that have been made, and nearly impossible to verify that those changes comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects. C. The manual of style proposals from each technical committee should be stand-alone proposals which can be reviewed to verify that the only thing that has changed is the style; not the requirements. D. Correlation of accepted manual of style proposal - presumably editorial revisions - with other changes initiated via public proposals should be handled by the Technical Correlating Committee or NFPA staff.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee action on this proposal was in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. The proposal was prepared as directed by the Technical Correlating Committee to incorporate required Manual of Style changes. Any technical changes are noted by the inclusion of the Proposal Number addressing the change. Any recommendations the submitter has concerning administration of NFPA Technical Committee projects should be directed to the Secretary of the NFPA Standards Council.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-172-(Chapter 3 [2002 Ed. Chapter 6]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-198aRECOMMENDATION: Change committee action to Accept in Principle with additional changes. SUBSTANTIATION: The reorganization of the Chapter needs additional work. For example, Section 6.9.4 (Subsection of 6-9) applies to Emergency Voice/Alarm Communications Systems only due to the consolidation. Existing section 3-8.4.1.1 applies to all fire alarm systems that relocate or partially evacuate occupants, whether it is a voice system or not. There is no justification to delete these requirements from non-EVAC systems. Section 6.9.4.3 and 6.9.4.5 eliminate the use of conductors in raceway, i.e., they require cable. Why is there a distinction between C.I. cable and 2-hour cable, and what is that distinction? The proposed text has left us wondering what the difference is. There is no justification for the deletion of the 100 foot distance for the Fire Command Center in the Committee Satement. Also, delete Section 6.8.3.5 Exception No. 2 including associated annex material. Exception No. 2 was added in the 1999 edition of NFPA 72, to provide a less costly alternative, than the need for a continuously manned trained operator at the fire command station required by Exception No. 1, to permit the fire alarm speakers to be used for non-emergency purposes. Unfortunately, Exception No. 2, as it now appears in the proposed section, does not provide a usable alternative. Contrary to the original intent, Exception No. 2 imposes no additional restrictions on fire alarm systems not already required by the Code. It unintentionally negates the existing restriction (continuously manned by a trained operator) required by Exception No. 1. If Exception No. 2 is not deleted, Section 6.8.3.5 permits all fire alarm system speakers to be used for non-emergency purposes. No justification was provided to substantiate this major change.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Commentor does not provide specific wording for proposed changes to the text of the Code.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanCOMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: ANDERSON: Sections 6.9.4.2 and 6.9.4.3 on survivability are located under 6.9 Emergency Voice/Alarm Communications, however, these requirements should apply to all types of notification outputs, not just voice. I recommend that 6.9.4.2 and 6.9.4.3 be renumbered and moved to 6.8.5.4 and 6.8.5.5, under 6.8.5 Fire Alarm System Notification Outputs. Subsections under 6.9.4 should then be renumbered.

————————————————-


72-173-(Chapter 3 [2002 Ed. 6.15.2.2]) : Accept in Part SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnellCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-198aRECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept but with the correct information (for 6.15.2.2) as approved in Proposals 72-92 and 92a. SUBSTANTIATION: The committee Accepted Proposal 72-266, which moves existing section 1-5.4.2.2 into Chapter 3. However, the text was modified by Proposals 72-92 and 72-92a. Furthermore, Proposal 72-266 should be changed from Accept to Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Part The committee accepts the recommendation to continue accepting Proposal 72-92. The committee rejects the recommendation to continue accepting 72-92a.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has rejected Proposal 72-92a via its action on Comment 72-76 (Log #5). See committee action and statement on Comment 72-76 (Log #5).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-174-(3-2) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: William J. Aaron, Jr., Code Consultants, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-198RECOMMENDATION: Revise the following to read: “The systems covered in this chapter are intended to be used for the protection of life by automatically indicating the necessity for evacuation of the building or fire area, the existence of a heat, fire or smoke condition within the protected premises, and for the protection of property through the automatic notification of responsible persons and for the automatic activation of fire safety functions. The requirements of Chapters 1, 2, 4, and 5 shall also apply unless they are in conflict with this chapter. SUBSTANTIATION: As indicated in Chapter 1-2, Scope, NFPA 72 covers the application, installation, location, performance, and maintenance of fire alarm systems and their components. Chapter 1-2, Purpose, Paragraph 1-2.1, indicates “The purpose of this code is to define the means of signal initiation, transmission, notification, and annunciation; the levels of performance, and the reliability of the various types of fire alarm systems.” Appendix A Chapter A-1-2.1 indicates “Fire alarm systems intended for life safety should be designed, installed and maintained to provide indication and warning of abnormal fire conditions.” Paragraph A-1-2.1 also indicates “the fire alarm system should be part of a Life Safety plan that also includes a combination of prevention, protection, egress, and other features particular to that occupancy.” The intent of this code is to indicate the existence of an abnormal (heat, fire or smoke) condition and not to indicate the necessity for evacuation of the building or fire area. In addition, even though the committee states that the existing text requires fire alarm system notification only where the need for evacuation exists, the grammar does not reflect this. Given this, the best solution is to remove the “evacuation”.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Revise text of this section to read: The systems covered in Chapter 6 shall be for the protection of life, property or both by indicating the existence of heat, fire or smoke within the protected premises. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee’s revised wording meets the submitter’s intent and more clearly defines the function of Chapter 6 systems. The text has been revised to comply with the MOS relative to mandatory language. The reference to other chapters has been deleted as it is already referenced in 6.1.2. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: MANDE: The committee has not provided adequate substantiation for its complete turn about for its actions between the proposal and comment stages. The committee vote for rejecting Proposal 72-198 was 25 to 2. Neither the original submitter nor the two committee members who voted against the committee’s action to reject did not submit a comment to support the original proposal. Only one comment was received supporting the original proposal. Though the proposal and comments were more concerned with updating the code by adding relocation (and probably protect in place) as an option to evacuation, the committee chose to delete “evacuation”, as suggested by the submitter of the comment, as a simpler fix that would satisfy him. I have no problem with the addition of “...indicating the existence of heat, fire or smoke within the protected premises.” Many systems, but not all, now have this capability, but it is of little value to most building occupants. An evacuation, relocation or protect in place message would still be required. Deleting the reference to “evacuation” is a major code change. It has been a primary feature of fire alarm systems since the first edition of NFPA 72 in 1964 (and in the general NFPA standard on signaling systems before then). Most, if not all, listed fire alarm systems include evacuation. It is one of

342

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAthe major reasons why fire alarm systems are required by law in all public buildings, its deletion will cause more confusion than is now caused by the language in the present code. I strongly disagree with the last part of the submitter’s substantiation (“...even though the committee states that the existing text requires fire alarm system notification only where the need for evacuation exists, the grammar does not reflect this. Given this, the best solution is to remove the “evacuation”.) The best solution would have been to correct the problem by revising the grammar. Both the submitter and the committee had an obligation and the opportunity to do this, but didn’t even try. It is too late to do the right thing during the present code cycle. But, we still have the time to reject a change that will increase confusion and will be of minor benefit to those who want other options to evacuation. Having recognized the problem, let’s fix it the right way via a Tentative Interim Amendment or in the next code cycle. COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: CLARY: I support the action of the Committee on this comment, but feel that the principle of protection of mission should have been added to the text. This concept is now part of performance based codes and should be a corner stone to prescriptive codes as well. The revised text should be “...for the protection of life, property, mission or all...”.

————————————————-


72-175-(3-2) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: William J. Aaron, Jr., Code Consultants, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-198RECOMMENDATION: Revise: “The systems covered in this chapter are intended to be used for the protection of life by automatically indicating the necessity for evacuation of the building or fire area, the existence of a heat, fire or smoke condition within the protected premises, and for the protection of property through the automatic notification of responsible persons and for the automatic activation of fire safety functions. The requirements of Chapters 1, 2, 4 and 5 shall also apply unless they are in conflict with this chapter.” SUBSTANTIATION: As indicated in Chapter 1-2, Scope, NFPA 72, covers the application, installation, location, performance, and maintenance of fire alarm systems and their components. Chapter 1-2, Purpose, Paragraph 1-2.1, indicates “The purpose of this code is to define the means of signal initiation, transmission, notification, and annunciation, the levels of performance, and the reliability of various types of fire alarm systems.” Appendix A Chapter A-1.2.1 indicates “Fire alarm systems intended for life safety should be designed, installed and maintained to provide indication and warning of abnormal fire conditions.” Paragraph A-1.2.1 also indicates “the fire alarm system should be part of a Life Safety plan that also includes a combination of prevention, protection, egress, and other features particular to that occupancy.” The intent of this code is to indicate the existence of an abnormal (heat, fire or smoke) condition and not to indicate the necessity for evacuation of the building or fire area. In addition, even though the committee states that the existing text requires fire alarm system notification only where the need for evacuation exists, the grammar does not reflect this. Given this, the best solution is to remove the “evacuation”.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on Comment 72-174 (Log #261).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: MANDE: Comment 72-175 is a duplicate of Comment 72-174. See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-174.COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: CLARY: I support the action of the Committee on this comment, but feel that the principle of protection of mission should have been added to the text. This concept is now part of performance based codes and should be a corner stone to prescriptive codes as well. The revised text should be “...for the protection of life, property, mission or all...”.

————————————————-


72-176-(3-2.3.3, 3-8.2, 3-8.2.7, 3-9.7.3, and 3-9.7.5) : Reject SUBMITTER: Martin H. Reiss, The RJA Group, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-202RECOMMENDATION: Accept proposal in part. Delete proposal paragraphs 3-8.2.7.4 and 3-8.2.7.5 for separate printers and processors. SUBSTANTIATION: This should be a requirement for integrated fire and security systems which is part of the committee scope. These proposals were originally developed by a Technical Correlating Committee Task Group.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter has not provided technical substantiation to cause the committee to change its rejection of Proposal 72-202. The committee fails to see how the removal of the proposed requirement for separate printers and processors creates a distinction between a combination system (that is already recognized by the NFAC) and an

integrated system. If there are any task groups created to study this issue, representation from the Technical Committee on Protected Premises should be included.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: CLARY: I am not in support of the committee action on the comment. More and more system installations are moving towards true integration and the Code needs to address these systems with specific language. Within the committee statement there is the following sentence; If there is any task groups created to study this issue, representation from the Technical Committee on Protected Premises should be included. I would thus urge the Technical Correlating Committee to form such a committee so that this issue can be explored before the next cycle of this Code.COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: TRANSUE: Adequate substantiation was provided by a task group on the original proposal.

————————————————-


72-177-(3-2.4) : TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the action on Comment 72-177 (comment only) be reported as “Hold” consistent with Section 4-4.6.2.2 of the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. The Technical Correlating Committee also directs the title of Section 2-1.4.2.4 be revised to read as follows: “2-1.4.2.4 Nonrequired Coverage” In addition the Technical Correlating Committee directs that the word “Supplementary” be removed from the definition of the term “Nonrequired System.” These actions have been taken to properly correlate the use of the term “Supplementary” as defined in the Code.SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-203RECOMMENDATION: Coordinate the terminology with other sections of the code by making it “Supplementary non-required/voluntary systems.” SUBSTANTIATION: Chapter 2 uses “Supplementary (non-required) coverage” (See 2-1.2.4). If this is to mean the same throughout the code, the terminology, whatever it may be, should be the same from chapter to chapter.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Revise the recommendation to read: Supplementary (non-required/voluntary) SystemsCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee revised the recommendation for editorial clarity. The Technical Committee advises the Technical Correlating Committee that this term is used in other chapters and should be correlated for consistency throughout the document. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-(Log #36)

Committee: SIG-PRO72-178-(Table 3-5) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-214RECOMMENDATION: Delete Style E. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The table explicitly indicates that this style EXCEEDS the minimum requirement for Class A circuits. B. NFPA 72 is a minimum standard; the committee frequently uses “exceeds the requirements of a minimum standard” as justification for rejecting public proposals.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: There are currently systems in use that employ these circuit styles. Modification of these systems require compliance with these styles. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: DUMAIS: The committee statement is incorrect. There is no requirement in NFPA 72 mandating that existing circuits be replaced in kind, and even if there was it wouldn’t be relevant to the issue because the requested change does not prohibit anyone from replacing any existing circuit in kind. It is noted that menus of alternatives which are recognized as acceptable but not required (by NFPA standards) for any particular application were addressed in the recent Standards Council decision on limited combustible cable. In that decision, the Standards Council cited direction from the NEC Technical Correlating Committee which said: “it is inappropriate to attempt to include references to all products that do not have a need for specific application rules or products that are permitted but not required.” All of the

343

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA“styles” in Tables 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7, including “Style E” are products which are permitted but not required by NFPA 72, and none of them belong in a minimum standard. Minimum circuit performance requirements are detailed in 1-5.8, and ANY circuits complying with 1-5.8 are acceptable for fire alarm use. The fact is that NFPA 72 is a minimum standard, and that “Style E” exceeds the requirements for a minimum standard on its face. The committee should accept the comment.

————————————————-


72-179-(Tables 3-5, 3-6 & 3-7) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-215RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on this proposal does not comply with the Regulations Gbboverning Committee Projects because the committee ignored most of the approximately 3 pages of substantiation provided. B. With the exception of the specious claim that these tables are vital for determining the performance of fire alarm systems - something they obviously can’t do if they’re incomplete, inaccurate, out-of-scope, and full of “styles” that don’t actually exist - the committee has not addressed the proposal substantiation at all. Consequently, the submitter has no idea at all what “additional substantiation” the committee feels is necessary. It is noted that this proposal provided MORE extensive substantiation than the vast majority of proposals accepted by Chapter 3 in this cycle. C. The fact that the style tables are seriously flawed has been recognized on the Chapter 3 Technical Committee for years. Nonetheless, they’ve been retained cycle after cycle on the promise that they’ll eventually get “fixed” and turn out to be really valuable. Well, they haven’t been fixed, they’re still seriously messed up, and once again, no substantive improvements are pending. The problems cited are real; if the committee can’t agree on how to fix the tables, they should do their duty and delete them. D. The fact that incomplete, confused, and inaccurate tables are referenced in local building codes (they’re NOT referenced in the model codes) is not a reason to keep them; on the contrary, it accentuates the problem and points out the need to get rid of them. One jurisdiction in Texas looked really stupid in 1999 after they mandated “Style X” notification appliance circuits - 2-wire circuits that operate over an open circuit (nice trick there...) - only to find out that “Style X” doesn’t actually exist. The Chapter 3 committee doesn’t look any better endlessly perpetuating this nonsense.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee action on this proposal was in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. The commenter makes a false assertion that, “The fact that the style tables are seriously flawed has been recognized on the Chapter 3 Technical Committee for years.” The Technical Committee does not agree that the tables are flawed and has never made any such statement to that effect. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: DUMAIS: In order to assure due process of public proposals and comments, technical committees are required to provide a complete explanation for their actions; a mandate they cannot meet without addressing or refuting the substantiation provided. This occured numerous times in the ROP and was duly brought to the committee’s attention in the ROC. Rather than providing complete explanation of their actions as required, the committee elected to attack the sumitter instead. For the record, the extensive substantiation provided for ROP 72-215 stands unrefuted. None of this material is new as all of it has been submitted and discussed at prior techincial committee meetings. The statement in comment 72-179: that “The fact that the style tables are seriously flawed has been recognized on the Chapter 3 Technical Committee for years” refers to those prior submissions and extensive prior discussions in the ROP and ROC meetings. It does not purport to cite published committee statements in the ROP’s and ROC’s. The fact is that there are numerous clear cut problems with these tables which have been properly and repeatedly brought to the attention of the Chapter 3 Technical Committee over the last several cycles. The committee should either refute the proposal substantiation, correct the problems with the tables, or accept the proposal.

————————————————-


72-180-(Table 3-6) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-216RECOMMENDATION: Delete Styles 2, 5, 6 and 7. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The table explicitly indicates that all of these styles EXCEED the minimum requirement for Class A circuits. B. NFPA 72 is a minimum standard; the committee frequently uses “exceeds the requirements of a minimum standard” as justification for rejecting public

proposals.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: There are currently systems in use that employ these circuit styles. Modification of these systems require compliance with these styles. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: DUMAIS: The committee statement is incorrect. There is no requirement in NFPA 72 mandating that existing circuits be replaced in kind, and even if there was, it wouldn’t be relevant to the issue because the requested change does not prohibit anyone from replacing any existing circuit in kind. It is noted that menus of alternatives which are recognized as acceptable but not required (by NFPA standards) for any particular application where addressed in the recent Standards Council decision on limited combustible cable. In that decision, the Standards Council cited direction from the NEC Technical Correlating Committee which said: “It is inappropriate to attempt to include references to all products that do not have a need for specific application rules or products that are permitted but not required.” All of the “styles” in Tables 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7, including “Styles 2,5, 6 & 7” are products whch are permitted but not required by NFPA 72, and none of them belong in a minimum standard. Minimum circuit performance requirements are detailed in 1-5.8, and ANY circuits complying with 1-5.8 are acceptable for fire alarm use. The fact is that NFPA 72 is a minimum standard, and that “Styles 2, 5, 6, and 7” exceed the requirements for a minimum standard on their face. The committee should accept the comment.

————————————————-


72-181-(Table 3-6) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-216RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The submitter does not dispute that there may be a few existing systems somewhere that use these circuit styles. That does not, however, change the validity of the proposal substantiation. B. The committee statement does not comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects as it does not address any of the substantiation provided. C. The committee statement is incorrect in several respects: 1) The standard does not contain any requirement that says that existing circuits have to be replaced in kind. 2) A system owner’s ability to replace an existing circuit in kind does not depend in any way upon Table 3-6. 3) Because of the retroactivity clause in 1-2.3, these requirements are explicitly NOT APPLICABLE to existing systems. Consequently, modification of an existing system that happens to employ one of these circuit styles DOES NOT require compliance to the current edition of the standard. Worst case, it would require compliance to the edition of this standard that was in effect at the time the system was installed. Since this proposal will not change prior editions of the standard, this is not a problem.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on Comment 72-180 (Log #37).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: DUMAIS: The committee statement is incorrect. There is no requirement in NFPA 72 mandating that existing circuits be replaced in kind, and even if there was, it wouldn’t be relevant to the issue because the requested change does not prohibit anyone from replacing any existing circuit in kind. It is noted that menus of alternatives which are recognized as acceptable but not required (by NFPA standards) for any particular applications were addressed in the recent Standards Council decision on limited combustible cable. In that decision, the Standards Council cited direction from the NEC Technical Correlating Committee which said: “It is inappropriate to attempt to include references to all products that do not have a need for specific application rules or products that are permitted but not required.” All of the “styles” in Tables 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7, including “Styles 0.5, 3.5, and 4.5” are products which are permitted but not required by NFPA 72, and none of them belong in a minimum standard. Minimum circuit performace requirements are detailed in 1-5.8 and ANY circuits complying with 1-5.8 are acceptable for fire alarm use. The fact is that NFPA 72 is a minimum standard, and that “Styles 0.5, 3.5 and 4.5 do not meet that minimum for new systems because they’re no longer available as listed products. Existing systems are not at issue because the 2002 edition of the standard will not affect them. The committee should accept the comment.

————————————————-

344



72-182-(3-7) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-220RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Committee review the text of the protected premises chapter to insert the word “appliance” where appropriate. It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed in voting. Is it the intent of the Technical Committee to require that this type of notification appliance circuit meet the requirements for survivability in all cases? This actions shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on Comment 72-183 (Log #226).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-183-(3-7) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-220RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept in Principle and consider the Technical Correlating Committee’s statement and modify the committee action. SUBSTANTIATION: The committee statement is incorrect. The committee action text considerably exceeds the requirements for conventional notification appliance zones. Additionally, we are not sure their requirement can be met, and restricts a new technology without justification. The committee action text is completely different than the proponent’s recommendation. The proponent simply wanted it acknowledged that addressable notification appliances shall be assigned a Class or Style designation based on “both” Tables 3-6 and 3-7. The committee action has nothing to do with the submitter’s request. It does however, all but deny the use of addressable notification appliances; or at the least, it restricts them without justification. As the Technical Correlating Committee has pointed out...why do these appliances have to always meet survivability requirements? The committee needs to revisit this proposal and either accept it, or change their action to text that resembles the intent of the submitter.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Move 6.7.2 to 6.8.5.3 and revise the text to read: 6.8.5.3 Circuits for Addressable Notification Appliances. 6.8.5.3.1 Circuit configuration for addressable notification appliances shall comply with the applicable performance requirements for notification zones. 6.8.5.3.2 In protected premises with more than one notification zone, a single open, short-circuit or ground on the system installation conductors shall not affect operation of more than one notification zone. 6.8.5.3.3 Riser conductors installed in accordance with 6.9.4.3 that are monitored for integrity shall not be required to operate in accordance with 6.8.5.3.2. Renumber existing text accordingly.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The current verbiage in 6.7.2 is considered more restrictive than current practice for notification appliance circuits. The committee action on this comment addresses the concerns expressed by the submitter and the Technical Correlating Committee.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-184-(Table 3-7) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-221RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee statement is incorrect in several respects: 1) The standard does not contain any requirement that says that existing circuits have to be replaced in kind. 2) A system owner’s ability to replace an existing circuit in kind does not depend in any way upon Table 3-7. 3) Because of the retroactivity clause in 1-2.3, these requirements are explicitly NOT APPLICABLE to existing systems. Consequently, modification of an existing system that happens to employ one of these circuit

styles DOES NOT require compliance to the current edition of the standard. Worst case, it would require compliance to the edition of this standard that was in effect at the time the system was installed. Since this proposal will not change prior editions of the standard, this is not a problem. 4) The submitter respectfully disagrees with the Technical Committee that Style W and X notification appliance circuits are still available from manufacturers. There are no listed NACs that won’t operate over a single ground (Style Y), and the 2-wire NAC that operates over an open circuit (Style X) is a mythical beast. Please cite a manufacturer and model number for a currently manufactured, listed product complying with either style.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter’s assertion that existing systems would not have to comply with the current edition of the code is correct. However, any new circuits added to an existing system, or extension of existing circuits would have to comply with the current edition of the code. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: DUMAIS: The committee statement is incorrect. There is no requirement in NFPA 72 mandating that existing circuits - particularly obsolete circuit styles - be replaced in kind. It is noted that menus of alternatives which are recognized as acceptable but not required (by NFPA standards) for any particular application were addressed in the recent Standards Council decision on limited combustible cable. In that decision, the Standards Council cited direction from the NEC Technical Correlating Committee which said: “It is in appropriate to attempt to include references to all products that do not have a need for specific application rules or products that are permitted but not required.” All of the “styles” in Tables 3-5, 3-6 and 3-7, including “Styles W and X” are products which are permitted but not required by NFPA 72, and none of them belong in a minimum standard. Minimum circuit performance requirements are detailed in 1-5.8, and ANY circuits complying with 1-5.8 are acceptable for fire alarm use. The fact is that NFPA 72 is a minimum standard, and that “Styles W and X” do not meet that minimum for new systems because they’re not available as listed products. Existing systems are not at issue because the 2002 edition of the standard will not affect them. The committee should accept the comment.

————————————————-

(Log #CC400)Committee: SIG-PRO

72-184a-(6.8 (2002)) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-198aRECOMMENDATION: In Section 6.8 of Proposal 198a, add a new 6.8.1 to read:6.8.1 General. 6.8.1.1 Actuation time. Actuation of alarm notification appliances or emergency voice communications, fire safety functions and annunciation at the protected premises shall occur within 10 seconds after the activation of an initiating device.Relocate 6.17 and 6.18 from Proposal 72-198a to 6.8.1.2 and 6.8.1.3.In 6.8.1.3.1 change the reference from 1-5.4.11 to 6.8.1.3.Renumber remaining sections accordingly.Delete Section 6.15.2.2 SUBSTANTIATION: This relocation was intended to occur via the committee action on Proposal 72-266. This text was inadvertenly omitted from Proposal 198a. The 20 second requirement was changed to 10 seconds based on the committee’s action on Comment 72-78. Sections 6.17 and 6.18 have been relocated to enhance usability of the document. The requirements of Section 6.15.2.2 have been incorporated into Section 6.8.1.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-185-(3-8.1.4.4) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-228RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed in the voting. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee

345

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAProjects.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action on Comment 72-186 (Log #227).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-(Log #227)

Committee: SIG-PRO72-186-(3-8.1.4.4) : Accept SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-228RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the proposal and change the committee action to Accept. SUBSTANTIATION: We agree with Mr. Johnson’s Comment on Affirmative Vote regarding the inclusion of the word “only”. It is unnecessary and leaves the reader wondering what that “other” thing is that cannot be connected to the Control Unit and Remote Annunciators. The committee action changes the intent of the submitter. Literally, it doesn’t allow the Single-or Multiple-Station smoke alarm to provide the alarm in its installed location. Furthermore, changing the text to read, “...shall be permitted to only initiate a signal at the control unit(s)...” is going to result in someone initiating an alarm signal, which is the exact opposite of what the submitter is recommending. The intent of the proposal is to allow single-or Multiple-Station smoke alarms to be connected to a fire alarm system and remote annunciator to display an actuated smoke alarm for the purpose of investigation, prior to manual activation of the alarm system. However, it was never the intent to allow Single-or Multiple-Station smoke alarms to initiate an alarm. “A” correct operation (in this case) will be a supervisory signal with a visible indication for each device or each group of devices within a dwelling unit, guest room, etc. However, even a single source of annunciation for all smoke alarms (although unwise) would be acceptable.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee notes that this change occurs in 6.8.2.2 in Proposal 72-198a.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-187-(3-8.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Edward Walton, Draka USACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-230RECOMMENDATION: Accept proposal 72-230. SUBSTANTIATION: Even as a minimum code, it must protect the most critical circuits that more than one zone.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Requiring signaling line circuits to meet survivability requirements does not necessarily ensure proper operation of the system under emergency conditions. The committee has established a task group to study installation reliability and survivability of fire alarm systems as a whole.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanCOMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: CLARY: At the time of the ROP, I voted negative to the Committee Action. I still feel that these critical circuits require additional protection. However, I support the action of the Committee and Chair in the formation of a task group to study this issue before the next cycle of the Code. J. MOORE: Current fire alarm system technology allows a designer to provide a single signaling line circuit to serve a large number of initiating devices, notification appliances, and fire safety control functions. This exposes the system to the potential for a single point of failure which could potentially compromise operation of the entire system. Good design practice would dictate precautions to minimize the possibility of such a single point of failure. Proposal 72-230 to require signaling line circuits installed as a riser to be protected from the control panel until they enter the zone served is one of several methods available to minimize disruption of system operation. While I agree completely with the reasoning behind the proposal, I think further study is required to develop code language that addresses all possible methods of minimizing disruption of system operation, including, protection of circuits, circuit topology, control equipment capabilities, and limits on the number of devices or area that can be served by a single circuit. The Technical Committee on Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems has formed a task group to study the installation reliability and survivability of fire alarm systems. This is one area that will be addressed by the task group.

————————————————-(Log #228)

Committee: SIG-PRO72-188-(3-8.2.3) : Reject SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-231RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider and Accept the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: We agree with Doctor Clary’s observation. We also strongly disagree with the committee statement, which the Technical Correlating Committee also noted. This proposal does not consider security systems only. Although the submitter did not refer to processes monitoring, they would be considered under the proposal. We do not feel the committee gave this proposal serious consideration based on their statement. Reconsider this item and Accept it, or provide valid arguments against the submitters substantiations.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter has not provided additional technical substantiation to cause the committee to change its rejection of Proposal 72-231. The subject of this proposal has a far broader scope than can be addressed by the incorporation of two exceptions into the code. No justification has been provided for allowing degradation of the fire alarm system during any activity. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 26 NEGATIVE: 2 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: ANDERSON: The original proposal was rejected by the Technical Committee with the statement: “The incorporation of requirements for security systems is outside the scope of the ...Committee...”. This was an invalid reason by the committee because the proposal (and section 3-8.2.3) relates only to the non-fire portions of combination systems as they may affect the fire portions. Comment 72-188 is intended to allow practical and reasonable performance while maintenance operations are being performed on combination systems that use the same wiring for fire and non-fire systems. In particular, SLC wiring could degrade from style 7 to style 4 while a service representative was actually working on the wiring. Receipt of fire alarm signals would not be impaired. The action of the Technical Committee is unreasonable and may unnecessarily block the application of new technology to fire alarm systems. Comment 72-188 should be accepted. CLARY: I am not in suport of the committee action on the comment. More and more system installations are moving towards true integration and the Code needs to address these systems with specific language. Within the committee statement there is the following sentence: “The subject of this proposal has a far greater scope than can be addressed by the incorporation of the two exceptions into the code.” This may be so. I would thus urge the Technical Correlating Committee to form a committee on integrated systems so that this issue can be explored before the next cycle of this Code.

————————————————-


72-189-(3-8.2.3 Exceptions No. 1 and No. 2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-231RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that further consideration be given to comments made in voting. The Technical Correlating Committee notes that the incorporation of requirements for security systems is not outside the scope of the Technical Committee or project. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.

COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the committee action and statement on Comment 72-188 (Log #228).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-190-(3-8.2.4) : Accept SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-232

346

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPARECOMMENDATION: Continue to Reject this proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: We agree with the committee’s substantiation. The previous edition Exception No. 1 material (proposed to be) moved to the annex is misleading and has been misinterpreted and misrepresented by the submitter.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-191-(3-8.2.4 [2002 Ed. 6.8.3.5])) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Irving Mande, ESTCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-198a & 72-232RECOMMENDATION: Either delete Exception No. 2 (including associated appendix material), or delete 3-8.2.4 (and 6.8.3.5). SUBSTANTIATION: Exception No. 2 was added in the 1999 Edition of NFPA 72 to provide a less costly alternative, than the need for a continuously manned trained operator at the fire command station required by Exception No. 1, to permit the fire alarm speakers to be used for non-emergency purposes. Contrary to the original intent, a careful reading of Exception No. 2 reveals that its requirements do not impose any additional restrictions on fire alarm systems that are not already required by the Code. An unintended consequence of adding Exception No. 2 is that it is equivalent to having deleted, 3-8.2.4 (and 6.8.3.5), permitting all speakers on fire alarm systems to be used for non-emergency purposes. Also, see the comment I submitted with my ballot on Proposal 72-232 in the ROP.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Replace the first sentence of Annex note A.6.8.3.5 Exception No. 2 with the following: Dedicated fire alarm/voice evacuation alarm systems are not required to monitor the integrity of the speaker circuits while active for emergency purposes. Exception No. 2 requires these circuits to be monitored for integrity while active for non emergency purposes.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee does not concur that Exception No.2 should be deleted, but has added material to the annex for clarification and to address the concerns expressed in the submitter’s substantiation.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-192-(3-8.3.1.2) : Accept TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee clarifies that the action taken on Comment 72-192 is to delete Section 3-8.3.1.2 as noted in the Committee Statement on Proposal 72-223. It is not the intent to delete Section 3-8.1.2.SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-223RECOMMENDATION: Accept the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: I agree with the substantiation provided by the submitter. If there is reason to install a manual pull station, it should come from other than this standard. Deleting it from this standard will not make it go away if one is required to follow NFPA 101. On the other hand, just because NFPA 101 has the requirement in it doesn’t mean that this standard should repeat it here.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 25 NEGATIVE: 3 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: CLARY: I vote negative to the action by the Committee on this proposal. At the ROC meeting, the vote by the Committee was 11-10, with the Chair casting the deciding vote. I do not accept the substantiation of either the submitter of the proposal (72-223) or the comment (72-192). I also find it difficult to understand how the Committee in a Committee Statement for the ROP stated in part that the “fire safety function provided by this requirement should not be eliminated.” As is allowed, the procedures for committees, the committee is not required to provide a Committee Statement for affirmative actions. In this case however, the Committee should have provided an explanation beyond the acceptance of the substantiation of Mr. Larrimer for making a one hundred-eighty degree shift in their thinking on this matter. In reviewing the substantiation of Mr. Larrimer, his reason for deleting this requirement was that it already was required within NFPA 101. This may be so, but as good a code as NFPA 101 is, it is not the adopted code throughout the Union. As stated by Mr. Larrimer in his substantiation, “...Deleting it from the standard will not make it go away if one is required to follow NFPA

101...”. Unless it is the will of NFPA International that all jurisdictions adopt NFPA 101, and all follow the will, then this basic requirement needs to remain as part of the National Fire Alarm code. In reviewing the substantiation of Mr. Dumais which was with his origianl submittal, he makes several statements that I do not agree with. As the paragraph in debate is not printed within the ROP or ROC, I will include it within the body of my Explanation of Negative: “3-8.3.1.2 For fire alarm systems employing automatic fire detectors or waterflow detection devices, at least one fire alarm box shall be provided to initiate a fire alarm signal. This fire alarm box shall be located where required by the Authority Having Jurisdiction. ” Mr. Dumais brings the following points to his discussion: “A. NFPA 72 is an installation standard. Protection requirements belong in the building code.” While the manual box may be seen as a point of protection, the requirement for it within this Code is so as to provide a manual means to activate the alarm, should that device either not operate or be out of service. “B. Providing a smoke detector and/or waterflow switch does not create any hazard justifying the need for manual fire alarm initiating capability.” No more than the hazard which required the installation of the automatic fire detection system or automatic sprinkler system. The primary purpose of this manual box is to provide a manual means to activate the alarm should that device not operate or be out of service. “C. If you have a smoke detector and/or waterflow switch, you already have the capability to initiate a fire alarm signal.” Mr. Dumais is of course correct, provided the building occupants know where the inspector’s test valve is, have a can of smoke, heat gun or other means to trip the system(s). “D. It is not clear why smoke detectors and waterflow switches create a need for manual stations, but heat detectors, flame detectors, releasing system discharge pressure switches, etc. don’t.” I cannot speak for Mr. Dumais or the Argonne National Laboratory East, but I do believe that these devices are “automatic.î “E. Providing a manual fire alarm station in a normally unoccupied facility adds cost wihout providing any benefts.” True, if the protected premises is one hundred per cent always unoccupied. “F. Itís not clear whether or not “smoke detectors,” within the context of this requirement also icludes induct detectors, beam-type smoke detectors, air sampling smoke detectors, etc.” Once more, I cannot speak for Mr. Dumais or the Argonne National Laboratory East, but I do believe that these devices are “automatic.” I urge my fellow committee members to reverse the action that was taken in regards to 72-223 and return this requirement to the Code. MANDE: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-193. STRINGFIELD: I do not agree that this single pull station requirement belongs only in the model codes or NFPA 101. The single pull station requirement adds only a minor cost to the system installation, but adds reliability if the sprinkler system is out-of-service and cannot initiate notification in the protected premises or supervisory station. I am confused how the committee says this “requirement should not be eliminated” in the ROP but does not justify the elimination in the ROC.

————————————————-


72-193-(3-8.3.1.2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-223RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on this proposal does not comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects as it does not address any of the substantiation provided. B. This requirement conflicts with the intent of the standard reflected in 1-2.1: “It is the intent of this code to establish the required levels of performance, extent of redundancy, and quality of installation but not to establish the methods by which these requirements are to be achieved.” C. This requirement is not necessary to correlate with 9-6.2.5 of NFPA 101. Where 9-6.2.5 of NFPA 101 applies, a detector at the control panel is already required. Where 9-6.2.5 of NFPA 101 does not apply, the proposal substantiation Items A through F are entirely valid. D. As pointed out in the proposal substantiation, the current requirement does not provide any “fire safety function.” That is what’s wrong with it. The smoke detector(s) installed at control equipment cost roughly $500 a piece installed, don’t “protect” the fire alarm equipment from fire for even a second, and aren’t actually required to do anything at all.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept Accept Proposal 72-223.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the recommendation to reconsider and accepts Proposal 72-223. The committee notes that item “d” of the submitter’s substantiation does not support this particular recommendation.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 25 NEGATIVE: 3

347

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: CLARY: I vote negative to the action of the Committee. Please see my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-192. I do concur with the Committee Statement as it relates to item “d” of the substantiation. MANDE: Comments 72-192 and 72-193 should be rejected. I am disturbed by the failure of the committee to provide an adequate technical explanation for its flip-flop between the ROP and ROC meetings. All the voting committee members’ (27) supported the committee action to reject Proposal 223. Four comments were received, 72-192 thru 72-195. Only two of the comments (72-192 and 72-193) relate directly to the recommendaton made by the submitter of this proposal. One, from a committee member who voted in favor of the committee action during the ROP stage, but has changed his mind and now agrees with the substantiation provided by the orignal submitter of the proposal. The other was from the original submitter requesting reconsideration of his proposal. This committee acted to accept both comments and the original proposal. The only explanation given was that it was accepting the original submitter’s recommendation to reconsider and was now accepting his proposal. Regardless of this unsubstantiated about face, the proposal should still be rejected because the submitter’s substantiation indicates a lack of understanding of the purpose for the requirement. Though it will provide some additional occupant protection, the requirement (which has been in the code since at least 1964) is primarily system performance related. It is not unusual for automatic systems to include a manual initiation means for increased performance reliability. For a fire alarm system, a manual box increases system reliability by providing a means by which a building occupant can report an observed fire that has, for any reason, not as yet actuated the building fire alarm system. It improves system performance by providing a simple and safe means for initiating fire drills and for testing notification appliances and other system functions. SPRINGFIELD: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-192.

————————————————-


72-194-(3-8.3.1.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: William J. Aaron, Jr., Code Consultants, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-223RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows: For fire alarm systems employing automatic fire detectors or waterflow detection devices, at least one fire alarm box shall be provided to initiate a fire alarm signal. This fire alarm box shall be located where required by the authority having jurisdiction in a location acceptable to authorized protected premises personnel. Furthermore, since there is only one manual station, the protected premises representatives should dictate the most accessible location for its authorized personnel. The authority having jurisdiction should only verify that the station has been wired and installed according to NFPA 72. SUBSTANTIATION: If a manual system is not required, a method to manually activate the fire alarm system is needed. This single manual station should only be accessible to authorized facility personnel due to its potential use as a diversionary tactic for criminal intent or mischief.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The recommended text removes the authority for locating the manual fire alarm box from the authority having jurisdiction. The AHJ should have the final say in determining the location of the manual fire alarm box. At the ROC meeting of the Technical Committee, proposals to remove the requirement for a manual fire alarm box were accepted. See the committee action on Comments 72-192 (Log #14) and 72-193 (Log #180).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: STRINGFIELD: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-192.

————————————————-


72-195-(3-8.3.1.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: William J. Aaron, Jr., Code Consultants, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-223RECOMMENDATION: Revise 3-8.3.1.2 to read: For fire alarm systems employing automatic fire detectors or waterflow detection devices, at least one fire alarm box shall be provided to initiate a fire alarm signal. This fire alarm box shall be located where required by the authority having jurisdiction in a location acceptable to authorized protected premises personnel. SUBSTANTIATION: If a manual system is not required, a method to manually activate the fire alarm system is needed. This single manual station should only be accessible to authorized facility personnel due to its potential use as a diversionary tactic for criminal intent or mischief. Furthermore, since there is only one manual station, the protected premises representatives should dictate the most accessible location for its authorized personnel. The authority having jurisdiction should only verify that the

station has been wired and installed according to NFPA 72.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on Comment 72-194 (Log #259).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: STRINGFIELD: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-192.

————————————————-


72-196-(3-8.3.2.4.1) : Reject SUBMITTER: William J. Aaron, Jr., Code Consultants, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-236RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: The primary waterflow and subsequent waterflow initiating devices in a sprinkler system from wet-pipe, dry-pipe or preaction sprinkler systems shall be monitored separately for the initiation of a waterflow alarm. SUBSTANTIATION: The location and installation of waterflow devices is the responsibility of NFPA 13, The Standard for Sprinkler Systems. The purpose of NFPA as defined in Chapter 1-2.1, Purpose, the purpose of this code is to define the means of signal in initiation, transmission, notification, and annunciation; the levels of performance and reliability of the various types of fire alarm systems. Therefore, this code is not to determine where waterflow switches are installed but that the waterflow switches are properly monitored.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: As explained in the submitter’s substantiation, the means of initiating a waterflow alarm signal, its transmission to the building fire alarm system, and the level of performance are within the scope of the Technical Committee on Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems. Since the arrangement of the waterflow switch affects performance, these factors fall under the scope of this committee. The text proposed in the recommendation exceeds what should be required in a minimum code.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-197-(3-8.3.3.1.3) : Reject SUBMITTER: Tim Crosnoe, Code Consultants, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-238RECOMMENDATION: Revise Committee’s Revised Test: “Where approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction, Supervisory signals that latch in the off-normal state and require manual reset of the system to restore them to normal shall be permitted.” SUBSTANTIATION: In Section 1-2.1, the code states that part of its intent is to establish levels of performance of the various types of fire alarm systems. Establishing that signals latching in an off-normal state satisfy the distinctive signal requirement of 3-8.3.3.1.3, sets just such a level of performance. Deferring decisions such as this to the Authority Having Jurisdiction diminishes the need for the code and further increases the difficulty of engineering projects without the continual need to contact Authorities Having Jurisdiction.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reaffirms its action and statement on Proposal 72-238 (Log #238).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-198-(3-8.4.1.1) : Reject SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-244RECOMMENDATION: Change from Accept to Reject. SUBSTANTIATION: We disagree with the submitters’ substantiation because the section applies to proprietary systems as well as protected premises systems. If the text is moved to Chapter 3, it will no longer apply to proprietary systems. (See Section 5-3) Fire-safety functions should not be initiated automatically or manually from any location off the protected

348

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPApremises. (Refer to our companion comment on Proposal 72-88).COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reaffirms its action and statement on Proposal 72-244 (Log #260).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-199-(3-8.4.1.1, and A-3-8.4.1.1) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-243RECOMMENDATION: Accept the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: The committee action on this proposal does not comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects because although it was accepted in principal, none of the material was incorporated and none of the concerns expressed in the proposal were addressed in either ROP 72-198a or ROP 496a. It is effectively a stealth reject action that provides no basis for the proponent to respond to the committee’s objections, if there are any, in the ROC. COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The original proposal suggested survivability requirements be incorporated only in specific cases. The submitter’s original substantiation read in part, “. . .survivability features are necessary and appropriate in certain cases.” The committee agrees and the committee actions on survivability already limit the requirements to emergency voice alarm communications systems for partial or selective evacuation. It should be noted that while the submitter’s substantiation for Proposal 72-243 recognizes the need for survivability in specific cases, other proposals and comments by the same submitter call for the deletion of survivability requirements. This inconsistent approach makes it difficult for the committee to determine the submitter’s intent.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: DUMAIS: The committee statement does not address the comment. This proposal was accepted in principal but was not incorporated into the code in any form. The committee statement is incorrect in that the current survivability requirements are not limited to emergency voice alarm communications systems. Rather, the requirements apply to any systems used for partial evacuation or relocation of occupants, which includes hospital systems using coded bells for instance. Furthermore, the circuits requiring “survivability” include both notification appliance circuits and “ANY OTHER CIRCUITS NECESSARY FOR THE OPERATION OF THE NOTIFICATION APPLIANCE CIRCUITS” which (depending on system configuration) may include power circuits, audio risers, detection circuits, signaling line circuits, manual override control circuits, microphone circuits, etc. which are not necessarily unique or dedicated to emergency voice alarm communications systems. The submitter also questions the claim that the committee was confused as to his intent as the proposals were straightforward and there were several survivability task group members present at the meeting who were very familiar with the arguments. Those other proposals either sought to delete the current survivability requirements - something ROP 72-243 would have done as well - or to replace them with an actual performance requirement; specifically, that fire alarm systems be designed to go into alarm before being destroyed by fire. There was nothing confusing about them. The submitter respectfully suggests that the “confusion” lies elsewhere. For the record, none of the substantiation items from proposal 72-243 have been refuted and no objections have been raised and in fact the proposal has been accepted in principal - which requires that a modified version of the proposal be incorporated into the code. As stated in the comment substantiation, the ROP action was effectively a stealth reject action which provided no basis for the proponent to respond to the committee’s objections, if in fact there are any. Accordingly, the submitter requests that the Technical Correlating Committee return ROP 72-243 and ROC 72-199 to the Chapter 3 Technical Committee for reprocessing; this time in accordance with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.

————————————————-


72-200-(3-8.4.1.1.1) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-245RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: The committee action on this proposal does not comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects as it does not address ANY of the substantiation provided nor indicate what additional substantiation the committee feels is needed.COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The intent of the committee is reflected in the original action on Proposal 72-245. That is that fire alarm systems intended for partial evacuation or relocation meet specific survivability criteria. The action proposed in 72-245 would eliminate this requirement and could result in the survivability requirements being applied more broadly, and to more types of systems than intended by the minimum requirements of the Code. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: DUMAIS: The committee statement is misleading and confused and does not address the comment. It is not the intent of NFPA 72 to tell the Authority Having Jurisdiction what level of protection to require. Rather, NFPA 72 is intended to tell them how the required level of protection is to be provided. It is not clear how eliminating a requirement can possibly result in that requirement “being applied more broadly and to more types of systems that are intended by the minimum requirements of the code.” Whatever happened to the “insufficient technical substantiation” cited in the committee statement on ROP 72-245?

————————————————-


72-201-(3-8.4.1.1.1) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-245RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on this proposal does not comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects as it does not address any of the substantiation provided nor indicate what additional substantiation the committee feels is needed. B. It is not clear what kind of “technical substantiation” the committee is looking for to convince them that the intent of all survivability requirements is for the fire alarm system to perform at least its most basic functions (i.e., detection and notification) before being destroyed by fire. C. Unlike ANY of the survivability requirements accepted by the committee, this proposal actually requires the fire alarm system to do something before being destroyed by fire.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on comment 72-200 (Log #44).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: DUMAIS: The committee statement does not address the comment. See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-200.

————————————————-


72-202-(3-8.4.1.1.1) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-247RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: The committee action on this proposal does not comply with the Regulations governing committee projects because although it was accepted in principal, none of the material was incorporated and none of the concerns expressed in the proposal were addressed in either ROP 72-198a or ROP 496a. It is effectively a stealth reject action that provides no basis for the proponent to respond to the committee’s objections, if there are any, in the ROC.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The survivability requirements only apply to very specific applications which make up a very small percentage of the fire alarm systems installed. The commenter makes the point that sprinklered buildings have a very good fire safety record despite not having “survivable” fire alarm systems. The committee agrees and the current code language permits, “Performance alternatives approved by the AHJ.” This portion of the code provides a method for the AHJ to accept a fully sprinklered building as meeting the survivability requirements. However, a blanket exemption to the survivability requirements is not warranted as there are many site specific conditions that vary from one application to another which affect the potential survivability of fire alarm system circuits. These might include the type of sprinkler system provided, response time of the sprinkler heads, and other specific system design criteria.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1

349

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: DUMAIS: The committee statement does not address the comment. ROP 72-246 was accepted in principal, as was ROP 72-199, and again the Chapter 3 Technical Committee has failed to incorporate a modified version of the proposal into the code as required by the Regulations Governing Committee Projects. As stated in the comment substantiation, this was another stealth reject action which denied the submitter the opportunity to respond to the committee’s objections. The committee statement is incorrect in that there are no requirements in NFPA 72 that allow “performance alternatives approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction,” with respect to fire alarm survivability. On the contrary, the code is explicit with respect to the acceptable options for providing survivability, in clear violation of the intent of the standard as stated in 1-2.1. It is not clear how the Chapter 3 Technical Committee can concur with the submitter’s substantiation that no fire alarm survivability problem can be shown to exist in sprinklered buildings, but persist in mandating a very costly and problematic set of survivability requirements anyway. By the committee’s own admission, those requirements lack the required technical substantiation - at least in fully sprinklered buildings. In accordance with the above, the submitter requests that the Technical Committee either reverse their action on ROC 72-202 and accept ROP 72-247, or that the Technical Correlating Committee return ROP 72-247 and ROC 72-202 to the Chapter 3 Technical Committee for reprocessing; this time in accordance with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.

————————————————-

(Log #CC702)Committee: SIG-PRO

72-202a-(3-8.4.1.1.1 [2002 Ed. 6.9.4.1]) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-198aRECOMMENDATION: Add the following new sentence to Section 3-8.4.1.1.1 (of the 1999 edition) to become the second sentence, “The requirements of 3-8.4.1.1 shall apply to both audible (tone and voice) and visible notification appliance circuits.” SUBSTANTIATION: It is the committee’s intent to clarify the use and application of both audible and visible circuits.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 26 NOT RETURNED: 4 Bisker, Hoffman, Kuhta, & AndersonCOMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: MOORE: It is noted that this will be an addition to new Section 6.9.4.1.

————————————————-


72-203-(3-8.4.1.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-256RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal, which reads as follows: Add new paragraphs 3-8.4.1.2 through 3-8.4.1.2.2, and appendix paragraphs A-3-8.4.1.2, A-3-8.4.1.2.1, and A-3-8.4.1.2.2 as follows and renumber subsequent paragraphs accordingly: *3-8.4.1.2 Suppression System Pre-Discharge Alarms. Where suppression system pre-discharge alarms are required by the applicable codes and standards, the associated fire alarm/releasing system(s) shall be arranged to activate notification appliances within the protected area a minimum of 30 seconds prior to agent discharge, irrespective of whether the suppression system is released automatically or manually. Exception No. 1 - Where explicitly allowed by the authority having jurisdiction. Exception No. 2 - Where the time necessary for occupants to evacuate the protected space exceeds 30 seconds, the pre-discharge delay shall be extended accordingly. *3-8.4.1.2.1 Activation of pre-discharge notification appliances shall not be solely dependent on the fire alarm initiating devices and/or releasing circuit(s) used to trigger the agent discharge. *3-8.4.1.2.2 Provision of the requisite pre-discharge delay shall not be solely dependent on the fire alarm/releasing system. A-3-8.4.1.2 Arrangement of suppression system pre-discharge alarms has been a “gray area” as it overlaps the scope of NFPA 72 and the applicable suppression system standards. The intent of this section is to ensure that the necessary coordination occurs. In most cases, compliance with this section requires a discharge pressure switch to be installed in the suppression system manifold, between the releasing heads (which are controlled by the fire alarm system, usually with an independent manual release) and a pneumatic pre-discharge delay (which is part of the suppression system). However, any combination of compatible, listed fire alarm and suppression system components may be used to accomplish the intended function. A-3-8.4.1.2.1 Initiating devices used to effect suppression system release are not acceptable as the sole means of initiating pre-discharge alarms because suppression systems typically have manual releases whose activation does not

put the initiating devices into alarm (at least not before the agent discharges), and because various circuit faults, equipment malfunctions, or power fluctuations can cause inadvertent suppression systems discharges without putting the initiating devices in alarm. A-3-8.4.1.2.2 Electronic delays in the fire alarm system are not acceptable as the sole means of delaying releasing system discharge because suppression systems typically have manual releases whose activation bypass the electronic delay, and because various circuit faults, equipment malfunctions, or power fluctuations can cause inadvertent suppression system discharges without initiating the releasing system delay. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee’s rationale for rejecting this proposal in the ROP was incorrect. It is entirely within the scope of NFPA 72 to place appropriate restrictions on the application of fire alarm equipment, which is all this proposal does. It does not intrude upon the jurisdiction of the responsible suppression system technical committees because they already delegate the arrangement of detection, actuation, alarm, and control systems to NFPA 72. For example: 1) From NFPA 12, 2000: 7-1 The following documents or portions thereof are referenced within this standard as mandatory requirements and shall be considered part of the requirements of this standard. The edition indicated for each referenced mandatory document is the current edition as of the date of the NFPA issuance of this standard. Some of these mandatory documents might also be referenced in this standard for specific informational purposes and, therefore, are also listed in Appendix C. 7-1.1 NFPA Publications. National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, P.O. Box 9101, Quincy, MA 02269-9101. NFPA 70, National Electrical Code®, 1999 edition. NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm Code®, 1999 edition. 2) From NFPA 12A, 1997: 2-3 Detection, Actuation, Alarm, and Control Systems. 2-3.1 Detection, actuation, alarm, and control systems shall be installed, tested, and maintained in accordance with NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, and NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm Code. In Canada refer to ULC S524-M86, Standard for the Installation of Fire Alarm Systems, and ULC S529-M87, Smoke Detectors for Fire Alarm Systems. 3) From NFPA 2001, 2000: 2-3 Detection, Actuation, Alarm, and Control Systems. 2-3.1 General 2-3.1.1 Detection, actuation, alarm, and control systems shall be installed, tested, and maintained in accordance with appropriate NFPA protective signaling systems standards. (See NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, and NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm Code®. In Canada refer to ULC S524-M91, Standard for the Installation of Fire Alarm Systems, and ULC S529-M87, Smoke Detectors for Fire Alarm Systems.) B. This proposal would have prevented the fatality and numerous, related injuries that occurred at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in July of 1998, for practically no additional cost. If accepted, it will prevent similar tragedies in the future. C. There is simply no reason for the Chapter 3 Technical Committee NOT to accept this proposal. It won’t cost any manufacturer any market share. It won’t affect any installing company’s bottom line. It won’t affect the UL listing of any system components. It won’t make special suppression systems any less affordable for building owners or degrade their effectiveness at suppressing fires. And it will avoid future litigation by eliminating needless accidents. It’s the right thing to do. Nobody else needs to die because of known vulnerabilities that can be readily and inexpensively mitigated in the system design. COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The proposal specifically details the sequence of operation of a fire suppression system. While fire detectors and a fire alarm control panel may be used by a specialized fire suppression system for actuation, the methods of actuation and sequence of operation of these systems is outside the scope of this committee. The submitter is once again advised to submit these proposed changes to the appropriate NFPA Technical Committee(s) responsible for these suppression systems. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-204-(3-8.4.1.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-254RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee statement is incorrect in that 1-2.3 does not say that the standard is not intended to be applied retroactively, rather it says that “UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, it is not intended that the provisions of this document be applied to facilities, equipment, structures, or installations that were existing or approved for construction or installation prior to the effective date of the document.” That is, the standard IS intended to be applied retroactively, when the responsible Technical Committee thinks it’s appropriate. B. Chapter 7 thought it was appropriate to make their entire chapter retroactive in the 1999 edition of the standard. To date they haven’t received a single complaint. Clearly it is within the purview of the Chapter 3 Technical

350

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPACommittee to mandate consistency in evacuation signals if they deem it necessary to protect people and property from fire. Needless to say, if it’s not necessary to protect people and property from fire, it doesn’t need to be in a minimum standard at all. C. If the committee doesn’t make this requirement retroactive, they find themselves in the untenable position of requiring facilities that standardized their signals years ago to effectively DE-STANDARDIZE them so that 20 years from now (hopefully), they can be standardized again; reference ROP 72-259. D. Making temporal-3 signals retroactive is not as big a problem as has been suggested, assuming a little time is allowed for compliance. As the strobe light industry has clearly demonstrated, technology can and will address market needs. Make temporal-3 signals mandatory, retroactive as of the 2005 edition of this standard - or the 2008 edition if the committee prefers - and Gentex, System Sensor, Wheelock, Federal Signal, and others will have products on the market to meet that need well before the effective date of the requirement. E. There’s not much point in having “international standards” that are only “standards” on paper. It gives committees and industry reps something to argue about, but it doesn’t do the public much good.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The intent of the Code is for the American National Standard Evacuation signal to be used in all systems designed to notify occupants to evacuate. The submitter is incorrect in stating that the “committee is requiring facilities that standardized their signals years ago to effectively de-standardize them so that 20 years from now (hopefully), they can be standardized again.” In those cases where a facility has already implemented a standardized evacuation signal, the authority having jurisdiction has the prerogative of overriding the requirements of the code based on site specific needs and conditions. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-205-(3-8.4.1.2 through 3-8.4.1.2.3) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-257RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee statement does not comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects because it does not address the substantiation provided. The fact that “the committee understands this requirement will undergo a phase-in period” does not resolve the concerns raised, and is tantamount to saying “NFPA doesn’t care if a few people get killed in order to make them safer.” B. Since the committee obviously does not intend to delete the requirement for temporal-3 evacuation signals, it should make the requirement retroactive. C. The committee’s reluctance to make temporal-3 signals retroactive is not justified; reference my other comments on ROP 72-254 and ROP 72-259.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter asserts that “NFPA doesn’t care if a few people get killed.” This is a completely unfounded, unsubstantiated accusation that indicates a complete lack of understanding on the submitter’s part of the operations of NFPA and the NFPA Technical Committee process. The intent of the Technical Committee is for the American National Standard Evacuation signal to be used in all systems designed to notify occupants to evacuate. The authority having jurisdiction always has the prerogative of amending the requirements of the code based on site specific needs and conditions. The AHJ may exempt a facility from using the American National Standard Evacuation signal, or require retroactive use of the system, if warranted by site specific conditions.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-206-(3-8.4.1.2.1, 3-8.4.1.2.2, 3-8.4.1.2.3 [2002 ed. 6.8.5.3.1, 6.8.5.3.2, 6.8.5.3.3])) : Accept SUBMITTER: Irving Mande, ESTCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-198aRECOMMENDATION: Make the following editorial revisions: 6.8.5.3.1 “...ANSI S3.41, American National Standard Audible Evacuation Signal.” 6.8.5.3.2 and 6.8.5.3.3 Capitalize the “N” in “national” and the “S” in “standard”. SUBSTANTIATION: The recommended changes are editorial. They add clarification by using the same title and capitalization as used in ANSI S3.41.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-(Log #53)

Committee: SIG-PRO72-207-(3-8.4.1.2.1 Exception (New) ) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-259RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The intent of 3-8.4.1.2.1 is not a new idea. Many organizations, institutions, and campuses have recognized the need for uniform evacuation signals for many years, and have standardized their evacuation signals accordingly. In those facilities, they don’t have to wait a generation to achieve signal standardization because they have it NOW. B. It is ridiculous for the technical committee to undo the good work of the last generation, effectively requiring DE-STANDARDIZATION of the only facilities that currently have standardized signals, for the next generation or so, in order to promote the concept of standardization. That is, the committee action on this proposal is explicitly contrary to the intent of the requirement in question. C. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that a temporal 3 signal is any more effective at getting people to evacuate than any other kind of audible signal. It just happens to be an international standard that’s been established, but not implemented; not even in the United States. Until such time as the world actually standardizes on the “international standard,” there’s no benefit to be gained, and considerable harm to result, from forcing people to abandon standards that have actually been implemented for years. D. The committee’s dilemma on this proposal is indicative of the need to make temporal 3 evacuation signals a retroactive requirement; see also ROP 72-254. This is not as big a problem as has been suggested, assuming a little time is allowed for compliance. As the strobe light industry has clearly demonstrated, technology can and will address market needs. Make temporal 3 signals mandatory, retroactive as of the 2005 edition of this standard - or the 2008 edition if the committee prefers - and Gentex, System Sensor, Wheelock, Federal Signal, and others will have products on the market to meet that need well before the effective date of the requirement. Virtually all of Chapter 7 is retroactive, and the world has not come to an end. COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Add new exception to read: Exception: Where approved by the authority having jurisdiction, use of the existing consistent evacuation signaling scheme shall be permitted. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agrees with the basic premise of the proposer’s recommendation but has revised the exception to require approval of this approach by the authority having jurisdiction.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-(Log #231)

Committee: SIG-PRO72-208-(3-8.4.1.2.2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-261RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept this Proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: We agree with the submitter’s substantiation. The portion of the section that alludes to off-premises signals is preceded by the word ”if”. This entire section is also preceded by the words “if permitted” and caution should be exercised in its application. It is imperative that responsible persons be in the vicinity of the system and immediately notified to investigate the source of the alarm signal (to take further action) because it delays occupant notification and egress. This section should apply ONLY to protected premises systems. (Refer to our companion comment on Proposal 72-102).COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-(Log #232)

Committee: SIG-PRO72-209-(3-8.4.1.2.3) : Accept SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-262RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept this Proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: We agree with the submitters’ substantiation. Although the cited sections refer to activating “remote signals”, the primary purposes of these sections deal with the protected premises operation(s). This section should apply ONLY to protected premises systems and should be relocated to Chapter 3. (Refer to our companion comment on Proposal 72-103).COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

351



72-210-(3-8.4.1.3) : Accept in Principle TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the action on Comment 72-210 regarding Section 6.9.2 be revised for clarity to read as follows: 6.9.2 Where systems used for partial evacuation or relocation of occupants are required, Section 6.9 shall apply. Retain the exception.SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-263RECOMMENDATION: Accept the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: See my comments in the negative vote. There is basically no change to the code. The explanatory information has been moved to the appendix. This proposal should be accepted.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Revise 3-8.4.1.3 (6.9.2, 2002) to read: “6.9.2 Where required, Section 6.9 shall apply to systems used for partial evacuation orrelocation of occupants. Retain the exception. Revise 3-8.4.1.3 (6.9.3, 2002) to read: Emergency voice/alarm communications service shall be provided by a system with automatic or manual voice capability that isinstalled to provide voice instructions to the building occupants.” Retain the exception.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee acknowledges that it is not within its scope to mandate a specific type of system, but to mandate the system performance requirements. Where this type of system is required by another code or standard it shall meet the requirements of this section. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-211-(3-8.4.1.3.3.3 (2) and (3)) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Daniel G. Decker, Safety Systems, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-269RECOMMENDATION: This proposal should be rejected. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The submitter has provided no substantiation for the proposal. Substantiation referencing “a more reliable method to provide the performance required by the code” fails to explain how a CI cable with a 2-hour rating is any different from the 2-hour protection already required. B. The proposal does not add materially to the requirement. This section already references a two-hour rated cable assembly, and that would include C1 cable. According to the manufacturer’s website, CI cable “has established a minimum 2 hour fire resistance rating by passing the applicable requirements of UL Test Standard 2196, Standard for Tests of Fire Resistive Cables”. C. The inclusion of this cable type is not only unnecessary; it may constitute an implicit endorsement of a product, since there appears to be only one manufacturer of this product. Such an endorsement would be in violation of NFPA policy, reference the Technical Correlating Committee comment on Proposal 72-64. D. The committee action to modify the exception to require the use of metal raceway is totally lacking in any form of substantiation. No evidence has been provided of any problem with cables attacked by fire in a fully sprinklered building. No evidence has been submitted to indicate that installation in metal raceway would have either a positive or negative effect on the conductors during a fire condition. It is entirely possible that the installation in metal raceway could cause cable to fail sooner, since the raceway not only acts as a radiant heat source on the conductors, but it also provides the potential for multiple ground faults when the conductor insulation fails. E. The failure to provide substantiation is a violation of NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects, specifically Section 3-3.6: “Each Technical Committee shall, as far as practicable, prepare documents in terms of required performance, avoiding specifications of materials, devices or methods so phrased as to preclude obtaining the desired result by other means. It shall base its recommendation upon one or more of the following factors; namely, fire experience, research data, engineering fundamentals or other such information as may be available.” The Technical Committee has provided no data, research or other justification for requiring the use of metal raceway, and the submitter has provided no substantiation relevant to the proposal.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on Comment 72-214 (Log #236).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-212-(3-8.4.1.3, A-3-8.4.1.3) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-263RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee statement does not refute the substantiation provided; it simply restates the code requirement the proposal is seeking to modify. B. The committee statement does not comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects, as it fails to address the substantiation provided in the proposal. C. As Mr. Larrimer notes in his explanation of negative, non-voice fire alarm systems are used to relocate occupants within buildings; most often in hospitals where the use of coded chimes is commonplace.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on Comment 72-210 (Log #15).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-213-(3-8.4.1.3.3) : Reject SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-266RECOMMENDATION: Reject this proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: We disagree with the submitters’ substantiation because the section applies to proprietary systems as well as protected premises systems. It is acceptable to initiate notification appliances from e.g., a networked (proprietary) system. (Refer to our companion comment on Proposal 72-94).COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reaffirms its original action. See the action and statement on Proposal 72-266.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-214-(3-8.4.1.3.3.3) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-269RECOMMENDATION: Reject this proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: Circuit Integrity (CI) cable should not be added to NFPA 72 until its status in Article 760 of the National Electrical Code (NEC) is decided by the NEC Technical Correlating Committee. The Technical Correlating Committee reversed the action taken by Code Making Panel 16 to add “limited combustible (-50) cable in several of its Articles in the NEC because “...the Panel’s action contains no requirement or specifications for the use of limited combustible cable versus the general cables already specified”. The Technical Correlating Committee also noted that “...it is inappropriate to attempt to include references to all products that do not have a need for specific application rules or products that are permitted but not required by the NEC.” The Technical Correlating Committee also noted that “...the NEC does not prohibit the use of limited combustible cable.” The action taken by the Technical Correlating Committee was upheld by the Standards Council during the appeal process. In the supporting documentation for the appeal it was noted “...the NEC should not contain information almost tantamount to advertising, about cables permitted to be used in plenums today but not required to be used in such places.” The Technical Correlating Committee recognizes that a similar problem might exist with circuit integrity cable and plans to review it during the next code cycle. Circuit integrity cable is basically a 2-hour rated cable that is also listed in the Code as an acceptable cable. Both are tested in accordance with UL 2196-Tests of Fire Resistive Cable.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee action and statement on Comment 72-215 removes the term “circuit integrity (CI)” cable from Section 6.9.4.5. The committee agrees with the submitter that the designation “circuit integrity (CI)” should not be included in the NFAC, but the concept of a fire-rated cable has been incorporated via the committee action on Comment 72-215 (Log #265).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

352



72-215-(3-8.4.1.3.3.3(2) and (3), 3-8.4.1.3.7.2, and 3-9.2.3) : Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTER: Edward Walton, Draka USACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-269, 72-281, & 72-288RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: b. A 2-hour rated cable assembly b. A 2-hour rated cable system SUBSTANTIATION: Reference to “a 2-hour fire rated system” is correct and will clarify the distinction between this method and use of Circuit Integrity (CI) Cable. 2-hour fire rated systems are classified by national laboratories and consist of basic cable along with mandatory use of one or more of the following: Special installation or mounting procedures Special connectors, splices or mounting hardware Installation in conduit This will also eliminate the mistaken belief that a 2-hour fire rated system and “CI” cable could be the same.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle in Part Relative to Proposal 72-269 the committee accepts the comment in principle. In 6.9.4.3 and 6.9.4.5 of the proposed revision to Chapter 6 delete item “a. Circuit Integrity (CI)” from the text, reidentify “b” and “c” as “a” and “b” and add a new item “c” as follows: “c. Performance alternatives approved by the AHJ”. Revise the proposed text of existing “b” relating to a 2-hour rated cable assembly to read: “b. A 2-hour rated cable or cable system.” Remainder of proposed text remains as originally accepted. Relative to the recommendation for Proposals 72-281 and 72-288 the committee rejects the proposed revision.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has accepted in principle the proposed modification to Proposal 72-269 by providing a minimum performance requirement and alternatives by which the performance requirement can be achieved without specifically referencing “circuit integrity (CI) cable”. The committee rejects the proposed modifications to Proposals 72-281 and 72-288 based on its action to accept comments that reject Proposals 72-281 and 72-288.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-216-(3-8.4.1.3.3 and 1-5.4.2.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: John F. Deubler, Schirmer Engineering Corporation/Rep. American Hotel & Lodging AssociationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-92, 72-94, & 72-266RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: Actuation of alarm notification appliances or emergency voice communications and annunciation shall occur within 20 seconds after the activation of an initiating device. SUBSTANTIATION: The committee has not provided technical documentation supporting the necessity for the reduction in time to improve the level of life safety. Additionally, the technical committee has not provided an analysis of the impact of this reduction on the architecture of the fire alarm system.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: No substantiation has been provided to increase the time from 10 seconds to 20 seconds.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-217-(3-8.4.1.3.3.3) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Shane M. Clary, Bay Alarm Co., Inc./Rep. California Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-269RECOMMENDATION: We support the action of the technical committee. SUBSTANTIATION: The technical committee action on 72-269, 72-281 and 72-288 was made so that added protection could be provided to these critical circuits.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The concept of a fire-rated cable has been maintained via the committee action on Comment 72-215 (Log #265).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-(Log #130)

Committee: SIG-PRO72-218-(3-8.4.1.3.3.3 (2) & (3)) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-269RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The proposed requirements are in violation of 1-2.1, which specifically states that “It is the intent of this code to establish the required levels of performance, extent of redundancy, and quality of installation but not to establish the methods by which these requirements are to be achieved.” B. No substantiation has been provided demonstrating that there is a survivability problem with circuits between fire command centers and control equipment that needs to be fixed, or that such a problem, if it exists, will be fixed by the proposed requirements. The specific circuits this requirement applies to are not even defined. C. No documentation has been provided to substantiate the claim that CI cable or other 2-hour fire-rated cable will actually provide any improvement over other types of wiring with respect to maintaining the operability of fire alarm systems or critical system functions under actual fire conditions. No actual fire testing of systems has been conducted to substantiate this claim and no actual fire history has been cited. D. No documentation has been provided to substantiate the relationship, if any, between UL’s listing tests for fire-rated cables and the conditions such cables might be exposed to in an actual fire. This is important because, as noted in the definition of “fire-rating” in Chapter 1, “Fire Rating” means: “The classification indicating in time (hours) the ability of a structure or component to withstand a standardized fire test. This classification does not necessarily reflect performance of rated components in an actual fire.” For example, when CI cable is heated for a minute or so on a kitchen stove and then bent 90 degrees in two planes, the fire-resistant insulation flakes off. While this is not a particularly scientific test, it does suggest that the “survivability” of CI cable in an actual fire likely depends as much on the integrity of the cable supports as it does on the cable itself. Other fire-rated cable types may have the same or similar limitations. There are presently NO REQUIREMENTS for CI cable supports, noncombustible or otherwise, in NFPA 72 and the addition of such requirements may significantly effect the CI cable cost/benefit equation. E. Under fire/firefighting conditions, it is not clear how provision of fire resistive cable can possibly ensure the operability of a fire alarm system comprised largely of electrically operated plastic devices, with listed operating temperatures of (typically) no more than 120°F, which promptly short out in the presence of water. Because system operability is dependent on multiple, interconnected components, the overall system “survivability” under fire conditions is no better than the “survivability” of most vulnerable components exposed to the fire. Since most fires originate in the portions of the building where people, and all those plastic fire alarm devices and sprinklers are, the real-world benefit of running fire-resistive cable in concealed spaces likely ranges from marginal to nil. This is why lack of any fire history showing a real benefit is a legitimate concern. F. At best, assuming adequate noncombustible supports and fires originating in concealed spaces where the only fire alarm component they encounter is cabling, requirements for CI or other fire-resistive cable ONLY protect the cable; they do not ensure the operability of the fire alarm system or any critical system functions under fire conditions. Even if CI or other fire-resistive cable is part of the solution to a “survivability” problem - a problem that remains to be substantiated - such cables are obviously not a complete solution. G. When the objective is system operability and that operability is dependent on multiple, interconnected system components, most of which are more vulnerable to fire and water than the interconnecting cables, an incomplete solution is NO solution. NFPA 72 should not be mandating expensive, unproven, partial solutions to hypothetical problems. H. These CI cable requirements have been being pushed since the NFPA annual meeting in May 1996, in several different sections of the code, at the behest of the manufacturer (Rockbestos-Suprenant Cable Corp.) and with the apparent assistance of special experts on both the Technical Committees and the Technical Correlating Committee. This is occurring despite the unambiguous violation of the intent of the standard as stated in 1-2.1, the clear lack of technical substantiation, and the obvious fact that protecting cable doesn’t ensure system functionality - which is the sole, presumed, and highly questionable benefit offered as justification. I. In order to ensure that the integrity of the consensus standards making process is not “FOR SALE,” it would be appropriate for the ROC to record which NFPA 72 Technical Committee and Technical Correlating Committee members are now, or who have previously, been retained by the submitter pursuant to the objective of getting these requirements into NFPA 72.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The requirements for fire alarm circuit survivability apply only to a small percentage of systems in which building occupants are only partially evacuated or relocated in the event of a fire. The submitter is under the false impression that the intent of the survivability requirements is to assure the complete operability of the fire alarm system under all possible fire conditions. This is not, nor has it ever been, the intent of the survivability requirements. The committee recognizes, and the code reflects, the fact that direct fire attack of fire alarm system components can compromise the operation of the circuits, devices, and appliances serving the immediate fire area.

353

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA The survivability requirements are intended to minimize the possibility of attack by fire interrupting communication to areas outside the fire area. For example, circuits that serve various floors in a multi-floor building may run through areas where they could be exposed to fire before they reach the floor(s) they serve. Providing fire rated construction, a fire rated cable assembly, or protection of the area by a fire sprinkler system minimizes the possibility of impairment of service to areas outside the fire area. That specific fire alarm devices and components can be compromised by direct exposure to a fire is recognized and is addressed by current code language in (new) 6.9.4.2 which states, “Survivable fire alarm systems shall be designed and installed such that attack by fire within an evacuation signaling zone shall not impair control and operation of the notification appliances outside the evacuation signaling zone.” This language recognizes that fire attack may impair circuits in the immediate fire area while minimizing impairment of circuits that serve areas outside the immediate fire area. This is the same requirement that has appeared in previous editions of the code. The submitter states that there have been no specific fire tests to show that fire rated cable assemblies perform better than non-fire rated assemblies. This assertion is no more valid than an assertion that there is no proof that a fire rated door will last longer than a non-fire rated door when exposed to a fire, or that any other fire rated assembly will not last longer than a similar non-fire rated assembly. While there have been no specific fire tests on fire alarm systems as a whole, anyone familiar with fire protection and fire testing can examine the available fire test methods and listing procedures, and understand that a cable assembly that has passed a fire exposure test will survive longer in a given fire than a wire, cable, or assembly that cannot pass the fire exposure test. This is fire protection at its most basic level. The submitter’s assertion that survivability requirements were formulated in 1996 in order to market CI cable is also false. The requirements for survivability and the use of 2-hour fire rated cable assemblies as one method of meeting survivability requirements predate the introduction of CI cable to the market or its introduction to the National Fire Alarm Code. Lastly, the submitter makes totally unsubstantiated, and false accusation that a specific manufacturer has unduly influenced members of the Technical Committee and that the NFPA committee process might be corrupt and “FOR SALE.” Anyone who chooses to actively participate in the committee process will quickly find that these accusations are patently false and have no basis in fact. For the record the facts are: 1. All actions taken by the Technical Committee were in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee projects. 2. There have been no attempts by any manufacturer or any individuals to influence the committee concerning the topic other than the submission and discussion of proposals and comments during Technical Committee meetings as part of the normal NFPA technical committee process. 3. At various times two members of the committee have been engaged to provide consulting services for a manufacturer of CI cable during two different code cycles. In accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects, both members identified themselves to the committee as a consultant to a CI cable manufacturer during committee deliberations. Their actions were limited to discussion of the proposals or comments they submitted. 4. There is more than one manufacturer of CI cable. 5. The Technical Committee has acted consistently concerning requirements for survivability of fire alarm system circuits. These actions have been upheld by the Technical Correlating Committee, the NFPA membership during adoption of the standard, and by the NFPA Standards Council in issuing the document. There are avenues of appeal to the NFPA membership, the NFPA Standards Council and the NFPA Board of Directors if the actions of the Technical Committee are deemed inappropriate. None of these avenues of appeal have been initiated for any actions taken by this Technical Committee. The committee has removed the “circuit integrity (CI)” cable designation, but maintained the concept of a 2-hour rated cable or cable system via its action on Comment 72-215 (Log #265).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-219-(3-8.4.1.3.3.3 (2), 3-8.4.1.3.7.2 & 3.9.2.3) : Accept in Part SUBMITTER: Irving Mande, ESTCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-269, 72-281, & 72-288RECOMMENDATION: Reject these Proposals. SUBSTANTIATION: Circuit Integrity (CI) cable should not be added to NFPA 72 until its status in Article 760 of the NEC is decided by the NEC Technical Correlating Committee. The NEC Technical Correlating Committee reversed the action taken by

Code-Making Panel 16 to add “limited combustible (-50) cable in several of its Articles in the NEC because “...the Panel’s action contains no requirement or specifications for the use of limited combustible cable versus the general cables already specified”. The NEC Technical Correlating Committee also noted that “...it is inappropriate to attempt to include references to all products that do not have a need for specific application rules or products that are permitted but not required by the NEC.” The NEC Technical Correlating Committee also noted that “...the NEC does not prohibit the use of limited combustible cable.” The Standards Council during the appeal process upheld the action taken by the NEC Technical Correlating Committee. In the supporting documentation for the appeal it was noted “...the NEC should not contain information almost tantamount to advertising, about cables permitted to be used in plenums today but not required to be used in such places.” The NEC Technical Correlating Committee recognizes that a similar problem might exist with Circuit Integrity (CI) cable and plans to review it during the next Code cycle. Circuit Integrity cable is basically a 2-hour rated cable. Both are listed in the proposed Code as acceptable cables. Both are tested in accordance with UL 2196 - Tests of Fire Resistive Cables. UL has advised that cables that pass the 2-hour test are permitted but not required to use the CI marking on the cable. 2-hour rated cables with and without the CI marking are currently listed by UL and can be used interchangeably. Also, see my “Explanation of Negative Vote” for Proposal 72-269 in the ROP. COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Part The committee accepts the recommendation to reject proposals 72-281 and 72-288. The committee does not accept the recommendation to reject Proposal 72-269.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agrees with the recommendation to reject Proposals 72-281 and 72-288. The committee does not accept the recommendation to reject Proposal 72-269. See the committee action and statement on Comment 72-215 (Log #265).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-220-(3-8.4.1.3.4.2 Exception) : Reject SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-271RECOMMENDATION: Accept the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: The exception applies where the voice system is used AT MAXIMUM CONNECTED LOAD to evacuate the facility. As such, the submitter is trying to compare the 15 minutes maximum connected load (equivalent to 2 hours of intermittent use) versus 5 minutes at maximum connected load (that is the only way that the exception applies), not 5 minutes of maximum connected to 2 hours of intermittent use. This will help provide a clear baseline for battery calculations.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Power supplies will be covered by Chapter 4 in the 2002 edition of the National Fire Alarm Code. All voice systems are required to have their secondary power supplies sized for 24 hours of quiescent load plus 15 minutes at maximum connected load by Chapter 4. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-221-(3-8.4.1.3.5.3.1) : Reject TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee suggests that readers refer to the action on Comment 72-226.SUBMITTER: Antoinette Gray, Rep. Southern California Fire Prevention OfficersCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-275RECOMMENDATION: Accept the committee’s proposed text as printed in the May 2002 ROP “In Principle” with the following revisions: I) Change Section 3-8.4.1.3.5.3.1 to read: “In response to an initiating signal indicative of a fire emergency, the system shall automatically transmit one of the following either immediately or after a delay acceptable to the Authority Having Jurisdiction.” II) Add after “acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction” as in presently found in the last sentence of 3-8.4.1.3.5.3.1...”and where permitted by the Authority Having Jurisdiction” (Just before text of (a)). SUBSTANTIATION: I) This addition clarifies the misunderstanding that one of either (a) for voice evacuation, or (b) for relocation, or (c) simple evacuation signaling is to be chosen by the designer for the intended operation of the system. II) Adding “and where permitted by the Authority Having Jurisdiction” requires the designer to seek out the Authority Having Jurisdiction and discuss whether voice messages will be used as described in (a) or (b) or (c) for simple evacuating signaling. The resulting discussions will lead to a shared

354

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAunderstanding of any unique egress or relocation issues. Also, adding this new text is also consistent with action on Proposal 72-265, which has been “accepted in principle” to also address concerns regarding voice messages; both live and recorded; and seek the approval of the Authority Having Jurisdiction before selecting message content. Dr. Clary has registered a negative vote to this committee action by referencing a discussion with Dr. Proulx indicating that an alert tone should only be 15 to 20 seconds. However, the alert tone is referenced with “relocation” in (b) of section 3-8.4.1.3.5.3.1. As the committee left (b) untouched, we expect that Dr. Clary may wish to register a positive vote, and be consistent with Dr. Proulx. The late, respected Robert McPherson has also registered a negative vote, concerned that a 60 second tone used in the standard evacuation signal would be quite annoying. We would point out that paragraph (c) of this same section describes the use of an evacuation signal (as in 3-8.4.1.2) only (no voice) and, if applied per this code, that signal could run continuously. We recognize the deep knowledge and commitment Mr. McPherson had for our industry. Though we respectfully agree with his opinion that “the number of cycles is a highly subjective opinion”, and submit that his opinion “two cycles as a minimum is sufficient” can be highly subjective, we also believe the committee action to embrace the 60 second minimum is correct, as it actually conforms to actual observations in regular environments using these signals. Repeated observations of real people in real buildings may not fall into the definition of the term “subjective”. Finally, Mr. McPherson states, “many of the occupants may be familiar only with the standard evacuation tones used in some buildings and evacuate even before the voice message is telling them what to do starts.” This is our point. We would prefer that people egress or relocate from the building before they ever hear the voice message in (a) or (b); there’s nothing wrong with that (and it is allowed in (c)). If it is necessary to evacuate, an immediate and swift evacuation is preferred. Better safe than sorry. A recent study by Guylene Proulx of Canada in R-1 apartments revealed that the occupants took from 30 seconds to 24 minutes with an average of 2-1/2 minutes to start evacuating their apartments, even when this evacuation was pre-planned and announced. Real-time field observations by Antoinette Gray, (A fire and life safety expert with more than 20 years of experience) from similar multi-story and high-rise office buildings reveals beginning evacuation times starting at 25 seconds with an average time of 8-1/2 mintues. These times stemmed from pre-planned, announced fire drills and were conducted by “wardens” and others were urging people to evacuate. These field observations have been from April of 1998 to date, in more than 260 buildings per year. Substantial study material exists to demonstrate both appropriate and inappropriate responses to recorded voice messages by building occupants. Since the overall goal in fire safety must be evacuation from unsafe areas in a timely fashion under emergency situations, the work done by Dr. Proulx and the real-time, field observations of Antoinette Gray show that the beginning of egress can average in the minutes. Therefore, if a recorded voice message is used to provide evacuation directions, such as “a fire has been reported in the building, please leave the floor, do not use elevators, and use the exit stairwells” this message should not be given too soon and should not ever interrupt the alarm sound since the sound and the talking mean the same thing. Get out now! It has been Antoinette Gray’s experience that voice messages activated sooner than 60 seconds cause occupants to stop evacuating (responding) to listen to the voice message, which they hope will tell them that it is not necessary to evacuate. Unfortunately, many occupants in buildings have heard all too many alarms where evacuation was unnecessary. These real-time field observations confirm the idea that this overall detection and recognition time should not be interrupted by a too soon voice message in buildings where unnecessary alarms are all too common. Because occupants in any kind of building, even in their own homes, are unwilling to admit an emergency and react accordingly, they need time to understand and act on the “get out now!” sound to begin the evacuation sequence. Therefore, longer fire alarm sounds and shorter messages are vital to ensure continued prompt evacuation movement when recorded voice messages are used. When the occupants have decided to respond, then provide additional evacuation information. In the past, additional evacuation cues and information has been offered by many methods (tone, voice, signs, enhanced lighting paths and directional sound evacuation) and strengthened by periodic and real life training as prescribed in this Life Safety Code and others. We are requesting this change to offer enough audible information to be able to evacuate an unsafe area to a safe area correctly, and in a timely fashion. And the use of audible (rather than visual) directional sound information is of vital importance in the presence of smoke or fumes; essential for visually disabled occupants under any conditions. We know there are three phases to human behavior to be: detection (physical energy delivered to the eyes or ears, etc.) recognition (what the sound and words mean, the urgency and authority of the recognized messages, other factors surrounding the person in the environment) and the response required to initiate the correct emergency action (move now). Once sufficiently aroused (detection through recognition) by the audio alert tone followed by the fire alarm sound (the “get out now” sound referred to in this proposal), most occupants eventually begin to evacuate their areas. Therefore, if a pre-recorded message is used, it is more appropriate and helpful to offer voice evacuation instructions after the occupants attention has been gained (recognition) and they are moving away from their work areas to

the exists (response). This is important since most automatic fire alarm signals are meant to provide some supplemental emergency egress (voice) information because of the inherent inaccuracy of detecting the source (and therefore correct egress path) of audible emergency tones. New developments of directional fire alarm signals do contain concurrent audio location cues that clearly broadcast a very detectable “come to me” signal without the need for supplemental voice instructions. And when deployed with ever increasing audible pulse rates, they act as relocation alarms, which result in far faster egress or relocation (30 to 60% faster than fire alarm signals with supplementary voice messages. When this technology is in place, perhaps the combination of alarm signal, voice evacuation and direction sound evacuation will finally provide all of the elements needed to get people up and moving in the right direction with all of the facts at hand.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee statement on Comment 72-222 (Log #234).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanCOMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: J. MOORE: While I do not necessarily agree with the changes made to this section of the code, I am voting in the affirmative as the committee action on this comment effectively prevents additional changes being made to this section of the code. I do not agree that we should be making changes to the voice message, evacuation signaling and sequencing based on the limited and incomplete information currently available to the committee. See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-222.

————————————————-


72-222-(3-8.4.1.3.5.3.1) : Reject TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee suggests that readers refer to the action on Comment 72-226.SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-275RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider and reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: Sixty (60) seconds of the audible emergency evacuation signal is too long. Further study on human behavior is badly needed before making arbitrary changes to the current Code requirements. Considerable thought needs to be given to whether these occupancies are residential or non-residential and ambulatory versus non-ambulatory.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has formed a task group to study voice messages, evacuation signals and their sequence.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NEGATIVE: 5 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: ANDERSON: The original proposal, as accepted, added many new requirements to voice systems wihout sufficient testing and evaluation. In particular, the requirement to delay the actual voice evacuation message for 60 seconds may endanger the building occupants during a fire. Comment 72-222 asked for rejection of Proposal 72-275. The Technical Committee rejected 72-222 and formed a study group to “...study voice messages, evacuation signals, and their sequence.” Proposal 72-125 should be rejected and reconsidered when the study group publishes its report. CLARY: My records show that the vote was to Accept the comment. This ties into the action taken on 72-226 in which a task group has been formed to study the issue prior to the 2005 ROP. The original language needs to be maintained until the task group completes its work and reports back to the Committee. LARRIMER: I agree with the reasoning provided in Mr. Anderson’s Explanation of Negative Vote. MANDE: We should not make any changes to the existing code requirements in Section 3-8.4.1.3.5.3.1(a) and (b) until the new task group, created by the committee in response to Comment 72-226, has submitted its recommendations for needed changes. J. MOORE: The committee’s action on Proposal 72-275 was made without complete information on the subject. The committee should wait until there is complete information available before making changes to the requirements for voice messages, evacuation signals, and sequencing. Making changes to the timing and sequencing of messages based on unpublished, anecdotal information is premature. A task group has been formed to study the available information on the subject. Changes should not be made until the task group has had a chance to study all the available information and make recommendations to the Technical Committee on Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems.

————————————————-

355



72-223-(3-8.4.1.3.5.5 (New) ) : Hold SUBMITTER: Paul D. Graham, Sound Alert TechnologiesCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-276RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider and reverse the move to Reject this proposal: retain the original proposal as published and add the following alternatives to voice messaging available and not addressed in the proposal or committee actions. 3-8.4.1.3.5.5.X* Alternates to Emergency Voice Messages for Egress. Directional signals shall also be allowed to direct the listener to egress or for relocation. Directional signals use non-verbal cues (broad frequency content, unique frequency response, graduated repetition rates from device to device) to effectively replace the supplementary information found in voice messages to enable egress or relocation. *A.3.8.4.1.3.5.5.X Non-voice evacuation audio signals, may for example, depend on supplemental emergency voice messages to add information for safe and efficient egress or relocation. There are alternates to these supplemental emergency voice messages to achieve egress or relocation. Directional signaling products act both as the primary evacuation or annunciation signal and as supplemental egress or relocation devices. These all-in-one devices contain a frequency content far broader than most “tone” devices, allowing for increased detection above competing masking noises. They have a unique frequency response that indicates the location of the signal, allowing a pinpoint reference in all degrees of visual backgrounds, from completely smoke-filled to all clear but unknown locations to the listener. By employing a variety of repetition rates across many devices, successively faster units draw a listener away from the slower devices to achieve movement towards the intended exit. These characteristics also allow the directional signaling devices to overcome difficulties found with conventional voice messages when broadcasting emergency messages in many languages. SUBSTANTIATION: I disagree with the committee action to Reject the initial proposal because they believe the proposed text is overly restrictive, limited and not appropriate for all locations. I believe there are enough “as required”, “if required” and “unless otherwise required by the Authority Having Jurisdiction” phrases within the proposal to overcome the committee’s reservations of applicability of use. Additionally, present fire alarm products have the logic capability for storing automatic and pre-programmed messages to deliver near-live messages for a number of foreseen situations. They can address current emergency situations with primary and alternate pre-programmed messages, to meet the intent of Phased Evacuation as proposed. As to the specific primary and alternative voice message content, the scientific community indicates that the message structure should: 1) identification of the problem, 2) location of the problem, and 3) instructions to avoid the problem. (See G. Proulx, “How to Initiate Evacuation Movement in Public Buildings” Facilities, Vol. 17 No. 9/10, (1999) MCB University Press, London, UK, pp. 331-335). This message structure is also commonly employed in the emergency communication and dispatch services as Mr. Dumais and Mr. Horon point out in their original proposal. The original proposed content is generic enough to be appropriate for all locations, “as required”, with a few missing elements. I think the proposal as exists doesn’t go far enough. It does not address the difficulties to deliver speedy, concurrent evacuation or relocation messages in multiple languages. It does not address the difficulty of detecting voice messages against competing background noises and voices. And it does not offer an accurate source location to allow the listener to be drawn toward the audible signal for egress guidance. There exists a new class of Directional Signals that are not voice based, but act as both a very detectable fire alarm “tone” and a directional “beam” to indicate the intended egress path. They contain a unique frequency response containing a broader frequency content then conventional initiating signals. This allows for better detection above ambient “masking” noises. They also have a unique frequency response that gives the listener a precise exit direction to show the egress path. They act as complete self-contained annunciators, free from the need for secondary or supplementary voice message speakers now used to confirm egress or relocation information. (In essence, these “combination” products share equal facilitation with visual emergency lighting; they contain both message content and direction of broadcast.) And, when multiple units are employed using increasingly faster repetition rates over a designed egress path, they act as the audible equivalent of a “Geiger counter”. That is, hearing faster repetition rate devices means you are getting closer to the exit or along the relocation path. And, as non-voice relocation devices, they are free from the need to broadcast multiple voice messages in many languages.COMMITTEE ACTION:HoldCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The comment introduces new material that has not had public review. This comment will be referred to that task group that will be studying evacuation issues.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-224-(3-8.4.1.3.5.6.3) : Accept SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-277RECOMMENDATION: Accept the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: See my substantiation in the negative comment. In addition, the Life Safety Code has accepted proposals for the new edition that do not require the signals (and strobes) to be heard (or blinded) in the elevators.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-225-(3-8.4.1.3.5.6.4) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-278RECOMMENDATION: Accept the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: See my substantiation in the negative comment. In addition, the Life Safety Code has accepted proposals for the new edition that do not require the signals (and strobes) to be heard (or seen) in stairways.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Revise 6.9.7.4 to read as follows: “Where required, each enclosed stairway shall be equipped with speakers connected to a separate notification zone for manual selective paging only.”COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This meets the submitter’s intent while clarifying the language.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: MANDE: Comment 72-225 should be rejected because the Committee provided no substantiation to explain why it reversed its actions between the ROP and ROC, and why it no longer supports its Committee Comment in the ROP. The Committee vote to reject Proposal 72-278 was opposed by only one member who was also the only one to submit a comment. The only new information provided in the comment was “...the Life Safety Code has accepted proposals for the new edition that do not require the signals (and strobes) to be heard (or seen) in stairways.” Since this is the only new information received, we can assume that this is the reason for the Committee’s mind change. There is always a risk to act on changes to a code made during the ROP. We have only to look at our own Committee and the number of reversals we have made between our ROP and ROC actions. In addition to the procedural problem, I have a problem understanding why the use of stairway speakers will now be limited to manual selective paging only. Since the code requires manual priorty over recorded messages during an emergency, recorded messages would only come into play when there is no one on duty to transmit the live voice message. Even when there is a person on duty, in many instances the recorded message could be more reliable than a live message. The decision on whether or not a stairway paging zone should be treated as any other paging zone or restricted to manual selective paging, only should be made by the Authority Having Jurisdiction.

————————————————-


72-226-(3-8.4.1.3.5.3.1 (a) and (b)) : Accept SUBMITTER: Shane M. Clary, Bay Alarm Co., Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-275RECOMMENDATION: Revised the text to the 1999 edition text. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a subject that requires further study. I would urge the technical committee to form a task group to conduct further study on this issue and submit possible revised text for the 2005 cycle.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-227-(3-8.4.1.3.5.5) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-276

356

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPARECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action does not comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects because it does not address ANY of the substantiation provided. B. The committee statement, besides not mentioning anything in the substantiation, is also incorrect. 1) The proposal isn’t “overly restrictive” nor does it “limit the options available to the Authority Having Jurisdiction” at all. In fact, proposed 3-8.4.1.3.5.5.1 starts out with: “Unless otherwise required by the authority having jurisdiction...”. 2) Since it doesn’t propose ANY particular voice message or messages at all, it’s also not clear how the committee concluded that “the proposed voice messages are not appropriate for all locations.” C. This proposal does not place any restrictions on the specific content of voice messages; it simply requires that the message(s) include the 3 basic elements of all emergency messages. How specific a message needs to be varies with the application, but there are NO LOCATIONS where it’s inappropriate for an emergency voice message to indicate generally what the emergency is, where the emergency is, and what the listener is supposed to do. Certainly yelling “HEADS UP!!!” over the voice evacuation system in a high-rise building is not sufficient. D. It is essential that a building which is required to have a voice evacuation system, and which is expected to execute phased evacuations in emergency situations, have a phased evacuation plan (not to mention that it’s very helpful to know what you want your emergency voice evacuation system to do and how BEFORE you design and install it). Unless the committee thinks it’s okay to design systems without knowing what you want them to do (assuming you actually do want them to do something in particular), or that your average $6/hr. security guard who hasn’t a clue as to the designer’s intent is going to come up with a well thought out phased evacuation plan on their own in the middle of a fire emergency, this one should be a slam dunk.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter did not provide any additional information or support for the proposed changes other than that provided in the original proposal. The proposed text would require a common emergency message format for all emergency voice alarm systems. This may not be appropriate for all situations. It is the intent of the committee that the voice message be tailored to the site specific conditions of the facility.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-228-(3-8.4.1.3.7.2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Daniel G. Decker, Safety Systems, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-281RECOMMENDATION: This proposal should be rejected. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The substantiation for this proposal does not apply to this proposal. The proposal is to modify wiring requirements for two way telephone circuits, the substantiation references “building public address systems” and “fire department communications to occupants”. Consequently, the submitter has provided no substantiation relevant to two-way telephone circuits. B. The proposal does not add materially to the requirement. This section already references a two-hour rated cable assembly, and that would include C1 cable. According to the manufacturer’s website, CI cable “has established a minimum 2 hour fire resistance rating by passing the applicable requirements of UL Test Standard 2196, Standard for Tests of Fire Resistive Cables”. C. The inclusion of this cable type is not only unnecessary; it may constitute an implicit endorsement of a product, since there appears to be only one manufacturer of this product. Such an endorsement would be in violation of NFPA policy, reference the Technical Correlating Committee comment on Proposal 72-64. D. The committee action to modify the exception to require the use of metal raceway is totally lacking in any form of substantiation. No evidence has been provided of any problem with cables attacked by fire in a fully sprinklered building. No evidence has been submitted to indicate that installation in metal raceway would have either a positive or negative effect on the conductors during a fire condition. It is entirely possible that the installation in metal raceway could cause cable to fail sooner, since the raceway not only acts as a radiant heat source on the conductors, but it also provides the potential for multiple ground faults when the conductor insulation fails. E. The failure to provide substantiation is a violation of NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects, specifically Section 3-3.6: “Each Technical Committee shall, as far as practicable, prepare documents in terms of required performance, avoiding specifications of materials, devices or methods so phrased as to preclude obtaining the desired result by other means. It shall base its recommendation upon one or more of the following factors; namely, fire experience, research data, engineering fundamentals or other such information as may be available.” The Technical Committee has provided no data, research or other justification for requiring the use of metal raceway.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 25 NEGATIVE: 3

NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: CLARY: The original proposal was to require mechanical protection for two-way telephone communication circuits. It was the Committee’s statement when accepting in principle the original proposal that ìthe committee felt that additional mechanical protection was necessary. The substantiation for the comment centers around the use of CI cable. This issue was resolved through other action by the Committee during the ROC. The Committee appeared to agree during the ROP that additional protectoin for this circuit type was required. I still feel that it is, and would urge my fellow comittee members to reconsider their votes. J. MOORE: While the substantiation submitted with the proposal is not directly applicable to the situation addressed by the proposal, the need for effective fire department communications during a serious fire has been long demonstrated during numerous actual fires. Fire service communications during a large area structure fire have been cited as a key issue for the safety of fire service personnel fighting the fire. Just a couple of the well publicized fires where fire ground communications were cited as a problem include: Interstate Bank Fire, Los Angeles, CA (1988) - “Radio communications were overtaxed and disrupted by the buildingís steel frame.” [U.S. Fire Administration Technical Report Series, Report 022, Interstate Bank Building Fire]. High-rise Office Bldg. Fire, Philadelphia, PA (1991) Three firefighter fatalities - “Radio communications were affected by the significant duration of the incident. ...To ease congestion on the fire ground radio channels, cellular telephones were used to communicate between the Command Post in the lobby and the staging area on the 20th floor.” [U.S. Fire Administration Technical Report Series, Report 049, High-rise Office Building Fire One Meridian Plaza]. Where the fire department depends on the firefighter telephone system within a building as an important means of communication during a fire, it is essential that the circuits for these systems be designed and installed to minimize disruption of their operation. Failure to do so can jeopardize the safety of fire service personnel operating in the building during a fire. Where these telephone systems are provided, firefighters have the expectation that the systems will continue to function during fire suppression operations. One of the arguments against acceptance of this proposal is that there are too many points of failure in a system to assure continued operation during fire. The intent of the “survivability” requirements is not, and has never been, to assure 100 percent operation of the system during a fire. It has always been recognized that specific devices and appliances (i.e., speaker, telephone set, phone jack, etc.), when exposed to direct fire attack will probably fail quickly and compromise the operation of that particular portion of the system. The intent is to minimize the possibility of a failure of one component or circuit from affecting communications in other areas. For example, a fire on the 20th floor of a building will likely compromise the circuits, devices and appliances on that floor, but we do not want that failure to affect operation of the system on other floors. Therefore, protection of the circuit as it passes through fire areas other than the fire area served by the circuit is essential. This is the basic idea behind the provision of “survivable” fire alarm circuits. The survivability of circuits that serve firefighter telephone systems are just as important as any other fire alarm circuit. In fact, since firefighters will likely remain in the building for a far longer period of time than the building occupants, the firefighter telephone circuits should at least meet the same survivability requirements as other fire alarm circuits intended for installation in buildings where there is partial or selective evacuation of the building occupants. The action of the committee should be to require the same level of survivability for firefighter telephone circuits as is required for other circuits. Specifically, the requirements for these circuits should be: “All circuits necessary to the operation of two-way telephone systems shall be installed using one of the following methods: a. A 2-hour rated cable assembly b. Routing the cable through a 2-hour rated enclosure c. A method approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction” STRINGFIELD: I feel the two-way telephone communications circuits need protection for the safety of the firefighters and helping with the operation at the scene. I do not agree with the exception and feel it should be deleted. Based upon other proposals regarding CI cable, this method should also be deleted.

————————————————-


72-229-(3-8.4.1.3.7.2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-281RECOMMENDATION: Reject the Proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: Circuit Integrity (CI) cable should not be added to NFPA 72 until its status in Article 760 of the National Electrical Code (NEC) is decided by the NEC Technical Correlating Committee. The Technical Correlating Committee reversed the action taken by Code Making Panel (CMP) 16 to add “limited combustible (-50) cable in several of its Articles in the NEC because “...the Panel’s action contains no requirement or specifications for the use of limited combustible cable versus the general cables already specified”. The Technical Correlating Committee also noted that “...it is inappropriate to attempt to include references to all products that

357

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAdo not have a need for specific application rules or products that are permitted but not required by the NEC.” The Technical Correlating Committee also noted that “...the NEC does not prohibit the use of limited combustible cable.” The action taken by the Technical Correlating Committee was upheld by the Standards Council during the appeal process. In the supporting documentation for the appeal it was noted “...the NEC should not contain information almost tantamount to advertising, about cables permitted to be used in plenums today but not required to be used in such places.” The Technical Correlating Committee recognizes that a similar problem might exist with Circuit Integrity (CI) cable and plans to review it during the next code cycle. Circuit Integrity cable is basically a 2-hour rated cable that is also listed in the Code as an acceptable cable. Both are tested in accordance with UL 2196-Tests of Fire Resistive Cable.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 25 NEGATIVE: 3 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: CLARY: I am opposed to this action by the Committee. Please see my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-228. Please also let the record show that CAFAA did not approve this action by the submitter. J. MOORE: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-228. STRINGFIELD: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-228.

————————————————-


72-230-(3-8.4.1.3.7.2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-281RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The proposed requirements are in violation of 1-2.1, which specifically states that “It is the intent of this code to establish the required levels of performance, extent of redundancy, and quality of installation but not to establish the methods by which these requirements are to be achieved.” B. No substantiation has been provided demonstrating that there is a survivability problem with firefighter telephone circuits that needs to be fixed, or that such a problem, if it exists, will be fixed by the proposed requirements. Obviously, most firefighter telephone circuits are already installed in 2-hour fire rated exit stair enclosures. C. No documentation has been provided to substantiate the claim that CI cable or other 2-hour fire-rated cable will actually provide any improvement over other types of wiring with respect to maintaining the operability of fire alarm systems or critical system functions under actual fire conditions. No actual fire testing of systems has been conducted to substantiate this claim and no actual fire history has been cited. D. No documentation has been provided to substantiate the relationship, if any, between UL’s listing tests for fire-rated cables and the conditions such cables might be exposed to in an actual fire. This is important because, as noted in the definition of “fire-rating” in Chapter 1, “Fire Rating” means: “The classification indicating in time (hours) the ability of a structure or component to withstand a standardized fire test. This classification does not necessarily reflect performance of rated components in an actual fire.” For example, when CI cable is heated for a minute or so on a kitchen stove and then bent 90 degrees in two planes, the fire-resistant insulation flakes off. While this is not a particularly “scientific” test, it does suggest that the “survivability” of CI cable in an actual fire likely depends as much on the integrity of the cable supports as it does on the cable itself. Other fire-rated cable types may have the same or similar limitations. There are presently NO REQUIREMENTS for CI cable supports, noncombustible or otherwise, in NFPA 72. E. Under fire/firefighting conditions, it is not clear how provision of fire resistive cable can possibly ensure the operability of a fire alarm system comprised largely of electrically operated plastic devices, with listed operating temperatures of (typically) no more than 120°F, which promptly short out in the presence of water. Because system operability is dependent on multiple, interconnected components, the overall system “survivability” under fire conditions is no better than the “survivability” of most vulnerable component exposed to the fire. F. At best, assuming adequate noncombustible supports, requirements for CI or other fire-resistive cable only protect the cable; they do not ensure the operability of the fire alarm system or any critical system functions under fire conditions. Even if CI or other fire-resistive cable is part of the solution to a “survivability” problem - a problem that remains to be substantiated - such cables are obviously not a complete solution. G. When the objective is system operability and that operability is dependent on multiple, interconnected system components, most of which are more vulnerable to fire and water than the interconnecting cables, an incomplete solution is NO solution. NFPA 72 should not be mandating expensive, unproven, partial solutions to hypothetical problems. H. These CI cable requirements have been being pushed since the NFPA Annual Meeting in May 1996, in several different sections of the code, at the behest of the manufacturer (Rockbestos-Suprenant Cable Corp.) and with the apparent assistance of special experts on both the Technical Committees

and the Technical Correlating Committee. This is occurring despite the unambiguous violation of the intent of the standard as stated in 1-2.1, the clear lack of technical substantiation, and the obvious fact that protecting cable doesn’t ensure system functionality - which is the sole, presumed, and highly questionable benefit offered as justification. I. In order to ensure that the integrity of the consensus standards making process is not “FOR SALE,” it would be appropriate for the ROC to record which NFPA 72 Technical Committee and Technical Correlating Committee members are now, or who have previously, been retained by the submitter pursuant to the objective of getting these requirements into NFPA 72. COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The requirements for fire alarm circuit survivability apply only to a small percentage of systems in which building occupants are only partially evacuated or relocated in the event of a fire. The committee recognizes, and the code reflects, the fact that direct fire attack of fire alarm system components can compromise the operation of the circuits, devices, and appliances serving the immediate fire area. The submitter states that there have been no specific fire tests to show that fire rated cable assemblies perform better than non-fire rated assemblies. This assertion is no more valid than an assertion that there is no proof that a fire rated door will last longer than a non-fire rated door when exposed to a fire, or that any other fire rated assembly will not last longer than a similar non-fire rated assembly. While there have been no specific fire tests on fire alarm systems as a whole, anyone familiar with fire protection and fire testing can examine the available fire test methods and listing procedures, and understand that a cable assembly that has passed a fire exposure test will survive longer in a given fire than a wire, cable, or assembly that cannot pass the fire exposure test. This is fire protection at its most basic level. The submitter’s assertion that survivability requirements were formulated in 1996 in order to market CI cable is also false. The requirements for survivability and the use of 2-hour fire rated cable assemblies as one method of meeting survivability requirements predate the introduction of CI cable to the market or its introduction to the National Fire Alarm Code. Lastly, the submitter makes totally unsubstantiated, and false accusation that a specific manufacturer has unduly influenced members of the technical committee and that the NFPA committee process might be corrupt and “FOR SALE.” Anyone who chooses to actively participate in the committee process will quickly find that these accusations are patently false and have no basis in fact. For the record the facts are: 1. All actions taken by the Technical Committee were in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee projects. 2. There have been no attempts by any manufacturer or any individuals to influence the committee concerning the topic other than the submission and discussion of proposals and comments during Technical Committee meetings as part of the normal NFPA technical committee process. 3. At various times two members of the committee have been engaged to provide consulting services for a manufacturer of CI cable during two different code cycles. In accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects, both members identified themselves to the committee as a consultant to a CI cable manufacturer during committee deliberations. Their actions were limited to discussion of the proposals or comments they submitted. 4. There is more than one manufacturer of CI cable. 5. The Technical Committee has acted consistently concerning requirements for survivability of fire alarm system circuits. These actions have been upheld by the Technical Correlating Committee, the NFPA membership during adoption of the standard, and by the NFPA Standards Council in issuing the document. There are avenues of appeal to the NFPA membership, the NFPA Standards Council and the NFPA Board of Directors if the actions of the Technical Committee are deemed inappropriate. None of these avenues of appeal have been initiated for any actions taken by this Technical Committee. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 25 NEGATIVE: 3 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: CLARY: I am opposed to this action by the Committee. Please see my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-228. I do, however, strongly concur with the committee statement as it relates to the committee being “For Sale.” J. MOORE: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-228. STRINGFIELD: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-228.

————————————————-(Log #343)

Committee: SIG-PRO72-231-(3-8.4.1.3.7.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Shane M. Clary, Bay Alarm Co., Inc./Rep. California Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-281RECOMMENDATION: We support the action of the technical committee. SUBSTANTIATION: The technical committee action on 72-269, 72-281 and 72-288 was made so that added protection could be provided to these critical circuits.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee actions on Comment 72-228 (Log #195), Comment 72-229 (Log #237) and committee action and statement

358

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAon Comment 72-230 (Log #128).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 26 NEGATIVE: 2 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: CLARY: I am opposed to this action by the Committee. Please see my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-228. STRINGFIELD: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-228.

————————————————-(Log #52)

Committee: SIG-PRO72-232-(3-8.4.3.4) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-284RECOMMENDATION: Revise 3-8.4.3.4 to read as follows: 3-8.4.3.4 Fire alarm systems used for fire suppression releasing service shall be provided with a disconnect switch or switches to allow the system to be tested without activating the fire suppression system or related functions. Operation of the disconnect switch(s) shall cause a trouble signal at the fire alarm control unit. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The current text does not address disconnection of functions other than agent release. B. In some applications, functions such as computer power shutdown have the potential to create business interruption losses that substantially exceed the cost of the fire suppression agent. Those functions are just as important to bypass during routine system testing - and just as important to get reconnected properly when the testing is completed - as the agent releasing function. C. The intent of this section is to ensure that releasing systems are installed in a manner that is conductive to performing routine system testing.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The comment leaves out the option of providing a supervisory signal without substantiation. The arrangement of disconnects for suppression systems is outside the scope of this code. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: LARRIMER: Providing a switch on a fire alarm system is within the scope of this code. As a matter of fact, the paragraph that this comment refers to already requires a disconnect switch. The commentor left out “supervisory” in his proposal, but the current edition of the code, as written, only has “trouble” in the paragraph and if that is the problem, it could have been added to the paragraph to satisfy the committee. This comment should have been accepted.

————————————————-(Log #235)

Committee: SIG-PRO72-233-(3-8.4.3.4) : Accept in Principle TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the word “panel” be replaced with the word “unit” in the Committee Action on Comment 72-233. This correlates with the correct usage of the term “Fire Alarm Control Unit.SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-284RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the Proposal for Accept. SUBSTANTIATION: Although the committee action provides satisfaction to the submitters’ proposal, it is inconsistent with the requirements of this Code. Specifically, it conflicts with Section 3-8.3.3.3.1 for a supervisory signal and has been noted by Technical Correlating Committee Members.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Revise the last sentence of 6.11.4 to read: “Operation of a disconnect switch or a disable function shall cause a supervisory signal at the fire alarm control panel.”COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The words “disable function” were added to allow the ability to disable via a software function.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: BARTH: I agree with the deletion of the trouble signal. The purpose of the disconnect on a releasing system is the same as closing a valve on a water suppression system and, therefore, the signal generated should be the same. However, I disagree with adding the words “disable function” because it is my opinion that the use of a software function to disable a releasing system is not sufficient. It should require a “hard” disconnect so that there is assurance that a signal cannot get to the releasing mechanism.COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: CLARY: Make an editorial change from “fire alarm control panel” to “fire alarm control unit” so as to be consistent with the language used within the Code.

————————————————-(Log #121)

Committee: SIG-PRO72-234-(3-9, A-3-9) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-286RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on this proposal is in violation of the Regulations governing committee projects as no technical substantiation was provided to justify the addition of several pages of new material. This proposal obviously goes far beyond “clarifying current material.” B. This material dangerously blurs the distinction between fire alarm systems and other kinds of building systems over which NFPA 72 has no jurisdiction.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action on Comment 72-235 (Log #186).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-235-(3-9, A-3-9 [2002 Ed. 6.8.1.3(2), 6.8.1.4, 6.15.2.7(2), 6.15.2.9, 6.15.5.5, 6.15.5.6 & A.6.8.3]) : Accept in Principle TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlation Committee directs that the committee action concerning Section 6.8.1.4 to be revised to comply with the Manual of Style to read as follows: “6.8.1.4 Where the signaling line circuit is shared by other premises operating systems, operation shall be in accordance with section 6.8.3. 6.8.1.4.1 All signal control and transport equipment (routers, servers, etc.) located in a critical fire alarm or fire safety function signaling path shall be listed for fire alarm service unless the following conditions are met: a) The equipment meets the performance requirements of 4.4.4.1. b) The equipment is provided with primary and secondary power and monitored for integrity as required in 4.4. c) All programming and configuration assure a fire alarm system actuation time as required in 4.4.3.1.4 and 4.4.3.2.2. d) System bandwidth is monitored to confirm that all communications between equipment which is critical to the operation to the fire alarm system or fire safety functions takes place within 10 seconds; failure shall be indicated within 200 seconds. e) Failure of any equipment, which is critical to the operation of the fire alarm system or fire safety functions, is indicated at the master fire alarm control unit within 200 seconds.”. 6.8.1.4.2 A listed barrier gateway, integral with or attached to each control unit or group of control units, as appropriate, shall be provided to prevent the other systems from interfering with or controlling the fire alarm system.SUBMITTER: Jerry Martocci, Johnson Controls Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-286RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: 6.8.1.3 (2) Listed digital data interfaces (such as serial communications ports or gateways) Data communications over signaling line circuit(s) dedicated to the fire alarm or shared with other premises operating systems 6.8.1.4 Where the signaling line circuit is shared by other premises operating systems, operation shall be in accordance with section 6.8.3. All signal control and transport equipment (routers, servers, etc.) located in a critical fire alarm or fire safety function signaling path shall be listed for fire alarm service. A listed barrier gateway, integral with or attached to each control unit or group of control units, as appropriate, shall be provided to prevent the other systems from interfering with or controlling the fire alarm system. Exception: Signal control and transport equipment need not be listed for fire alarm service provided the following conditions are met: 1) The equipment shall meet the performance requirements of 4.4.4.1. 2) The equipment is provided with primary and secondary power and monitored for integrity as required in 4.4. 3) All programming and configuration shall assure a fire alarm system actuation time as required in 4.4.3.1.4 and 4.4.3.2.2. 4) System bandwidth shall be monitored to confirm that all communications between equipment which is critical to the operation to the fire alarm system or fire safety functions takes place within 10 seconds; failure shall be indicated within 200 seconds. 5) Failure of any equipment, which is critical to the operat\ion of the fire alarm system or fire safety functions, shall be indicated at the master fire alarm control unit within 200 seconds. 6.15.2.7 (2) Listed digital data interfaces, such as serial communications ports or gateways Data communications over signaling line circuit(s) dedicated to the fire alarm or shared with other premises operating systems. 6.15.2.9 (Delete) 6.15.5.5 When interconnected as a combination system, a Firefighter’s Smoke Control Station (FSCS) shall be provided to perform manual control over the automatic operation of the system’s smoke control strategy. 6.15.5.6 When interconnected as a combination system, the smoke control system programming shall be designed such that normal HVAC operation or changes do not prevent the intended performance of the smoke control strategy.

359

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA Delete Annex material A.6.8.3. SUBSTANTIATION: New requirements proposed in Proposal 72-286 were inadvertently added by the committee as annex material. This proposal moves forward to the body of the code the revised requirements while deleting the unnecessary annex material. The proposal also addresses the inconsistency that now exists between Chapters 6 and 8 as a result of formal interpretation number 72-99-1.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Revise 6.8.1.3 (2) as follows: “Listed digital data interfaces (such as serial communications ports or gateways) Data communications over signaling line circuit(s) dedicated to the fire alarm or shared with other premises operating systems.” Insert new 6.8.1.4 to read as follows: “6.8.1.4 Where the signaling line circuit is shared by other premises operating systems, operation shall be in accordance with section 6.8.3. All signal control and transport equipment (routers, servers, etc.) located in a critical fire alarm or fire safety function signaling path shall be listed for fire alarm service. A listed barrier gateway, integral with or attached to each control unit or group of control units, as appropriate, shall be provided to prevent the other systems from interfering with or controlling the fire alarm system. Exception: Signal control and transport equipment need not be listed for fire alarm service provided the following conditions are met: 1) The equipment shall meet the performance requirements of 4.4.4.1. 2) The equipment is provided with primary and secondary power and monitored for integrity as required in 4.4. 3) All programming and configuration shall assure a fire alarm system actuation time as required in 4.4.3.1.4 and 4.4.3.2.2. 4) System bandwidth shall be monitored to confirm that all communications between equipment which is critical to the operation to the fire alarm system or fire safety functions takes place within 10 seconds; failure shall be indicated within 200 seconds. 5) Failure of any equipment, which is critical to the operation of the fire alarm system or fire safety functions, shall be indicated at the master fire alarm control unit within 200 seconds.” The remainder of the recommendation is accepted as submittedCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The proposed text was accepted with renumbering to coincide with the rewrite of the chapter.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-(Log #129)

Committee: SIG-PRO72-236-(3-9.2.3) : Accept SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-288RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The proposed requirements are in violation of 1-2.1, which specifically states that “It is the intent of this code to establish the required levels of performance, extent of redundancy, and quality of installation but not to establish the methods by which these requirements are to be achieved.” B. No substantiation has been provided demonstrating that there is a survivability problem with smoke control and elevator control circuits that needs to be fixed, or that such a problem, if it exists, will be fixed by the proposed requirements. C. No documentation has been provided to substantiate the claim that CI cable or other 2-hour fire-rated cable will actually provide any improvement over other types of wiring with respect to maintaining the operability of fire alarm systems or critical system functions under actual fire conditions. No actual fire testing of systems has been conducted to substantiate this claim and no actual fire history has been cited. D. No documentation has been provided to substantiate the relationship, if any, between UL’s listing tests for fire-rated cables and the conditions such cables might be exposed to in an actual fire. This is important because, as noted in the definition of “fire-rating” in Chapter 1, “Fire Rating” means: “The classification indicating in time (hours) the ability of a structure or component to withstand a standardized fire test. This classification does not necessarily reflect performance of rated components in an actual fire.” For example, when CI cable is heated for a minute or so on a kitchen stove and then bent 90 degrees in two planes, the fire-resistant insulation flakes off. While this is not a particularly scientific test, it does suggest that the “survivability” of CI cable in an actual fire likely depends as much on the integrity of the cable supports as it does on the cable itself. Other fire-rated cable types may have the same or similar limitations. There are presently NO REQUIREMENTS for CI cable supports, noncombustible or otherwise, in NFPA 72 and the addition of such requirements may significantly effect the CI cable cost/benefit equation. E. Under fire/firefighting conditions, it is not clear how provision of fire resistive cable can possibly ensure the operability of a fire alarm system comprised largely of electrically operated plastic devices, with listed operating temperatures of (typically) no more than 120°F, which promptly short out in the presence of water. Because system operability is dependent on multiple, interconnected components, the overall system “survivability” under fire conditions is no better than the “survivability” of most vulnerable components exposed to the fire. Since most fires originate in the portions of the building where people, and all those plastic fire alarm devices and sprinklers are, the

real-world benefit of running fire-resistive cable in concealed spaces likely ranges from marginal to nil. This is why lack of any fire history showing a real benefit is a legitimate concern. F. At best, assuming adequate noncombustible supports and fires originating in concealed spaces where the only fire alarm component they encounter is cabling, requirements for CI or other fire-resistive cable ONLY protect the cable; they do not ensure the operability of the fire alarm system or any critical system functions under fire conditions. Even if CI or other fire-resistive cable is part of the solution to a “survivability” problem - a problem that remains to be substantiated - such cables are obviously not a complete solution. G. When the objective is system operability and that operability is dependent on multiple, interconnected system components, most of which are more vulnerable to fire and water than the interconnecting cables, an incomplete solution is NO solution. NFPA 72 should not be mandating expensive, unproven, partial solutions to hypothetical problems. H. These CI cable requirements have been being pushed since the NFPA annual meeting in May 1996, in several different sections of the code, at the behest of the manufacturer (Rockbestos-Suprenant Cable Corp.) and with the apparent assistance of special experts on both the Technical Committees and the Technical Correlating Committee. This is occurring despite the unambiguous violation of the intent of the standard as stated in 1-2.1, the clear lack of technical substantiation, and the obvious fact that protecting cable doesn’t ensure system functionality - which is the sole, presumed, and highly questionable benefit offered as justification. I. In order to ensure that the integrity of the consensus standards making process is not “FOR SALE,” it would be appropriate for the ROC to record which NFPA 72 Technical Committee and Technical Correlating Committee members are now, or who have previously, been retained by the submitter pursuant to the objective of getting these requirements into NFPA 72. COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The requirements for fire alarm circuit survivability apply only to a small percentage of systems in which building occupants are only partially evacuated or relocated in the event of a fire. The committee recognizes, and the code reflects, the fact that direct fire attack of fire alarm system components can compromise the operation of the circuits, devices, and appliances serving the immediate fire area. The submitter states that there have been no specific fire tests to show that fire rated cable assemblies perform better than non-fire rated assemblies. This assertion is no more valid than an assertion that there is no proof that a fire rated door will last longer than a non-fire rated door when exposed to a fire, or that any other fire rated assembly will not last longer than a similar non-fire rated assembly. While there have been no specific fire tests on fire alarm systems as a whole, anyone familiar with fire protection and fire testing can examine the available fire test methods and listing procedures, and understand that a cable assembly that has passed a fire exposure test will survive longer in a given fire than a wire, cable, or assembly that cannot pass the fire exposure test. This is fire protection at its most basic level. The submitter’s assertion that survivability requirements were formulated in 1996 in order to market CI cable is also false. The requirements for survivability and the use of 2-hour fire rated cable assemblies as one method of meeting survivability requirements predate the introduction of CI cable to the market or its introduction to the National Fire Alarm Code. Lastly, the submitter makes totally unsubstantiated, and false accusation that a specific manufacturer has unduly influenced members of the technical committee and that the NFPA committee process might be corrupt and “FOR SALE.” Anyone who chooses to actively participate in the committee process will quickly find that these accusations are patently false and have no basis in fact. For the record the facts are: 1. All actions taken by the technical committee were in accordance with NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. 2. There have been no attempts by any manufacturer or any individuals to influence the committee concerning the topic other than the submission and discussion of proposals and comments during technical committee meetings as part of the normal NFPA technical committee process. 3. At various times two members of the committee have been engaged to provide consulting services for a manufacturer of CI cable during two different code cycles. In accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects, both members identified themselves to the committee as a consultant to a CI cable manufacturer during committee deliberations. Their actions were limited to discussion of the proposals or comments they submitted. 4. There is more than one manufacturer of CI cable. 5. The Technical Committee has acted consistently concerning requirements for survivability of fire alarm system circuits. These actions have been upheld by the Technical Correlating Committee, the NFPA membership during adoption of the standard, and by the NFPA Standards Council in issuing the document. There are avenues of appeal to the NFPA membership, the NFPA Standards Council and the NFPA Board of Directors if the actions of the Technical Committee are deemed inappropriate. None of these avenues of appeal have been initiated for any actions taken by this Technical Committee. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: CLARY: I am opposed to this action by the Committee. Please see my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-237. I do, however, strongly concur with the committee statement as it relates to the committee being “For Sale.”

————————————————-

360



72-237-(3-9.2.3) : Accept SUBMITTER: Daniel G. Decker, Safety Systems, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-288RECOMMENDATION: This proposal should be rejected. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The submitter has provided no substantiation for the proposal. Substantiation referencing “a more reliable method to provide the performance required by the code” fails to explain how a CI cable with a 2-hour rating is any different from the 2-hour protection already required. B. The proposal does not add materially to the requirement. This section already references a two-hour rated cable assembly, and that would include C1 cable. According to the manufacturer’s website, CI cable “has established a minimum 2 hour fire resistance rating by passing the applicable requirements of UL Test Standard 2196, Standard for Tests of Fire Resistive Cables”. C. The inclusion of this cable type is not only unnecessary; it may constitute an implicit endorsement of a product, since there appears to be only one manufacturer of this product. Such an endorsement would be in violation of NFPA policy, reference the Technical Correlating Committee comment on Proposal 72-64. D. The committee action to modify the exception to require the use of metal raceway is totally lacking in any form of substantiation. No evidence has been provided of any problem with cables attacked by fire in a fully sprinklered building. No evidence has been submitted to indicate that installation in metal raceway would have either a positive or negative effect on the conductors during a fire condition. It is entirely possible that the installation in metal raceway could cause cable to fail sooner, since the raceway not only acts as a radiant heat source on the conductors, but it also provides the potential for multiple ground faults when the conductor insulation fails. E. The failure to provide substantiation for the Technical Committee action is a violation of NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects, specifically Section 3-3.6: “Each Technical Committee shall, as far as practicable, prepare documents in terms of required performance, avoiding specifications of materials, devices or methods so phrased as to preclude obtaining the desired result by other means. It shall base its recommendation upon one or more of the following factors; namely, fire experience, research data, engineering fundamentals or other such information as may be available.” The Technical Committee has provided no data, research or other justification for requiring the use of metal raceway.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agrees with the recommendation, but does not concur with the submitter’s assertion that it acted improperly. See committee action and statement on Comment 72-215 (Log #265).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: CLARY: The original proposal was to require mechanical protection for smoke control circuits. It was the Committee’s statement when accepting in principle the original proposal that “the committee felt that addional mechanical protection was necessary.” The substantiation for the comment centers around the use of CI cable. This issue was resolved through other action by the Committee during the ROC. The Committee appeared to agree during the ROP that additional protection for this circuit type was required. I still feel that it is, and would urge my fellow committee members to reconsider their votes.

————————————————-


72-238-(3-9.2.3) : Accept SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-288RECOMMENDATION: Reject the Proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: Circuit Integrity (CI) cable should not be added to NFPA 72 until its status in Article 760 of the National Electrical Code (NEC) is decided by the NEC Technical Correlating Committee. The Technical Correlating Committee reversed the action taken by Code Making Panel (CMP) 16 to add “limited combustible (-50) cable in several of its Articles in the NEC because “...the Panel’s action contains no requirement or specifications for the use of limited combustible cable versus the general cables already specified”. The Technical Correlating Committee also noted that “...it is inappropriate to attempt to include references to all products that do not have a need for specific application rules or products that are permitted but not required by the NEC.” The Technical Correlating Committee also noted that “...the NEC does not prohibit the use of limited combustible cable.” The action taken by the Technical Correlating Committee was upheld by the Standards Council during the appeal process. In the supporting documentation for the appeal it was noted “...the NEC should not contain information almost tantamount to advertising, about cables permitted to be used in plenums today but not required to be used in such places.” The Technical Correlating Committee recognizes that a similar problem might exist with Circuit Integrity (CI) cable and plans to review it during the next code cycle.

Circuit Integrity cable is basically a 2-hour rated cable that is also listed in the Code as an acceptable cable. Both are tested in accordance with UL 2196-Tests of Fire Resistive Cable.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agrees with the recommendation does not agree it is necessary to base its action contingent upon action taken by the National Electrical Code Committee. See committee action and statement on Comment 72-215 (Log #265).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: CLARY: I am opposed to this action by the Committee. Please see my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-237. Please also let the record show that CAFAA did not approve this action by the submitter.

————————————————-


72-239-(3-9.2.3) : Accept SUBMITTER: Tim Crosnoe, Code Consultants, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-288RECOMMENDATION: Rescind the committee’s action of “Accept in Principle” and reject the recommendation. SUBSTANTIATION: There is no justification given as to why smoke control circuitry deserves any more protection than initiation or notification circuits. These circuits are just as important, if not more, for the protection of human life. Yet, they are not given 2-hour protection status in this proposal. Inclusion of this requirement will also serve to increase the overall cost of the fire alarm system, and, therefore, increase construction costs of the entire project. The benefits of the additional protection seem unbalanced when compared to the additional costs.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agrees with the recommendation but does not agree with the submitter’s substantiation relating to economic considerations.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: CLARY: I am opposed to this action by the Committee. Please see my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-237.

————————————————-


72-240-(3-9.2.3) : Reject SUBMITTER: Shane M. Clary, Bay Alarm Co., Inc./Rep. California Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-288RECOMMENDATION: We support the action of the technical committee. SUBSTANTIATION: The technical committee action on 72-269, 72-281 and 72-288 was made so that added protection could be provided to these critical circuits.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement Comment 72-215 ( Log #265) and Comment 72-237 (Log #196).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: CLARY: I am opposed to this action by the Committee. Please see my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-237.

————————————————-


72-241-(3-9.2.7) : Reject SUBMITTER: Tom DeMint, Poudre Fire AuthorityCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-289RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 3-9.2.7 “Smoke detectors or heat detectors installed exclusively to perform control functions and not otherwise required by the Code to initiate an alarm condition, need not be connected to the a fire alarm system, provided that they comply with 3-9.2.1 Exception.” SUBSTANTIATION: In the proponents substantiation,b he states that regardless of intended purpose and application of a device that the initiating devices need not be connected to the fire alarm system. In buildings where initiating devices are used to perform a function but an alarm system is not required, it should be allowed to perform that function without having to install a fire alarm system control unit.

361

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPACOMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reaffirms the committee statement in the proposal. The specific “control functions” recommended in this comment are not specified.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: LARRIMER: See my negative response on Comments 72-74, 72-75 and 72-164. The submitter wanted clarification on whether or not a device needs to be connected to the fire alarm system. Clarification has not been provided, but in my personal opinion, a device installed within a building to perform a control function of any type is not required to be connected to the fire alarm system by the National Fire Alarm Code. (Note that other codes, such as the Life Safety Code may, and does, require it in some instances).

————————————————-


72-242-(3-9.3 and A-3.9.3) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-291RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee statement is incorrect; the scope of NFPA 72 is clearly stated in 1-1: 1-1 Scope. NFPA 72 covers the application, installation, location, performance, and maintenance of fire alarm systems and their components. B. The Chapter 3 Technical Committee, not to mention the Technical Correlating Committee, the Standards Council, and the public, can read as well as I can, and they can see that 1-1 does not mention elevator safety or elevator controllers or elevator operation. The title of ANSI A17.1, on the other hand, is “Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators.” This would seem to constitute reasonable “technical substantiation” for the assertion that the current text of 3-9.3 both exceeds the scope of NFPA 72 AND overlaps into the jurisdiction of ANSI A17.1 and A17.3. C. The committee action is not in accordance with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects because it stops with the incorrect statement that elevator safety is within the scope of NFPA 72 (reference 1-1) and does not address the very real problems of blurring the distinction between fire alarms and other systems (the point of proposal substantiation Item A) and blurring the responsibilities for whose responsible for what (proposal substantiation Item B). For that matter, the committee did not address the legitimate objective of clarifying how the fire alarm portion of an elevator recall system is supposed to work (proposal substantiation Item C) or the concern that fire alarm control panels are not listed elevator controllers and should not be used for that purpose (proposal substantiation Item D) either. D. It should be noted that this proposal does not constitute a major change to what’s currently in the standard, but rather, simply makes a clear line of demarcation between what’s part of the fire alarm, and what’s not. It’s also considerably more straightforward and easier to use than the current text. E. There are many practical reasons why it is important to clearly define the extent of a fire alarm system. These include facilitating inspection, testing, troubleshooting, modifications (when needed), and maintenance, as well as helping to keep other trades from screwing around with the fire alarm system, maintaining operability over time, and minimizing unwarranted liabilities. It is not clear why the Chapter 3 Committee would object to making it perfectly clear where the fire alarm ends and somebody else’s problems begin.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Contrary to the assertions made by the submitter, the action taken by the committee complies fully with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. NFPA maintains continuous liaison with the ANSI A17.1 committee responsible for the elevator safety standards to assure the two standards correlate with each other. The National Fire Alarm Code does not require elevator recall, shutdown or any other specific functions for elevators. However, where these specific functions are mandated by other codes and standards to be performed by the fire alarm system, this code details the methods to be used. This is fully within the scope of this committee.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-243-(3-9.3.1) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-292 & 72-293RECOMMENDATION: Reject these proposals. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action violates the Regulations Governing Committee Projects because no technical substantiation has been provided to demonstrate a need for smoke detectors used for elevator recall to be connected to the building fire alarm system. B. Elevator recall functions are provided in buildings without fire alarm

systems all the time, apparently without any adverse consequences. Why these systems work fine in buildings without fire alarms, but won’t work in buildings that do, is not at all clear. Just because something has a smoke detector connected to it doesn’t make it a fire alarm system. C. The current confusion in the standard over who’s responsible for what with respect to elevator recall and elevator shutdown is a good reason NOT to mandate connecting somebody else’s problems to the fire alarm system at this time. Given the current text of 3-9.3 and 3-9.4, the standard is already requiring fire alarm technicians to perform work which the technical committee knows they are not competent to perform. There is no reason to make this situation any worse.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Contrary to the assertions made by the submitter, the action taken by the committee complies fully with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. Additionally, the commentor makes the false assertion that the code already requires “fire alarm technicians to perform work which the technical committee knows they are not competent to perform.” The submitter’s claim has no substantiation or factual foundation. In fact, the section of the code under the jurisdiction of the Technical Committee on Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems does not require fire alarm technicians to perform any work. Additionally, there have been no discussions, evaluations, or judgments within the committee concerning the competency of fire alarm technicians. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-244-(3-9.3.1) : Reject SUBMITTER: Tom DeMint, Poudre Fire AuthorityCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-291RECOMMENDATION: Revise the following to read: 3-9.3.1* System-type smoke detectors or other automatic fire detection as permitted by 3-9.3.5 located in elevator lobbies, elevator hoistways, and elevator machine rooms used to initiate fire fighters’ service recall shall be connected to the building fire alarm system. In facilities without a building fire alarm system, these smoke detectors or other automatic fire detection as permitted by 3-9.3.5 shall be connected to a dedicated fire alarm system control unit that shall be designated as “elevator recall control and supervisory panel,” permanently identified on the control unit and on the record drawings. Unless otherwise required by the Authority Having Jurisdiction, only the elevator lobby, elevator hoistway, and the elevator machine room smoke detectors or other automatic fire detection as permitted by 3-9.3.5 shall be used to recall elevators for fire fighters’ service. SUBSTANTIATION: Mr. Johnson stated in his comment on the affirmative that he agreed with the submitter of this proposal but didn’t agree with a complete replacement of the text. We are seeking a change that would allow buildings that do not require an alarm system to initiate the ANSI A17.1 required recall system by a system control unit other than an FACP. As stated in the proponent’s substantiation Item D., FACP’s are not listed elevator controllers and should not be used for that purpose.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agrees that this function is within its scope and clarifies that the fire alarm control panel shall be used for its ability to monitor the integrity of the circuits. The ASME/ANSI A17.1 committee liaison concurs that this function is the responsibility of the Technical Committee on Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems. The fire alarm control panel is not being used as an elevator controller, rather it is only being used to send signals to the elevator controller. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-245-(3-9.3.5) : Accept SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-296RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: See my negative comments. This proposal adds a heat detector in the pit only when sprinklers, that will control the fire, are actually installed in the pit. If there are no sprinklers there to control the fire, then this (these) heat detectors is not required. This is ridiculous. As Mark Dumais would say, just because there are sprinklers installed in the pit doesn’t make it more hazardous such that, in addition to those sprinklers, you now also have to add heat detectors. Sprinklers don’t make the elevator system more hazardous. If the elevator committee was concerned about where the elevator was during a fire, then they should state their objective and let the fire alarm designers get there, i.e., during a fire in the elevator pit, the elevator car will be sent remote from the fire. This would apply for all buildings with elevators, not just those with sprinklers already in the pit providing detection and protection. On the other hand, I doubt that proposal would pass since there is no real justification

362

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAto do so.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-246-(3-9.3.5) : Accept SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-296RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. This requirement is outside the scope of an installation standard. B. Substantial revisions have been made to NFPA 72 over the last several cycles based on the misguided premise that an apparent lack of fire alarm expertise on the ANSI A17.1 is justification for NFPA 72 to do their job for them. The scope of this standard is clearly stated in 1-1 and obviously does not include promulgating elevator safety requirements. If the ANSI A17.1 committee needs additional expertise, they should go out and find some. C. There is no need to correlate with ANSI A17.1 - where ANSI A17.1 applies, it should define where detectors are needed and the kind(s) of detectors to be provided. NFPA 72 should tell users how the detectors that are required by ANSI A17.1 - or other codes or specifications - should be installed; not where they’re required. The idea that NFPA 72 needs to repeat requirements found elsewhere “for correlation” is silly.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the comment based on the substantiation provided in Comment 72-245 (Log #19). The committee does not concur with the substantiation submitted in this comment.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-247-(3-9.3.5) : Accept SUBMITTER: David J. Burkhart, Code Consultants, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-296RECOMMENDATION: Rescind the committee’s action of “Accept in Principle” and reject the proposed paragraph. SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 13 requires that sprinklers installed in elevator pits must be within two feet of the bottom of the shaft while ANSI A17.1 does not require power shutdown if the sprinkler is within two feet of the bottom of the shaft. There would, therefore, be no requirement for a smoke or heat detector in this area and, hence, no method for recall. The added requirement for a heat detector to be installed would then encroach on the standard making responsibility of ANSI under Standard A17.1. Additionally, the typical recall scenario recalls cars to levels very close to the bottom of the shaft regardless of whether it is to the primary of secondary floor. This could pose an even greater hazard than if recall were not initiated from the pit at all.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-248-(3-9.3.7(b) and (c)) : Reject SUBMITTER: Lynn B. Nielson, Henderson Fire DepartmentCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-297RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows: (b) The smoke detectors or other automatic fire detection as permitted by 3-9.3.5 in the remaining elevator lobbies. elevator hoistways, and the elevator machine room shall actuate the second elevator control circuit. Exception No. 1. If the elevator machine room is located at the designated landing, its smoke detector or other automatic fire detection as permitted by 3-9.3.5 shall also actuate the first elevator control circuit. Exception No. 2. If a smoke detector or other automatic fire detection as permitted by 3-9.3.5 is installed in a hoist way at or below the lowest landing of recall the initiating device shall cause the car(s) to be sent to the upper recall level. (c) The smoke detectors or other automatic fire detection as permitted by 3-9.3.5 in elevator hoistways and the elevator machine room(s) shall actuate the a third elevator control circuit. In addition, if the elevator machine room is located at the designated level, its smoke detector or other automatic fire detection as permitted by 3-9.3.5 shall also actuate the first elevator control circuit. SUBSTANTIATION: As written, the National Fire Alarm Code does not contain any provisions for the elevator hoistway smoke detector(s) to initiate a phase 1 recall and only one possibility for a machine room smoke detector

to initiate a phase 1 recall. It has been my experience that most fire alarm designers do not own or have a copy of the ANSI/ASME A 17.1 code book. If most of the functional requirements are to be provided than why not provide them all so designers will do it right.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is necessary to use the NFAC and ASME/ANSI A17.1 in order to properly apply the elevator requirements.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-249-(3-9.4) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-299RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on this proposal does not comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects because the committee ignored the substantiation provided. B. The notion that the ANSI A17.1 committee writes the scope of NFPA 72 is ridiculous. It is obviously not up to an ANSI committee to determine what is or is not covered in an NFPA standard; if they lack the expertise necessary to write good elevator safety requirements, they should go out and find some. C. See also ROP 72-291; it is entirely possible to provide appropriate guidance in NFPA 72 for elevator shutdown functions without exceeding the scope of the standard.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Elevator shutdown is not required by, nor is it a function of the NFAC. Such requirements are contained in other codes and standards. Where there is a requirement from one of those documents to initiate shutdown of the elevator, the NFAC provides the method.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-250-(3-10.7(3)) : Reject SUBMITTER: Daniel G. Decker, Safety Systems, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-303RECOMMENDATION: This proposal should be accepted. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The language in the proposed 6.16.3.4 and 6.16.5(3) directly conflict with proposed 6.15.2.2 and proposed 4.4.3.2.2, which require activation of fire safety functions and notification appliances within 10 seconds. B. There is no justification for separate requirements for activation time of fire safety outputs and notification appliances based on the technology utilized by the fire alarm system. If it is appropriate to activate these functions within 10 seconds, there should not be an effective exception for a specific type of fire alarm system. Danger from smoke and fire are not minimized simply because a low power radio system technology was utilized for the fire alarm system.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on Comment 72-251 (Log #249).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-


72-251-(3-10.7(3)) : Reject SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-303RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the proposal and Accept in Principle. SUBSTANTIATION: The committee statement is incorrect. However, we were able to discern that two separate errata’s have been issued. Errata number 72-99-2 deleted Sections 3-10.3.5 and 3-10.3.6 and renumbered Section 3-10.3.7 to 3-10.5, which explains why the committee had trouble finding the conflict suggested in the submitter’s recommendation. Secondly, Errata 72-99-3 furthermore changed the text of 3-10.3.4 back to the 1996 edition (90 seconds), so it would correlate with Mr. Hopple’s concern of 3-10.5. This results in the 1999 edition of NFPA 72, Sections 3-10.3.4 and (renumbered) 3-10.5 correlating to allow a 90 second delay, which the committee felt achieved the submitter’s goals. However, neither the committee, nor Errata 72-99-3 substantiated the reason to revert back to the 1996 edition text allowing a 90 second delay. There should be no difference in the maximum delay allowed for wireless equipment versus hardwired equipment. No justification is provided to increase the delay

363

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAin transmission of an alarm for wireless equipment. Because of the two actions taken in separate errata, the proposal should be accepted in principle because the submitter did not include a request to change (72-99-3 errata changed) Section 3-10.3.4 from 90 seconds to 10 seconds. We are in disagreement with any reason that allows equipment to delay an alarm signal for more than 10 seconds regardless of its technology. We would remind the Technical Committee that the maximum delay for the hardwired was 90 seconds; changed to 20 seconds in 1999; and to 10 seconds in the 2002 edition. This allowed technology time to catch up with the requirement. Surely, wireless technology has progressed in 6 years.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Section 6.16.3.4. in the draft contained an errata. The original text of the requirement remains unchanged. There are limits in transmission time due to FCC regulations.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 25 NEGATIVE: 3 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & HoffmanEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: ANDERSON: Section 3-10.7 allows wireless systems to delay report of alarm up to 90 seconds, as compared with 10 seconds for wired fire alarm systems (2002). Proposal 72-303 and Comment 72.251 request that wireless systems comply with the same delay times as all other fire alarm systems. The Technical Committee rejected the comment with the statement: “There are limits in transmission time due to FCC regulations.” The FCC document number is not stated. Fire alarm delay is a critical factor and should be based on life safety concerns, and not relaxed for particular technologies because of their limitations. Comment 72-251 should be accepted. CLARY: I concur with the Explanation of Negative Vote from Mr. Anderson. LARRIMER: I agree with the reasoning provided in Mr. Anderson’s Explanation of Negative Vote. I feel that a better explanation needs to be provided by the technical committee for allowing this technology so that this issue is put to rest once and for all. In addition, explanatory notes ought to be provided in the annex of the code to explain the reason that this code requires 10 seconds response time for all other technologies and 90 seconds for this wireless technology so that a user may make an informed decision on using the wireless technology.

————————————————-(Log #138)

Committee: SIG-NAS72-252-(Chapter 4 [2002 Ed. 7.4.1.4]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304RECOMMENDATION: Delete new paragraph 7-4.1.4. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The ROP incorrectly indicates that this material was moved from the appendix to the body of the standard based on ROP 72-318 and ROP 72-319, neither of which requested this particular change. ROP 72-318 didn’t even mention this material, and ROP 72-319 asked that the appendix material (which the committee moved to the body of the standard instead) be DELETED. B. The committee action is in violation of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects because neither a proposal not technical substantiation was provided for moving this material from the appendix to the body of the standard. In the absence of a proposal at the ROP stage, this change constitutes new material for the ROC and cannot become part of the 2002 edition of the NFAC.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee statement in the ROP should have reflected the committee’s desire to move the material based on a committee amendment to the original proposal. It was the intent of the committee to coordinate with the submitter’s original proposal (72-443) which would have had the same effect. The committee chose to add additional text to make the requirement enforceable and measurable where required. The committee has not violated the Regulations Governing Committee Projects by adding additional committee-generated material to the original proposal. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-(Log #165)

Committee: SIG-NAS72-253-(Chapter 4 [2002 Ed. Chapter 7]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on this proposal does not comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects because the revised text contains numerous changes that go far beyond the “manual of style” justification for the proposal. B. Combining changes resulting from public proposals with wholesale “manual of style” changes pursuant to a committee proposal makes it very difficult to track all of the changes that have been made, and nearly impossible

to verify that those changes comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects. C. The manual of style proposals from each technical committee should be stand-alone proposals which can be reviewed to verify that the only thing that has changed is the style; not the requirements. D. Correlation of accepted manual of style proposal - presumably editorial revisions - with other changes initiated via public proposals should be handled by the Technical Correlating Committee or NFPA staff.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee action text contains text of a full and complete Manual of Style proposal PLUS amendments made for Manual of Style purposes PLUS incorporation of all other proposal actions. NFPA chose to not publish the original Manual of Style proposal in the printed ROP. While it is time consuming to follow all the changes made, it is possible. A copy of the original Manual of Style proposal is available at NFPA. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any easy way to accomplish all the changes.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-(Log #311)

Committee: SIG-NAS72-254-(Chapter 4 [2002 Ed. 7.4.5.1]) : Accept SUBMITTER: Robert P. Schifiliti, R.P. Schifiliti Assoc., Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304 and 72-29RECOMMENDATION: In 7.4.5.1, delete the reference to 7.4.1.4. SUBSTANTIATION: The original proposal and committee action on 72-29 referenced 4-3.1.4 which was later removed from the body of the chapter by the committee by way of 72-316. The current ROP 7.4.1.4 has nothing to do with tone signaling.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


72-255-(4-1.2) : TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the action on Comment 72-255 (comment only) be reported as “Hold” consistent with Section 4-4.6.2.2 of the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects.SUBMITTER: Paul D. Graham, Sound Alert TechnologiesCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-305RECOMMENDATION: Revise the committee action text to be more descriptive and inclusive of all forms of indicating technologies, as follows: 4.1.2* “Notification appliances for fire alarm systems shall contribute to fire protection by providing detection stimuli for initiating the recognition of an emergency situation with subsequent actions to direct proper response, and by providing supplemental verbal information or combined directional signaling information to users, emergency response personnel and occupants. A.4.1.2 Fire systems offer a variety of signaling methods to initiate the recognition and subsequent response to precipitate safe egress under emergency situations. The intent of emergency signaling methods is to set in motion the complete chain of detection, recognition and proper response by the person hearing that signal. Pertinent, persuasive or compelling messages coupled with effective egress training will result in properly directed, orderly, and near-immediate first movement response. The evacuation signal has a distinctive pattern for fire situations [see 3.8.4.1.2]. This pattern is sometimes referred to as “Temp-3”, or the Temporal-3 “tone” although the prescribed pattern can actually contain any type of tone. First movement response may be achieved by the evacuation signal pattern alone. [see 3.8.4.1.3.5.3.1(c)]. Where allowed or appropriate, voice messages (live or pre-recorded) supplement these evacuation signals seeking first movement. Supplementary voice messages are allowed and are intended to enhance egress from [see 3.8.4.1.3.5.3.1(a)] or relocation within [see 3.8.4.1.3.5.3.1(b)] the occupancy as required. The use of attention-getting Alert Tones are employed to enhance detection of a pending voice relocation message [also in 8.4.1.3.5.3.1(b)]. Supplemental live messages derived from actual knowledge of the emergency are generally more accurate and more persuasive, are preferred to pre-recorded messages, and have priority over previously initiated signals [see 8.4.1.3.5.3.3]. Fire system audible appliances accomplish correct response notification in many ways: “Combined” directional signals achieve the desired egress or relocation immediate response with a single speaker that broadcasts non-verbal audible cues [patterns and frequencies] that are easily detected in many environments [smokey, clear and noisy condition] and accurately indicate the location of the source signal. By employing graduated repetition rates from device to device, these combined directional signal products achieve the desired egress and/or a relocation path in varied environments. Some appliances achieve the desired response in two steps, using 1) initiating, non-voice signals to stimulate near-immediate egress movement

364

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA[using bells or sounders, for example] and 2) supplemental voice messages [using separate speakers] to direct egress or relocation movement with pertinent and timely information. SUBSTANTIATION: This comment intends to add to the clarity of use as shown in the original proposal. This comment, with additional annex material, amplifies the underlying human mechanisms, provides a critical common vocabulary for the code and fire services, and explains applications of two-step and combined directional signaling forms of audible notification signals. The Code as presently written is confusing regarding the types, applications and the intent of audible signals on people. It contains definitions and examples of alarm signals, alert tones, annunciators, audible notification devices, coded signals, delinquency signals, emergency voice/alarm communications, exit plan, fire alarm/evacuation signal tone generators, fire alarm signal, non-coded signal, notification appliances, positive alarm sequence, signal, tactile notification device, textural audible notification device, and voice intelligibility. It spells out the functional sequence of distinctive evacuation signals (the internationally recognized “fire alarm signal”) and its use with and without supplemental voice messaging [see 3.8.4.1.3.5.3.1(a) and (c)]. it references evacuation versus relocation or other non-evacuation messages in relation to a preceding alert tone [see (b) of that same section]. It describes multi-channel capability [3.8.4.1.3.5.2], signal annunciation [3.8.4.2], public and private mode requirements [4.3.2 and .3], location requirements [4.3.5], and the testing methods [7.2.2 Item 14] and maintenance [7.3.2 Item 19]. Specifically, these proposed additions would follow and amplify the 3 accepted phases of human behavior toward new stimuli independent of the above methods or order of initiation; i.e., detection recognition and the resulting correct response or responses required. Additionally, I believe these comments will help clarify these phases of human response in light of all existing notification products. This comment will include notification and egress or relocation via two-step devices (separate tone annunciation- and voice-annunciation products). These comments also encompass the “combined” one-step directional signaling products that surpass the two-step products for detection, recognition and response, and overcome the difficulty of visual signaling products in that they can be effective direction indicators in low visibility, smoke or fume-filled environments.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle in Part Add the following text to end of existing A.4.1.2. “Fire systems offer a variety of signaling methods to initiate the recognition and subsequent response to precipitate safe egress under emergency situations. The intent of emergency signaling methods is to set in motion the complete chain of detection, recognition and proper response by the person hearing that signal. Pertinent, persuasive or compelling messages coupled with effective egress training will result in properly directed, orderly, and near-immediate first movement response. The evacuation signal has a distinctive pattern for fire situations [see 3.8.4.1.2]. This pattern is sometimes referred to as “Temp-3”, or the Temporal-3 “tone” although the prescribed pattern can actually contain any type of tone. First movement response may be achieved by the evacuation signal pattern alone. [see 3.8.4.1.3.5.3.1(c)]. Where allowed or appropriate, voice messages (live or pre-recorded) supplement these evacuation signals seeking first movement. Supplementary voice messages are allowed and are intended to enhance egress from [see 3.8.4.1.3.5.3.1(a)] or relocation within [see 3.8.4.1.3.5.3.1(b)] the occupancy as required. The use of attention-getting Alert Tones are employed to enhance detection of a pending voice relocation message [also in 8.4.1.3.5.3.1(b)]. Supplemental live messages derived from actual knowledge of the emergency are generally more accurate and more persuasive, are preferred to pre-recorded messages, and have priority over previously initiated signals [see 8.4.1.3.5.3.3]. Fire system audible appliances accomplish correct response notification in many ways: “Combined” directional signals achieve the desired egress or relocation immediate response with a single speaker that broadcasts nonverbal audible cues [patterns and frequencies] that may be detected in many environments [smoky, clear and noisy condition] and may indicate the location of the source signal. By employing graduated repetition rates from device to device, these combined directional signal products achieve the desired egress and/or a relocation path in varied environments. Some appliances achieve the desired response in two steps, using 1) initiating, non-voice signals to stimulate near-immediate egress movement [using bells or sounders, for example] and 2) supplemental voice messages [using separate speakers] to direct egress or relocation movement with pertinent and timely information.”COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee aggreed to add the annex material but rejected changes to the body of the code at this time. The committee felt that additional changes to scope and purpose should be further evaluated and considered in the next cycle.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 1COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: SCHIFILITI: I believe that the committee intended to retain the words “of tone” at the end of the second Annex paragraph. I think this is a typo on the part of text processing. The crossed out text did not appear on the screen during the committee debate.

————————————————-(Log #303)

Committee: SIG-NAS72-256-(4-1.2 [2002 Ed. 7.1.1]) : Accept SUBMITTER: Robert P. Schifiliti, R.P. Schifiliti Assoc., Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304RECOMMENDATION: Revise 7.1.1 as follow: Change “These requirements shall apply...” to “The requirements of this chapter shall....” SUBSTANTIATION: As written “these requirements” can be interpreted to mean only the requirements in that section, 7-1.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


72-257-(4-1.4 and 4-1.2 [2002 Ed. 7.1.2, 7.2]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Robert P. Schifiliti, R.P. Schifiliti Assoc., Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304RECOMMENDATION: Remove the word “shall” from paragraphs 7.1.2 and 7.2. SUBSTANTIATION: The use of the word “shall” in these sentences is not proper English. I know that NFPA editors and text processing has been directed to make sure that every paragraph is a requirement and that in most cases this means requiring the word “shall” in it. However, like it or not, each document must have some defining material. NFPA requires that definitions in codes and standards NOT contain requirements. Yet they are permitted to be in the body of the documents - even without the word “shall”. So too with application, scope and purpose statements.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee feels that the inclusion of the word “shall” is consistent with the Manual of Style.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 15 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: SCHIFILITI: The use of the word “shall” in 7.1.2 and 7.2 is not proper English and does not serve any useful purpose.

————————————————-(Log #132)

Committee: SIG-NAS72-258-(4-2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-306, 72-307, 72-338RECOMMENDATION: Add a new section 4-2 as follows: 4-2 ADA Compliance. This section applies to visual signals installed for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) only. 4-2.1* Strobe lights installed for ADA compliance shall be in accordance with the current edition of the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). Where those requirements exceed the requirements of other sections of this code, the most stringent requirement(s) shall apply. A-4-2.1 Compliance with the requirements of NFPA 72, exclusive of the ADAAG, does not necessarily constitute “equivalent facilitation” under the Americans with Disabilities Act. This section reconciles the requirements of the ADA with the requirements of other sections of this code in a manner that allows fire alarm systems to comply with both. SUBSTANTIATION: A. One of the most prominent sources of requirements for strobe lights, besides NFPA 72, is the ADA. B. This section is necessary for correlation with the ADA. The appendix paragraph is necessary to ensure that users of the code are aware that NFPA 72’s requirements for visual signals are separate and distinct from the requirements of the ADA. C. Compliance with NFPA 72, exclusive of the ADAAG, is frequently misconstrued to be “equivalent facilitation” under the ADA. Compliance with the ADA must be accomplished either through literal compliance with the specific requirements of the law, or by a determination of “equivalent facilitation” by the responsible federal authorities or their designated representatives. This is not a determination that can be made by NFPA. D. Using the most stringent of the applicable criteria is the most straightforward way to reconcile different requirements, and the approach commonly used where multiple criteria apply.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The chapter does not only apply to ADA. It applies anytime any code, standard or authority references it. Its purpose is signaling to hearing impaired persons or signaling by visible means regardless of hearing ability or regardless of accessibility issues. It is not our jurisdiction to determine if NFPA 72 provides equivalent facilitation to ADA or not. See the scope of this chapter in 4-1 of the 1999 Code.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

365



72-259-(4-3.1.1) : Accept SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-312RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the proposal to Accept. SUBSTANTIATION: (Refer to the Technical Correlating Committee Note in Proposal 72-314 and Mr. Haus’ Explanation of Negative Vote). With the Technical Correlating Committee asking for reconsideration of Proposal 72-314 with Mr. Haus’ explanation, if that proposal is reconsidered and Accepted, this proposal should be Accepted as well based on the submitter’s substantiation.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepted the comment to reconsider but reaffirms its position and maintains the 120dBA limit for maximum sound pressure and the 105dBA threshold for requiring visible appliances.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13 NEGATIVE: 3EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: HAUS: I agree with the committee’s action to accept reconsideration of this Proposal 72-312, but I do not agree with the committee’s reaffirmation of its previous ROP action. The proposal is dependent on Proposal 72-314. If Proposal 72-314 were accepted (see Comments 72-261 and 72-262), then this proposal should also be accepted based on this proposal’s substantiation. This substantiation noted that the existing 105 dBA ambient noise level was based on 15 dBA below a maximum alarm level of 120 dBA. If the maximum alarm level is lowered to 110 dBA per Proposal 72-314, then the noise level should be lowered to 95 dBA as proposed in Proposal 72-312. SHUSTER: 72-259, 72-262, 72-263, 72-274, and 72-282 - These comments the committee accepted to reconsider but reaffirmed its position to maintain the 120-dBA limit. The committee’s statement in Proposal 72-315 of the May 2002 Report on Proposals was: “Technical justification for the change would need to be provided, with inclusion of, or reference to the underlying research.” Mr. Haus, in his Explanation of Negative Vote in Proposal 72-314 stated the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, limits exposure to 120-dBA noise to 9 seconds per day before hearing damage occurs. This is the technical data. It would be hard enough to deal with a horrendous fire without adding hearing loss to that situation. I recommend the acceptance of Proposals 72-312, 72-314, 72-315, 72-323, and 72-329. SUMMERS: If the proposals are accepted for Sections 4.3.1.2, 4.3.2.1 and 4.3.3.1 reducing the maximum dBA from 120 dBA to 110 dBA, an average sound pressure level of 95 dBA should be used to be 15 dBA below the maximum allowed.

————————————————-(Log #308)

Committee: SIG-NAS72-260-(4-3.1.1 [2002 Ed. 7.4.1.1]) : Accept SUBMITTER: Robert P. Schifiliti, R.P. Schifiliti Assoc., Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304RECOMMENDATION: Revise 7.4.1.1 as follows: Current wording in the ROP: An average ambient sound level greater than 105 dBA shall require the use of a visible notification appliance(s) in accordance with Section 7.5. Add ref. to 7.6 for private mode to read as follows: An average ambient sound level greater than 105 dBA shall require the use of a visible notification appliance(s) in accordance with Section 7.5 where the application is public mode or 7.6 where the application is private mode. SUBSTANTIATION: 7.4.1 is General Requirements applicable to both public and private mode. As currently written, a private mode application with an SPL of 105 or greater would not be permitted to use public mode visual signaling.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


72-261-(4-3.1.2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-314RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed in the voting. The explanation of the negative vote appears to provide the technical justification requested by the committee. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee

Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepted the comment to reconsider but reaffirms its position and maintains the 120dBA limit.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 14 NEGATIVE: 2EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: HAUS: I agree with the committee’s action to accept the Technical Correlating Committee’s comment to reconsider Proposal 72-314 but I do not agree with the committee’s reaffirmation of its previous ROP action. I believe that Proposal 72-314 should be accepted based on the reasons provided in its substantiation and reiterated in my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-262. SUMMERS: The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health limits exposure to 120 dBA to only 9 seconds per day. Occupants evacuating buildings, which have 120 dBA notification appliances installed, could be exposed to this sound pressure level for substantially more than 9 seconds. Dropping the maximum dBA level from 120 dBA to 110 dBA would also harmonize NFPA 72 with the Canadian National Building Code and Fire Code, and ADA, as well as promote system designs that do not incorporate louder appliances penetrating construction materials in lieu of additional notification appliances in areas requiring notification.

————————————————-


72-262-(4-3.1.2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-314RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the proposal to Accept. SUBSTANTIATION: We agree that Mr. Haus’ Explanation of Negative Vote (and the Technical Correlating Committee Note) provides the technical justification for consideration of the change. This proposal was discussed and agreed upon by the Bi-National Correlating Committee on Fire Alarm Codes to correlate with the Canadian National Building Code and Fire Code. The committee’s reason for Reject is provided in their statement for Reject in 72-315, which states the lack of supporting technical justification for the change, even though the committee Accepted proposal 72-335 without technical justification, with the same submitter substantiation as this proposal. The committee should be consistent in their Committee Actions based on the submitter’s substantiation.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepted the comment to reconsider but reaffirms its position and maintains the 120dBA limit.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13 NEGATIVE: 3

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: HAUS: I agree with the committee’s action to accept reconsideration of this Proposal 72-314, but I do not agree with the committee’s reaffirmation of its previous ROP action. I believe that this proposal should be accepted based on my Explanation of Negative Vote in the ROP. This explanation noted that the maximum alarm level should not be great enough to damage hearing. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) limits exposure to 120 dBA noise to just 9 seconds. The limit for 110 dBA is 1 minute and 29 seconds. The new ADA Accessibility Guidelines and the Canadian National Building Code and Fire Code now limit alarms to 110 dBA. Enforcement and safety would be enhanced by harmonizing NFPA’s requirements with these others. SHUSTER: 72-259, 72-262, 72-263, 72-274, and 72-282 - These comments the committee accepted to reconsider but reaffirmed its position to maintain the 120-dBA limit. The committee’s statement in Proposal 72-315 of the May 2002 Report on Proposals was: “Technical justification for the change would need to be provided, with inclusion of, or reference to the underlying research.” Mr. Haus, in his Explanation of Negative Vote in Proposal 72-314 stated the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, limits exposure to 120-dBA noise to 9 seconds per day before hearing damage occurs. This is the technical data. It would be hard enough to deal with a horrendous fire without adding hearing loss to that situation. I recommend the acceptance of Proposals 72-312, 72-314, 72-315, 72-323, and 72-329. SUMMERS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-261.

————————————————-


72-263-(4-3.1.2, 4.3.2.1, and 4.3.3.1) : Accept SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-315RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the proposal to Accept. SUBSTANTIATION: See reasons given in our comments to Proposals 72-312 and 72-314.

366

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPACOMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepted the comment to reconsider but reaffirms its position and maintains the 120dBA limit.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NEGATIVE: 4EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: HAUS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-262. LOWREY: I vote in opposition to the committee action. In the ROP process, this was voted down in Proposal 72-315 due to lack of “supporting technical substantiation.” I believe that the technical justification for lowering the dB level was provided by Mr. Haus. SHUSTER: 72-259, 72-262, 72-263, 72-274, and 72-282 - These comments the committee accepted to reconsider but reaffirmed its position to maintain the 120-dBA limit. The committee’s statement in Proposal 72-315 of the May 2002 Report on Proposals was: “Technical justification for the change would need to be provided, with inclusion of, or reference to the underlying research.” Mr. Haus, in his Explanation of Negative Vote in Proposal 72-314 stated the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, limits exposure to 120-dBA noise to 9 seconds per day before hearing damage occurs. This is the technical data. It would be hard enough to deal with a horrendous fire without adding hearing loss to that situation. I recommend the acceptance of Proposals 72-312, 72-314, 72-315, 72-323, and 72-329. SUMMERS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-261.

————————————————-


72-264-(4-3.1.4, 4.3.1.5) : Reject SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-317RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept in Principle in Part but include it in an Annex section for performance-based design. SUBSTANTIATION: The material provides additional guidance in the application of notification appliances in areas where hearing protection is worn. However, the guidance suggests performance-based design for optional notification in these areas. The Technical Correlating Committee has assigned a task group for performance-based design options and we feel this material is more applicable to that optional design. We recommend either creating a performance-based Annex section or holding this guidance over until the task group submits a performance-based Chapter with Annex material(s).COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The material is already in the annex as proposed. The committee does not have a separate section for performance based material. In fact, most of the code and annex material on audible signaling is “performance based”.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


72-265-(4-3.1.5) : Reject SUBMITTER: Martin H. Reiss, The RJA Group, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-318 & 72-319RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposals. SUBSTANTIATION: This would require all speakers to be tested by the Authority Having Jurisdiction, even if they are convinced that the message is intelligible. This is an excessive requirement that does not belong in the body of the code. The test equipment for determining intelligibility is also questionable as to availability and performance. This belongs in the appendix.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The text does not require all speakers to be tested. Intelligibility is tested the same way as audibility - by testing the performance of the system, not by testing individual components. The submitter does not say why he feels the requirement is “excessive”. As with audibility, the interpretation of intelligibility is subjective. The requirements for audibility were added to provide a measurable benchmark based on alerting research for emergency signals. The proposed requirements for measured intelligibility are also based on research relating to emergency signaling and message reception. The requirement of a specific CIS value (greater than 0.70) is not considered by the committee to be excessive. This equates to approximately 80% word intelligibility and 95% sentence intelligibility. The proposed level is based on recommendations of international experts and standards organizations (including work done for NATO) and actual listening and simulations by the committee. Whether the requirement is excessive or not is more a function of testing requirements, including frequency and density, which is the purview of another chapter.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: SCHIFILITI: I agree with the committee action. However, I felt it would

be useful to include the following additional comments: Compliance by design works for prescriptive requirements but not for performance based designs. An example is strobe lights. The Notification Appliances Committee has chosen to provide a prescriptive requirement for visible signaling to ensure the proper performance. To correlate with this action, the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance Committee requires that the prescriptive requirements be verified at acceptance and annually by inspection and compliance with the approved design. Speech intelligibility in the Notification Appliances Chapter is a performance requirement. It is not possible to test or inspect individual components for compliance with a design to determine if a system is intelligible. The whole system, including the environment must be a part of a single performance test to verify intelligibility. The CIS scale referenced by the committee having jurisdiction for the performance of notification systems (Notification Appliances) is similar to the dBA weighting scale. It is possible to measure several ways using several test methods or instruments to arrive at a measured value that can be converted to the CIS scale. This is similar to the A-weighting method for sound pressure level. The following research papers document the ability to accurately measure and test intelligibility. These papers and/or their references have previously been provided (refer to 1999 and 2002 proposals) to the committee for their education. These references represent the technical substantiation required by the committee. However, the committee has failed to address the technical substantiation and has not refuted or found fault with the underlying science and engineering for the measurement of speech intelligibility. 1. Steeneken, H.J.M. and Houtgast, T. Some applications of the Speech Transmission Index (STI) in auditoria. Acustica 51, (1982) 229-234. 2. Houtgast, T. and Steeneken, H.J.M. The modulation transfer function in room acoustics as a predictor of speech intelligibility. Acustica 28, (1973) 66-73. 3. Steeneken, H.J.M. and Houtgast, T. A physical method for measuring speech transmission quality. J. Acoustical Society of America, 67(1980) 31, 318-326. 4. Houtgast, T. and Steeneken, H.J.M. A multi-lingual evaluation of the RASTI-method for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria, Acustica 54, (1984) 185-199. 5. Steeneken, H.J.M. and Houtgast, T. On the mutual dependence of octave band contributions to speech intelligibility. Proc. Eurospeech 91, Genoa, (1991) 1133-1136. 6. ISO 9921-1 Ergonomic assessment of speech communication - Part 1: Speech interference level and communication distances for persons with normal hearing capacity in direct communication (SIL method). 7. Mapp, Peter, An Issue of Safety, Sound & Video Contractor (S&VC) Volume 14, Number 11, Oct. 20, 1996, pages 34-48. 8. Pratt, Phillip, Intelligibility and International Standards, Sound & Video Contractor (S&VC) Volume 14, Number 11, Oct. 20, 1996, pages 49-54. In addition, the following additional references may be of interest: 9. Stiernberg, Jeanne, The Science of Perception and Reception, Sound & Video Contractor (S&VC) Volume 14, Number 11, Oct. 20, 1996, pages 14-20, 92. 10. ChÈenne, Dominique J. Getting Testy about Intelligibility, Sound & Video Contractor (S&VC) Volume 14, Number 11, Oct. 20, 1996, pages 22-26. 11. Bell, Ted, A New Measure of Word Recognition, Sound & Video Contractor (S&VC) Volume 14, Number 11, Oct. 20, 1996, pages 28-33. 12. Fletcher, Harvey; Allen, Jont B., ed. The ASA Edition of Speech and Hearing in Communication, Acoustical Society of America, 1995. 13. Beranek, Leo J., Acoustics, McGraw-Hill, 1954, pages 406-416. 14. Peutz, V. M. A., Articulation Loss of Consonants as a Criterion of Speech Transmission in a Room, JAES v.19, No. 11, Nov. 1971, pages 915-919. 15. Ballou, G., ed, Handbook for Sound Engineers, The New Audio Cyclopedia, second edition, Howard W. Sams, pages 1277-1298. 16. Davis, Don and Carolyn, “Application of Speech Intelligibility to Sound Reinforcement,” Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 37, No. 12, December 1989. 17. Davis, Don & Carolyn, Sound System Engineering, 2nd ed, Cannel, IN: SAMS, a Division of Macmillan Computer Publishing 1986. 18. Latham, H. G., The Signal-to-Noise Ratio for Speech Intelligibility - an Auditorium Design Index, Applied Acoustics. vol. 12, July 1979. 19. Marshall, A. H., Acoustical Determinants for the Architectural Design of Concert Halls Architectural Science Review, 11, 1968, pages 81-87. 20. Davis, Carolyn P., Measurement of %ALcons, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol.34, No.11, November, 1986, pages 905-909. 21. Davis, C. and D., Speech Intelligibility Workshop, Syn-Aud-Con Tech Topic, Vol. 14, No. 1, Fall 1986, and Vol. 14, No 8, Summer 1987. 22. Lochner, J. P. A., and Burger, J. F., The Intelligibility of Reinforced Speech, Acustica, 9, 1959. 23. Houtgast, T., Steeneken. H. J. M., and Plomp, R., Predicting Speech Intelligibility in Rooms from the Modulation Transfer Function, Acustica, vol. 46, September 1980. 24. Klein, W., Articulation Loss of Consonants as a Basis for Design and Judgment of Sound Reinforcement Systems, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, vol. 19, no. 11, pages 920-922, December 1971. 25. Peutz, V. M. A., and Kok, B, M.. Speech Intelligibility, Audio Engineering Society 75th Convention 1984. 26. Peutz, V. M. A., Speech Information and Speech Intelligibility, Audio Engineering Society 85th Convention, 1988. 27. Steenken, H. J. M., & Houtgast, J., RASTI. A Tool for Evaluating Auditorium, B&K Technical Review, No. 3, 1989. 28. Heyser, R. C., Concepts in the Frequency and Time Domain Response

367

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAof Loudspeakers, Monitor-Proceedings JREE, March, 1974. 29. Heyser, R. C.. Acoustical Measurements by Time Delay Spectrometry, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 1967. 30. Stanley, G, R., A Microprocessor-Based TEF Analyzer Appendix IX, Sound System Engineering, 2nd ed, Carmel, IN: SAMS, a Division of Macmillan Computer Publishing. 1986. 31. D’Antonio, P., and Konnert, J., Complex Time-Response Measurements Using Tithe Delay Spectrometry. Part I, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Preprint 2542(B-1), October 1978. 32. Mapp, P,, and Doany, P., Speech Intelligibility Analysis and Measurement for a Distributed Sound System in a Reverberant Environment, Audio Engineering Society 87th Convention, NY, 1989. 33. Mapp, Peter, Reaching the Audience, “Proven techniques for evaluating, maintaining and optimizing systems design for speech intelligibility”, Sound & Video Contractor (S&VC) Volume 17, Number 11, Oct. 1999, pages 17-32. 34. Mapp, Peter, Installation Profile - The National Ice Centre, Sound & Video Contractor (S&VC) Volume 18, Number 14, Dec. 2000, pages 77-84. 35. Mapp, Peter, Speaking of Speaking, Sound & Video Contractor (S&VC) Volume 19, Number 10, Sept. 2001, pages 36-48.

————————————————-


72-266-(4-3.1.5) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-318RECOMMENDATION: Delete everything after “occupiable area...”. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The Committee’s action includes changes which were neither proposed nor substantiated in accordance with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects. B. It is not within the purview of technical committees to make changes that nobody asked for.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the committee actions and statements on Comment 72-252 (Log #138) and Comment 72-265 (Log #29).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


72-267-(4-3.1.5) : Reject SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnellCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-318RECOMMENDATION: Change from Accept in Principle to Reject. SUBSTANTIATION: The committee action text is in conflict with the committee action on Proposal 72-443 for Test Methods. The Chapter 4 committee action limits the intelligibility criteria to a single method; whereas Chapter 7 allows two methods. Restricting intelligibility to a single method was not justified. The committee action applies to all occupiable areas, which places an unnecessary burden; both labor and financially, on an owner. There are many smaller rooms and areas that require intelligibility, in which it will be obvious, without conduction/performing/measuring for a CIS score over 0.70.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the committee actions and statements on Comment 72-265 (Log #29) and Comment 72-252 (Log #138). The requirements for testing are not within the scope of this chapter.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: SCHIFILITI: See my Comment on Affirmative Vote on Comment 72-265.

————————————————-


72-268-(4-3.1.5) : Reject SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnellCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-319RECOMMENDATION: Accept the submitter’s proposal and reject the committee action. SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee did not justify relocating only the requirement for a CIS score to 4-3.1.5 and leaving ANSI S3.2 in the annex. This action conflicts with the Chapter 7 action in proposal 72-443, as well as the intent of the submitter’s proposal to permit other test methods.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the committee actions and statements on Comment 72-252 (Log #138) and Comment 72-265 (Log #29). The requirements for the CIS measurement include multiple test methods such as the subject based method,described in ANSI S3.2.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


72-269-(4-3.1.5 [2002 Ed. 7.4.1.4]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Jack Poole, Poole Consulting Services, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-318 & 72-319RECOMMENDATION: Delete proposed 7.4.1.4 and replace with the following: 7.4.1.4 Emergency voice/alarm communications system shall reproduce (be capable of reproduction of) prerecorded, synthesized, or live messages that are clearly intelligible and not distorted. Voice intelligibility is considered achieved when the quantity I

av - σ exceeds a Common Intelligibility Scale

(CIS) score of 0.70, as specified in B3 of IEC 60849, Sound Systems for Emergency Purposes, second edition. SUBSTANTIATION: I feel that even though the voice signal meets/provides a CIS score of 0.70 or better, the voice communications might not be intelligible.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee wants to retain the text as currently written and did not want to introduce unenforceable text language (clearly intelligible and not distorted). Text as presently worded was based on extensive technical documentation and evaluation.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 15 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: LOWREY: I vote in opposition to the committee action. Although “clearly intelligible and not distorted” may be considered unenforceable text, I believe that it adds clarification to the intent of this Section while keeping the CIS score in the body of the Code. I believe the proposed recommendation would benefit the testing authority or testing agency to the overall intent of this section.

————————————————-


72-270-(4-3.1.5 [2002 Ed. 7.4.1.4, A.7.4.1.4]) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Robert P. Schifiliti, R.P. Schifiliti Assoc., Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: At the start of paragraph 7.4.1.4 add the words: “Where required...”. At the end of the annex section A.7.4.1.4 add the following new paragraph: There may be applications where not all spaces will require intelligible voice signaling. For example, in a residential occupancy such as an apartment, the Authority Having Jurisdiction and the designer may agree to a system which achieves the required audibility throughout, but does not result in intelligible voice signaling in the bedrooms. The system would be sufficient to awaken and alert. However, intelligibility may not be achieved in the bedrooms with the doors closed and the sounder in the adjacent hallway or room. SUBSTANTIATION: This points out that there may be valid designs where a system is not, and should not be required to be intelligible in all spaces. This is also implied by the fact that the measurement methods result in an average with a statistical variation. Meaning that some measurements will be below the code required value.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle At the start of paragraph 7.4.1.4 add the words: “Where required...”. At the end of the annex section A.7.4.1.4 add the following new paragraph: “There may be applications where not all spaces will require intelligible voice signaling. For example, in a residential occupancy such as an apartment, the Authority Having Jurisdiction and the designer may agree to a system which achieves the required audibility throughout, but does not result in intelligible voice signaling in the bedrooms. The system would be sufficient to awaken and alert. However, intelligibility may not be achieved in the bedrooms with the doors closed and the sounder in the adjacent hallway or room. In some cases this may require that messages repeat a sufficient number of times to ensure that occupants can reach a location where the system is sufficiently intelligible to be understood. Systems which use tone signaling in some areas and voice signaling in other areas would not require voice intelligibility in those areas only covered by the tone.” COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepted the recommendation of this comment and added additional text to the annex. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


72-271-(4-3.1.5 & A.4.3.1.5) : Reject SUBMITTER: Raymond A. Grill, The RJA Group, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-319RECOMMENDATION: The Committee should revise their action to reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: The 1999 edition of NFPA 72 in paragraph 4-3.1.5 requires emergency voice/alarm communication systems to be capable of messages with voice intelligibility. Proposal 72-319 indicates that the current requirement is not enforceable.

368

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAI strongly disagree. Webster defines intelligible as, “capable of being understood.” In the over twenty years, I have been involved in fire protection and fire alarm systems, I have not had any problem deciding whether I can understand a voice message. The Authority Having Jurisdiction and contractors that I have participated with in the acceptance and retests of emergency voice/alarm communication systems have also not had any problems deciding whether a voice message was understandable. I applaud having the technical means available for performing a scientific evaluation of voice intelligibility as is currently provided in the appendix of NFPA 72-1999. I have a number of concerns regarding making it a requirement. These concerns include the following: 1. Technical compliance with the criteria does not take into consideration the human factor and the need for training of operators in the use of these systems. Even if the system provides voice intelligibility as required by the proposal, an untrained operator could give instructions that are not intelligible and the Authority Having Jurisdiction would have no recourse. 2. There has been no demonstrated need to require a more scientific method for measuring intelligibility. 3. The appendix has referenced intelligibility testing since the 1999 edition of NFPA 72. I have not been able to find anyone that has used the appendix provisions for actually testing for intelligibility. This reinforces the lack of need. 4. The equipment required for performing intelligibility testing is not readily available. 5. The added cost of intelligibility testing will deter the implementation of voice alarm systems unless they are specifically required by code. 6. This requirement is too broad. There is no consideration for differences in application of emergency voice/alarm communication systems. This requirement would apply equally to a facility that has relatively small, compartmented spaces as well as amphitheaters and stadiums. 7. There is nothing to preclude a specifier from requiring compliance with the intelligibility requirements of the appendix to NFPA 72. In summary, this requirement is excessive for emergency voice/alarm communication systems and should not be a mandatory requirement.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the committee actions and statements on Comment 72-252 (Log #138), Comment 72-265 (Log #29) and Comment 72-270 (Log #309). Equipment and methods for measuring intelligibility using either objective or subject based methods are readily available. The committee feels that the added cost of intelligibility testing should not add significantly to the system cost and should not affect the decision to use voice signaling. In addition the requirements for when a system is required to be tested is the jurisdiction of another chapter. The need for ensuring intelligibility has been documented in the published reports on multiple fatality fire losses such as the Kings Cross fire in England and the apartment building fire in York Canada.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


72-272-(4-3.1.5, A-4-3.1.5) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-319RECOMMENDATION: Reverse the committee action moving the appendix material from A-4.3.1.5 to the body of the standard. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action is in violation of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects because the proposal neither requests moving this material nor provides technical substantiation for the change. In fact, the proposal requested DELETING the text of A-4-3.1.5; not making it a mandatory requirement. B. Testing of voice systems is outside the scope of Chapter 4. As the submitter correctly requested, voice evacuation systems should be tested in accordance with Chapter 7.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the committee actions and statements on Comment 72-252 (Log #138), Comment 72-265 (Log #29) and Comment 72-271 (Log #361).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


72-273-(4-3.1.6) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnellCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-320RECOMMENDATION: Accept the proposal as written, reject the committee action to restrict this to private mode only. SUBSTANTIATION: I disagree with the committee action and I agree with Mr. Schifiliti’s Explanation of Negative Vote. This opportunity does lend itself to both private and public operating mode.

COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Insert after 7.4.2.2 of Proposal 72-304 the following new paragraph 7.4.2.3 and renumber the subsequent paragraphs. “Where approved by the authority having jurisdiction or other governing codes or standards, the requirements for audible signaling shall be permitted to be reduced or eliminated when visible signaling is provided in accordance with Section 7.5.” COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agreed to add the text to the section for public mode signaling as was done in the Proposal 72-320 for private mode signaling. However the committee used the permissible language in the committee action on Proposal 72-320, not the original proposal language. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


72-274-(4-3.2.1) : Accept SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-323RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the proposal and Accept. SUBSTANTIATION: See reasons given in our comments on Proposals 72-312 and 72-314.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepted the comment to reconsider but reaffirms its position and maintains the 120dBA limit.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13 NEGATIVE: 3EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: HAUS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-262. SHUSTER: 72-259, 72-262, 72-263, 72-274, and 72-282 - These comments the committee accepted to reconsider but reaffirmed its position to maintain the 120-dBA limit. The committee’s statement in Proposal 72-315 of the May 2002 Report on Proposals was: “Technical justification for the change would need to be provided, with inclusion of, or reference to the underlying research.” Mr. Haus, in his Explanation of Negative Vote in Proposal 72-314 stated the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, limits exposure to 120-dBA noise to 9 seconds per day before hearing damage occurs. This is the technical data. It would be hard enough to deal with a horrendous fire without adding hearing loss to that situation. I recommend the acceptance of Proposals 72-312, 72-314, 72-315, 72-323, and 72-329. SUMMERS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-261.

————————————————-


72-275-(4-3.2.1 [2002 Ed. 7.4.2.1]) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: William Keezer, WJ Keezer Associates/Rep. National Systems Contractors AssociationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304RECOMMENDATION: Revise 7.4.2.1 (1999 4-3.2.1) as follows: 7.4.2.1 Audible notification appliances intended for operation in the public mode shall have a sound level of not less than 75dBA at 3m (10 ft) or more than 120 dBA or less at the minimum hearing distance from the audible appliance. SUBSTANTIATION: Problem: The adoption by this committee of the requirement for intelligible voice-alarm systems (ROP 72-319-(4-3.1.5 and A-4-3.1.5) is in potential conflict with the requirement for each notification appliance to meet or exceed 75dBA output. Fire alarm speakers should be used in accordance with the required performance of the installed system, even if multiple devices are required. A per-device output requirement could result in excessive system output levels and degraded performance. The balance of the paragraph remains as a reasonable safety requirement. Substantiation: Public mode locations can be highly reverberant spaces. Using a greater number of lower output devices than might be required in similar, less reverberant spaces typically solves system intelligibility problems in such spaces. The additive effect of using multiple appliances can result in an output level that prohibits teachers, fire marshals, firemen and the like from providing supplemental evacuation instructions. Excessive output level, especially in reverberant spaces, also can reduce the intelligibility of the system below what could be achieved with multiple lower-output devices. Paragraphs 7.4.2.3 and 7.4.2.4 are both examples of attempts to get around this unnecessary requirement by specifying known problem areas, but these two exceptions are far from a complete listing. Recent changes to the proposed revision of UL 1480 Speakers for Fire Protective Signaling Systems will permit Fire Alarm speakers to have taps for outputs above and below this 75dBA threshold in anticipation of the need for using multiple speakers of lower unit output. Adoption of this comment should be accompanied the deletion of paragraphs 7.4.2.3 and 7.4.2.4, as has been proposed in separate comments.

369

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPACOMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to committee action and statement on Comment 72-276 (Log #310).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


72-276-(4-3.2.1 [2002 Ed. 7.4.2.1]) : Accept in Principle TCC NOTE: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that this Comment be rewritten to clarify the Committee Action on this Comment as follows: Delete Section 7.4.2.1 in the committee action on Proposal 72-304. The Technical Correlating Committee makes reference to the Comment on Affirmative.SUBMITTER: Robert P. Schifiliti, R.P. Schifiliti Assoc., Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304RECOMMENDATION: Revise 7.4.2.1 as follows: Current wording in the ROP: Audible notification appliances intended for operation in the public mode shall have a sound level of not less than 75 dBA at 3 m (10 ft) or more than 120 dBA at the minimum hearing distance from the audible appliance. Delete the requirement for a minimum 75 dBA and change to read as follows: Audible notification appliances intended for operation in the public mode shall have a sound level of not more than 120 dBA at the minimum hearing distance from the audible appliance. SUBSTANTIATION: This removes a conflict with intelligible voice signaling design. It is imperative that designers have a choice of appliances including ones that operate at lower rated output levels. An example is stairways in large buildings. It is necessary in some cases to provide intelligible voice communication. However, the reverberation from high output speakers reduces the intelligibility at a distant point where the direct signal is interfered with by the indirect, reflected signal. In situations such as that it is desirable to minimize reverberation and increase the direct field exposure - i.e., provide a larger number of lower SPL rated appliances. The current requirement prevents manufacturers from making such appliances available to the fire protection community. The audible signaling requirements in the chapter are performance-based. That is, they require a minimum SPL in the space. The code does not state how that minimum SPL is to be achieved. In small spaces with low ambient SPLs, an appliance rated at 75 dBA at 10 ft may be louder than is necessary.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee removed the minimum and maximum dBA for an appliance since the Code contains performance criteria for audible notification. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: SCHIFILITI: The Committee Action is missing text to describe what it intended to do to remove the requirement for the maximum appliance output. The Committee Statement indicates that the committee agreed with the comment to remove the 75 dBA minimum. This is supported by the Accept in Principle action. However, the statement also says that the maximum was removed as well. To accomplish this, the entire paragraph 7.4.2.1 (1999 4-3.2.1) should be removed and the balance renumbered. I believe the Committee Action should say to remove 7.4.2.1 (1999 4-3.2.1) in its entirety and renumber the remainder. The statement should refer users to 7.4.1.2 for the maximum and 7.4.2.2 or 7.4.3.2 or 7.4.4.1 for the minimum requirements.

————————————————-


72-277-(4-3.2.2, 4-3.3.2, 4-3.4) : Reject SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-324, 72-331, & 72-334RECOMMENDATION: Accept the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: It is not within NFPA 72 jurisdiction to identify where the noise be heard and the lights be seen. This should be covered by the building codes and Life Safety Code. The Life Safety Code has recently accepted proposals to eliminate the unwritten requirement to hear and see signals in the elevators and stairways as an example, even though they are normally occupied. They have also identified when certain signals are inappropriate such as ICU areas of hospitals. This would create a conflict by going outside the boundaries of NFPA 72’s scope.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is the committee’s intention to ensure audible signals are provided in all occupiable spaces of a facility except where visual appliances only could be permitted by this Code.

NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 15 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: SCHIFILITI: I agree that other codes and standards as well as owners, designers and Authorities Having Jurisdiction should be the ones to say what spaces require visual or audible signals. Our chapter should then limit itself to required performance.

————————————————-


72-278-(4-3.2.2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-324RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. It is not within the purview of an installation standard to decide where audible signals are required. B. Nearly all spaces in a building are “occupiable.” The current text is frequently misinterpreted to require audible signals on roofs, in attics or crawl spaces, above dropped ceilings, etc. For that matter, many buildings have ductwork, air handlers, sump pits, pipe chases and other similar spaces that may be occupied occasionally. C. States as confused as Texas have gone so far as to require strobe lights in maids closets and janitors closets 48 in. or more in depth, on the argument that these closets are “occupiable.” If the committee thinks Texas’ interpretation of “occupiable” is amusing for strobe lights, just wait until they start applying the newly adopted requirements for intelligibility testing...COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepted the comment to reconsider but reaffirms its original action. Refer to Comment 72-277 (Log #20).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 15 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: SCHIFILITI: See of Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-277.

————————————————-


72-279-(4-3.2.2 Exception No. 3) : Accept SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-327RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. It is not within the purview of an installation standard to decide where audible signals are required. B. Nearly all spaces in a building are “occupiable.” The current text is frequently misinterpreted to require audible signals on roofs, in attics or crawl spaces, above dropped ceilings, etc. For that matter, many buildings have ductwork, air handlers, sump pits, pipe chases, and other similar spaces that may be occupied occasionally. C. States as confused as Texas have gone so far as to require strobe lights in maids closets and janitors closets 48 in. or more in depth, on the argument that these closets are “occupiable.” If the committee thinks Texas’ interpretation of “occupiable” is amusing for strobe lights, just wait until they start applying the newly adopted requirements for intelligibility testing....COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepted the comment to reconsider but reaffirms its original action. Refer to Comment 72-277 (Log #20).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 15 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: SCHIFILITI: See of Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-277.

————————————————-


72-280-(4-3.2.2 [2002 Ed. 7.4.2.3]) : Reject SUBMITTER: William Keezer, WJ Keezer Associates/Rep. National Systems Contractors AssociationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304RECOMMENDATION: Delete 7.4.2.3 (1999 4-3.2.2) . SUBSTANTIATION: Problem: The adoption by this committee of the submitted comment on 7.4.2.1 (1999 4-3.2.1) would logically make this paragraph requirement unnecessary. System performance requirements of 7.4.2.2 (1999 4-3.2.2) would still be applicable. Substantiation: See the statement of problem and substantiation for comment submitted on 7.4.2.1 (1999 4-3.2.1) by the same submitter.

370

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPACOMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The removal of the 75dBA minimum appliance rating does not affect the need to have some minimum signal to noise ratio. The committee wanted to retain the language to permit use of private mode audible requirements in elevators.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


72-281-(4-3.2.3 [2002 Ed. 7.4.2.4]) : Reject SUBMITTER: William Keezer, WJ Keezer Associates/Rep. National Systems Contractors AssociationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304RECOMMENDATION: Delete 7.4.2.4 (1999 4-3.2.3). SUBSTANTIATION: Problem: The adoption by this committee of the submitted comment on 7.4.2.1 (1999 4-3.2.1) would logically make this paragraph requirement unnecessary. System performance requirements of 7.4.2.2 (1999 4-3.2.2) would still be applicable, rendering the need for special AHJ approval unnecessary. Substantiation: See the statement of problem and substantiation for comment submitted on 7.4.2.1 (1999 4-3.2.1) by the same submitter.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The removal of the 75dBA minimum appliance rating does not affect the need to have some minimum signal to noise ratio. The committee wanted to retain the language to permit use of private mode audible requirements in restrooms.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


72-282-(4-3.3.1) : TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the action on Comment 72-282 be reported as “Accept in Part” to clarify the committee action. The part that is accepted is the recommendation to reconsider. The part that is rejected is the recommendation to accept Proposal 72-329.SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-329RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the proposal and Accept. SUBSTANTIATION: See reasons given in our comments on Proposals 72-312 and 72-314.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepted the comment to reconsider but reaffirms its position and maintains the 120dBA limit.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13 NEGATIVE: 3EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: HAUS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-262. SHUSTER: 72-259, 72-262, 72-263, 72-274, and 72-282 - These comments the committee accepted to reconsider but reaffirmed its position to maintain the 120-dBA limit. The committee’s statement in Proposal 72-315 of the May 2002 Report on Proposals was: “Technical justification for the change would need to be provided, with inclusion of, or reference to the underlying research.” Mr. Haus, in his Explanation of Negative Vote in Proposal 72-314 stated the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, limits exposure to 120-dBA noise to 9 seconds per day before hearing damage occurs. This is the technical data. It would be hard enough to deal with a horrendous fire without adding hearing loss to that situation. I recommend the acceptance of Proposals 72-312, 72-314, 72-315, 72-323, and 72-329. SUMMERS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-261.

————————————————-


72-283-(4-3.3.3) : Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-320RECOMMENDATION: Revise new 4-3.3.3 as follows: 4-3.3.3 This code recognizes that under some circumstances it is appropriate or permissible to substitute visual signals for audible signals, or to allow a reduction in the required level of audibility where both audible and visual signals have been provided. 4-3.3.3.1* Visual signals installed in accordance with this chapter shall be permitted to be installed in lieu of audible signals where all of the following conditions are met:

a) The room or area is not used for sleeping. b) The room or area is not used as a workstation for someone who is legally blind. c) There are no obstructions between the occupants and the visual signals. d) A voice evacuation system is not required. A-4-3.3.3.1 Examples of such locations include classrooms, conference rooms, meeting rooms, private offices, single-occupant restrooms, and similar spaces. 4-3.3.3.2* In applications that do not meet the requirements of 4-3.3.3.1, visual signals installed in accordance with this Chapter shall be permitted to be installed in lieu of audible signals with the specific approval of the Authority Having Jurisdiction. A-4-3.3.3.2 There are certain applications, such as critical areas of hospitals, Alzheimer’s care facilities, etc. where audible evacuation signals, even at reduced, private-mode volume, are not helpful to staff trying to organize the evacuation or location of building occupants. There are also facilities where the operations in progress do not lend themselves to startling occupants with very loud evacuation signals that start without warning. Because each such case is different, specific consideration by the governing authority is needed. 4-3.3.3.3 Where both audible and visual signals have been provided within a room or area in accordance with this chapter, the audible criteria for private mode signaling (10 dBA over average ambient) shall be permitted to be used within that room or area. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The concept brought forward in this proposal is excellent and probably long overdue. Proposed 4-3.3.3.2 and A-4-3.3.3.2 are intended to be an editorial revision of what was accepted in the ROP. B. Proposed 4-3.3.3 is an intent statement to clarify the intended application of this new material. C. Proposed 4-3.3.3.1 and A-4-3.3.3.1 are intended to address specific locations where experience has shown that visual signals alone provide very effective notification, and/or where installing very loud (typically 90-98 dBA) notification appliances may increase the potential for confusion, panic, or other adverse consequences. High sound levels in classrooms in particular do not increase the effectiveness of the notification appliances and have a clear potential to impair the ability of staff to organize and execute a calm and orderly evacuation. D. Proposed 4-3.3.3.3 is intended to address the current trend in evacuation signaling towards installing completely redundant audible and visual alarms; something that was never the intent of the standard. This change recognizes that the objective is effective notification (as opposed to political correctness), and allows a 5 dBA reduction in audibility where BOTH audible and visual signals are provided. E. The proposed material is appropriate to include in the standard for several additional reasons: 1) Audible evacuation signals are extremely disruptive of building operations and present a significant obstacle to routine testing and maintenance in many buildings. Allowing private-mode level of audibility in some areas and strobe lights only in other areas will allow many normal building operations to continue while fire alarm testing is in progress. The committee should consider that the alternatives to disrupting building operations with audible testing include disconnecting or disabling notification appliances (which may not get reconnected or may be reconnected improperly), conducting the testing during off-hours (typically at increased cost and not practical in all occupancies), or simply not performing the required testing (something which actually happens - or doesn’t happen as the case may be - all the time). 2) This new material will facilitate more cost-effective use of fire protection resources; better “bang-for-the-buck” as it were. 3) This new material will reduce the cost and size of some fire alarm systems, making them more affordable to install and maintain. Systems that are easier to maintain are more likely to be maintained, leading to improved operability. F. While some will object that this material may make fire alarms easier for building occupants to ignore, the intent of evacuation signaling is occupant notification; NOT to make continued occupancy so unpleasant that it forces most non-hearing impaired people to leave. Occupants who do not leave when the fire alarm goes off are an education and building management issue; not a code problem.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle in PartCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee prefers the current language in the Code and Proposal 72-320. The proposed new language does not meet NFPA style requirements. Refer to committee action on Comment 72-273 (Log #301).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


72-284-(4-3.3.3 (New) ) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-332RECOMMENDATION: Reject the Proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. No technical substantiation was provided for this change. It is not clear what problem this new material is intended to address, nor that it will in fact resolve that problem (whatever it might be). B. There are no typical applications for private mode signals in high noise areas where the noise level can be automatically reduced. In high noise

371

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAenvironments, shutting down process equipment is, in fact, a highly effective and very public method of notifying everyone that something unusual is going on. C. Proposed 4.3.3.3.3 is an indeterminate requirement. Fire alarm system relays, circuits, and interfaces are already required to comply with the applicable provisions of Chapters 1 and 3. Other relays, circuits and interfaces are not within the jurisdiction of NFPA 72. The committee should be careful about blurring the line between fire alarm systems and other electrical/mechanical systems.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee feels that there are possible situations in private mode, as in public mode, where high noise levels can be reduced upon fire alarm activation. An audio control location or booth in a stadium or concert venue is just one example. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


72-285-(4-3.4) : Accept SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-334RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. It is not within the purview of an installation standard to decide where audible signals are required. B. Nearly all spaces in a building are “occupiable.” The current text is frequently misinterpreted to require audible signals on roofs, in attics or crawl spaces, above dropped ceilings, etc. For that matter, many buildings have ductwork, air handlers, sump pits, pipe chases and other similar spaces that may be occupied occasionally. C. States as confused as Texas have gone so far as to require strobe lights in maids closets and janitors closets 48 in. or more in depth, on the argument that these closets are “occupiable.” If the committee thinks Texas’ interpretation of “occupiable” is amusing for strobe lights, just wait until they start applying the newly adopted requirements for intelligibility testing...COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepted the comment to reconsider but reaffirms its original action. Refer to Comment 72-277 (Log #20).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 15 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: SCHIFILITI: See of Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-277.

————————————————-


72-286-(4-3.4) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-335RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on this proposal is in violation of the Regulations governing committee projects as no technical substantiation was provided to justify the change. B. No data has been presented to suggest that designing fire alarm systems to the current criteria is anything less than satisfactory. Unspecified “technical studies” doesn’t cut it as justification for nearly doubling the mandated sound volume. What happened to the “technical studies” on which the current requirement was based? C. If correlation with the Canadian National Building Code is necessary, and it probably isn’t, then Canada can change their requirement to 70 dBA; it’s at least as good an alternative as what the submitter proposed, and costs less.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee refers to the following documentation as a reference: Berry, C.H., “Will Your Smoke Detector Wake You?”, NFPA Fire Journal, vol. 72-4 1978. Kahn, M.J., “Human Awakening and Subsequent Identification of Fire Related Cues”, Fire Technology,vol. 20-1,1984. British Standard 4839, Part 1, 1980.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 15 NEGATIVE: 1

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: SCHIFILITI: The SPL level required to awaken varies - even in the scientific literature. The SPL level required to awaken is dependent on a large number of variables. The code contains the minimum. I do not believe that a valid comparison of the scientific data was performed to arrive at the decision to raise the required minimum.

————————————————-


72-287-(4-3.4) : Reject SUBMITTER: John F. Deubler, Schirmer Engineering Corporation/Rep. American Hotel & Lodging AssociationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-335RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: “... of at least 60 seconds or a sound level of at least 70 dBa which...”. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed change in the ROP increases the sound level based upon the requirements of the Canadian National Code. The Technical Committee has not provided any substantiation for this change. NFPA 72 is intended to provide minimum requirements based upon technical justification and should not be modified to comply with other standards.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to committee action and statement on Comment 72-286 (Log #124).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 15 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: SCHIFILITI: See of Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-286.

————————————————-


72-288-(4-3.4 [2002 Ed. 7.4.4.1]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Robert P. Schifiliti, R.P. Schifiliti Assoc., Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304 & 72-335RECOMMENDATION: Revert to original requirement for a minimum of 70 dBA not 75 dBA. SUBSTANTIATION: The committee accepted the proposed change from 70 to 75 dBA without adequate technical substantiation. It was thought that research papers could be produced that show a minimum of 75 dBA was required to awaken sleeping persons. In checking, I could not find any research that suggests 75 dBA as a minimum. There are several codes in other countries that require 75 dBA, but none include references. The only references I was able to find suggest 70 dBA as a minimum. They are: 1. Mr. Haliwell and Mr. Sultan, “Attenuation of Smoke Signals in Residential Buildings”, Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Fire Safety Science. 2. Mr. Nober, Mr. Pierce and Mr. Well, “Waking Effectiveness of Household Smoke and Fire Detection Devices”, Fire Journal, 1985. Perhaps by the time the committee meets, the others may find adequate technical references to permit the change to remain.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to committee action and statement on Comment 72-286 (Log #124).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 15 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: SCHIFILITI: See of Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-286.

————————————————-


72-289-(4-3.5) : Reject SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-29RECOMMENDATION: Change to Accept in Principle and move all text dealing with Effective Masked Threshold to the annex to await the performance based section of the code. SUBSTANTIATION: The Technical Correlating Committee has appointed a task group to address the formulation of a framework of performance-based requirements for a future edition of NFPA 72. That being said, some will argue that this is not performance-based material. We disagree. Section 4-3.5.1 of the submitter’s recommendation, as well as the Technical Committee Action, have acknowledged that this is an acceptable alternative in lieu of the A-weighted signaling requirements of the chapter. It applies to a signaling method that will provide a specific signaling performance only; based on an analysis of the ambient frequencies within a room, space or area. Secondly, this proposal is for existing systems, not new design/installation and therefore is inappropriate material for the design portion of the chapter at all. Although the recommendation is technically sound, it should not be used as an alternative to A-weighted signaling design without considerable investigation; especially of the occupants being notified. There is nothing in the proposal that considers that the occupants may not be able to discern frequency bandwidths of the chosen octave band for fire alarm notification. Since the proponent is stating that this methodology is more effective than A-weighted “over-designs”, it is reasonable that design factors include the occupants; to assure that the “efficient” design be able to notify the occupants this design is intended to notify. In addition, it should be made clear that this design option should not be used in any occupancy in which transient

372

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAoccupants are present. It is impossible to know if they can discern the chosen bandwidth.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee wished to retain this permissible methodology in the body of the code and not move it to the annex. All audible signaling requirements in the chapter, whether using dBA or dB and frequency, are performance based methods. Moving the material to the annex would mean that a designer may not be permitted to use this standard methodology which is well documented and accepted (in the audio community). The submitter implies that this is a very specific method for signaling and that signals measured using dBA are not specific. In fact, while a signal may be measured using a dBA scale, it is still operating in only one or two octave bands. Today’s electronic tone generating appliances generally operate at a single predominant frequency (octave band). The methodology for narrow band signaling simply permits a designer to measure the frequency of the noise and the frequency of the tone and deal with them specifically. The submitter is correct that the selection of an operating frequency should consider a listener’s ability to hear at that frequency. This also is true for the current requirements which are only required to be measured in dBA. Whether a signal is measured and weighted in dB using the A-weighting scale, or whether it measured and reported at a certain octave band does not change the fact that it is working predominantly at a certain frequency. These are just two ways of measuring it. At present, the code does not require consideration of frequency dependent hearing impairments. The submitter recommends that this method not be used where there are transient occupants as it is not possible to know if they can discern the chosen bandwidth. It is incorrect to assume that this problem may exist only when using the methodology of narrow band signaling. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


72-290-(4-3.5, A-4-3.5, A-4-3.5.2 & A-4-3.2.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-29RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. No technical substantiation was provided demonstrating that this new material is needed at all, much less defining when or where such an approach is appropriate. B. Before a proposal like this is accepted, the technical committee should insist on seeing evidence of a problem, and then make a determination that the proposed solution will in fact solve the problem that has been demonstrated. In this case, both of these steps seem to have been skipped. For example, the claim in the proposed appendix text that use of an “A-Weighted” ambient sound measurement “often results in systems being over-designed” is not supported by any technical substantiation. If “the root mean square, A-weighted, sound pressure level measured over a 24-hour period” is really an inappropriately conservative method of determining average ambient sound levels, the technical committee should change it to something that is more appropriate instead of establishing an alternate methodology that does not solve the problem (i.e., eliminate the unnecessary costs being absorbed by the public trying to comply) with the original and apparently excessive requirement. We only need one minimum in a minimum standard. C. This new material is completely incomprehensible to the average user of the code. D. It is entirely inappropriate for NFPA 72 to require Authorities Having Jurisdiction to accept engineering analyses they don’t understand in lieu of compliance with straightforward audibility requirements that have served perfectly well for years.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to committee action and statement on Comment 72-289 (Log #207). The committee has added methodology for narrow band signaling in response to a request for a TIA and in response to several known situations where this solution has benefit without adding any downside risk. The submitter suggests that if A-weighting is conservative and often results in over-design as suggested by the original proposal, then a new method should be investigated and substituted rather than including two methods. That new method is, in fact, the method of narrow band signaling. The submitter then states that the method of narrow band signaling is too complex for the average user of the code. The committee is not in a position to define the abilities and intelligence of the average user. However, it is agreed that most users of the code need a simple methodology for establishing and determining audible signaling requirements. That simple method is the use of A-weighting. In many cases it will result in conservative designs. It is also felt that the committee does not need to limit code to single solutions designed for the majority of users. Where possible, the committee wishes to provide tools that are useable by other users of the code when special conditions and knowledge exist, provided that those perform the underlying intent of the code. The committee does not feel that it is inappropriate to include and permit use of methods that a designer can choose, but that a reviewing AHJ may not understand. If we followed that logic, we would not have buildings over two stories in height, bridges, dams, battery standby with specified capacities, voltage drop calculations, maximum resistance and capacitance limitations

for circuits, etc. Additional examples include the majority of requirements for transmission methodologies for supervising stations. The technical knowledge for review and oversight is considerably less than that needed for the actual design - as is the case with most of the audible and visual signaling requirements in the code. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


72-291-(4-4.1.1) : Reject SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-338RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept in Principle in Part but move the text of the Committee Action to a performance-based area of the Code. SUBSTANTIATION: The material provides alternative design guidance in the application of visible notification appliances. The Technical Correlating Committee has assigned a task group for performance-based design options and we feel this material is more applicable to optional designs. We recommend either creating a performance-based section or holding this material over until the task group submits the performance-based Chapter and Annex material(s). This material should not be interspersed with prescriptive requirements in the same Chapter as prescriptive methods and materials.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: At present there is no separate chapter to contain performance based methods and it is not certain that there ever will be a separate chapter to consolidate all NFPA 72 performance based alternatives. The current Notification Appliances Chapter contains numerous performance based requirements interspersed with prescriptive requirements. This section merely adds a performance based alternative to existing prescriptive requirements. Holding back the material serves no useful purpose and has no technical basis. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


72-292-(4-4.4 [2002 Ed. 7.5.4]) : Hold SUBMITTER: Robert P. Schifiliti, R.P. Schifiliti Assoc., Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304RECOMMENDATION: Add the following after the existing text of 7.5.4: Where low ceiling heights do not permit mounting at a minimum of 2.0 m (80 in.) visible appliances shall be mounted within 0.15 m (6 in.) of the ceiling. The room size covered by a strobe of a given value shall be reduced by twice the difference between the min. mounting height of 80 in. and the actual, lower mounting height. SUBSTANTIATION: The mounting height requirement of 2.0 - 2.4 m (80 - 96 in.) does not address the possibility and common occurrence of ceiling heights that are less than 80 inches. The range that is permitted ensures that strobes are not mounted too high, which would result in lower levels of luminance or lower levels of illumination on surrounding walls and on the floor. The lower limit of the range ensures that a minimum percentage of the surrounding surfaces is illuminated. In the case of lower ceiling heights and mounting close to the ceiling, the level of illumination on surrounding walls is not reduced and the walls have a near 100% “painted” area unlike higher ceiling spaces that have no illumination above the plane of the strobe light. Thus, the only loss of signal is the smaller pattern produces on the horizontal plane (floor). The room size reduction assumes that the horizontal pattern on each side of the strobe is reduced by the same amount that the strobe height is reduced.COMMITTEE ACTION:HoldCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee is holding the Comment only not Proposal 72-304. The committee feels the comment is new material and requires further study. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: SCHIFILITI: The Committee Statement should also reflect Committee Comment 72-381a which placed text similar to this Comment in the Annex.

————————————————-


72-293-(Table 4-4.4.1.1(a)) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-347RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept in Principle in Part based on the Committee Statement.

373

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPASUBSTANTIATION: We are in favor of the proposal if it pertains to all 3 columns as stated in the Committee Statement. However, we have been told that the columns for 2 and 4 lights per room are being deleted because the Committee doesn’t know how to calculate for these conditions. We do not read the outcome of the item that way, but we are concerned that something else has been found (different proposal and action) that removes the columns mentioned. If the two and four light columns are being deleted, we would ask that this proposal be rejected.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle The committee intends the table to read as follows:

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee did intend to change the 1st column and NOT eliminate the others. NFPA did not reproduce the resulting table in ROP Proposal 72-304. Replacing the existing table with the committee action table incorporates the changes made by ROP Proposal 72-347.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


72-294-(Table 4-4.4.1.1(b) [2002 Ed. Table 7.5.4.1.1(b)) : Hold SUBMITTER: Jack Poole, Poole Consulting Services, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-348 & 72-349RECOMMENDATION: Replace existing table with the following tables that are based on UL 1971 and standard light intensity calculations based on 0.375 lumens/ft.2

Maximum Room SizeMinimum Required Light Output

(Effective Intensity, cd)

m ftOne light per

Room

Two Lights per Room

(Located on opposite wall)

Four Lights per Room

(One light per wall)

6.10 x 6.10 20 x 20 15 NA NA

8.53 x 8.53 28 x 28 30 Unknown Unknown

9.14 x 9.14 30 x 30 34 15 NA

12.2 x 12.2 40 x 40 60 30 15


15.2 x 15.2 50 x 50 94 60 30


18.3 x 18.3 60 x 60 135 95 30

21.3 x 21.3 70 x 70 184 95 60

24.4 x 24.4 80 x 80 240 135 60

27.4 x 27.4 90 x 90 304 185 95

30.5 x 30.5 100 x 100 375 240 95

33.5 x 33.5 110 x 110 455 240 135

36.6 x 36.6 120 x 120 540 305 135

39.6 x 39.6 130 x 130 635 375 185

Ceiling Height Based on 15 Candela Strobe

Ceiling Height(ft)

Max. Angle

Max. Distance From Center (ft)

Size of the Room (ft)

8 65 17.15605536 34.3

10 55 14.28148007 28.5

12 49 13.80442089 27.8

14 45 14 28

16 31 9.613769904 19.2

18 25 8.393537847 16.7

20 0 0 0


Ceiling Height(ft)

Max. Angle



8 74 27.89931555 55.7

10 69 26.05089065 52.1

12 63 23.55132607 47.1

14 55 19.99407209 39.9

16 50 19.06805748 38.1

18 45 18 36

20 45 20 40

25 25 11.65769145 23.3

28.25 0 0 0


Ceiling Height(ft)

Max. Angle Max. Distance From Center (ft)


8 80 45.37025456 90.7

10 78 47.04630109 94

12 72 36.93220245 73.8

14 69 36.47124691 72.9

16 65 34.31211073 68.6

18 59 29.95703068 59.9

20 55 28.56296013 57.1

25 45 25 50

30 45 30 60

35 25 16.32076804 32.6

40 0 0 0

374


SUBSTANTIATION: The existing table does not express the full capabilities of ceiling mounted strobes. This calculation method is consistent with 7.5.4.3 (2002 Edition) and includes inverse square calculations and polar distribution.COMMITTEE ACTION:HoldCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee feels that this is new material and the committee has formed a task group to address this and other visible signaling issues.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


72-294a-(4-4.4.2.1 {2002 Ed. 7.5.4.2.1]) : Accept TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the reference Section in the recommendation of Comment 72-294a be changed from “7.5.4.2.4” to “7.5.4.2” for editorial clarification. SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Notification Appliances for Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304 & 72-354RECOMMENDATION: Change 7.5.4.2.1. to read as follows: “Section 7.5.4.2.4 shall apply to corridors not exceeding 6.1m (20ft) in width.” SUBSTANTIATION: Deletes reference to table which was removed by Comment 72-295 (Log #312). COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


72-294b-(4-4.4.2.4 [2002 Ed. 7.5.4.2.7]) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Notification Appliances for Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304 & 72-352RECOMMENDATION: The committee wishes to delete the existing 7.5.4.2.7 and insert new 7.5.4.2.4 as written below and renumber existing 7.5.4.2.4 and all subsequent paragraphs. 7.5.4.2.4 The installation of visible notification appliances in corridors 6.1m (20ft.) or less in width shall be in accordance with the requirements of either 7.5.4.1 or 7.5.4.2. SUBSTANTIATION: To clarify the intent to permit the application of strobe tables for rooms to corridor applications.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


Ceiling Height(ft)

Max. Angle

Max. Distance From Center

(ft)


8 82 56.92295778 113.8

10 80 56.7128182 113.4

12 76 48.1293712 96.2

14 70 38.46468387 76.9

16 68 39.60138965 79.2

18 65 38.60112457 77.2

20 60 34.64101615 69.2

25 50 29.79383981 59.5

30 45 30 60

35 35 24.50726384 49

40 25 18.65230633 37.3

44.5 0 0 0


Ceiling Height(ft)

Max. Angle



8 84 76.11491563 152.2

10 81 63.13751515 126.2

12 79 61.73464819 123.4

14 75 52.24871131 104.4

16 71 46.46737404 92.9

18 69 46.89160316 93.7

20 65 42.89013841 85.7

25 55 35.70370017 71.4

30 50 35.75260778 71.5

35 45 35 70

40 37 30.142162 60.2

45 25 20.98384462 41.9

49 0 0 0


Ceiling Height(ft)

Max. Angle



8 85 91.44041842 182.8

10 82 71.15369722 142.3

12 80 68.05538184 136.1

14 77 60.64066224 121.2

16 73 52.3336419 104.6

18 70 49.45459355 98.9

20 67 47.11704732 94.2

25 57 38.4966241 76.9

30 50 35.75260778 71.5

35 45 35 70

40 43 37.30060345 74.6

45 25 20.98384462 41.9

50 19 17.21638066 34.4

54 0 0 0

375


Committee: SIG-NAS72-295-(4-4.4.2.6 [2002 Ed. 7.5.4.2.8]) : Accept SUBMITTER: Robert P. Schifiliti, R.P. Schifiliti Assoc., Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304 & 72-354RECOMMENDATION: In 7.5.4.2.8, delete the reference to the table and add reference to paragraph 7.5.4.2.4 in its place. Delete Table 7.5.4.2.1, former Table 4-4.4.2.1 SUBSTANTIATION: The table does not contain a complete description of the corridor spacing requirements, only ranges. For example, in a 50 ft corridor, the table says 2 strobes are required, but does not say how they must be spaced. That requirement is correctly located in paragraph 7.5.4.2.4. Hence, the paragraph should be referenced. The table should be deleted as it is incomplete and fully contained in the referenced paragraph.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


72-295a-(4-4.4.3.2 [2002 Ed. 7.5.4.4.2]) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Notification Appliances for Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304RECOMMENDATION: The committee recommends changing 7.5.4.4.2. to read as follows: “ Table 7.5.4.4.2 shall apply to sleeping areas.” SUBSTANTIATION: Eliminates incorrect statement concerning the dimensions of rooms and the linear distance between strobes and the pillow. COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


72-296-(4-9 (New) ) : Accept TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the word “may” in the recommendation on Comment 72-296 be changed to “can” to comply with the NFPA Manual of Style.SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-361RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept in Principle in Part by replacing proposed Section A-4-8(g) and Figure A-4-8 with the following recommendation. (g) Alternate layout for systems without graphical displays. Where fire alarm systems do not require graphical displays, the following fire service interface layout may be specified for the control panel by the Authority Having Jurisdiction and the fire service organization intended to use the equipment.

Normal

Fire alarm

Supervisory

Trouble

AcknowledgeSilenceEVAC

Systemreset

Next

Menus

Prev

Selec

Display area

Silenced

Fire service interface

(1) General layout. The fire service interface should be enclosed within a red border of approximately 0.25 in. width. The words “FIRE SERVICE INTERFACE” should be located at the top center of the border in bold capital letters approximately 0.25 in. high. All controls and indicators within this border should be located and labeled as described herein. Additional controls and indicators for the system may be provided but should be located outside of the red border. (2) Standard control switches. These should be located in the lower left area of the interface approximately as shown in Figure A-4-8. a. Acknowledge switch. This should be a momentary switch to acknowledge new events. Press of this switch causes acknowledgment of the event shown in the display area. If this is the last event to be acknowledged, the Fire Alarm indicator should change from flashing to steady and the local panel sounder should silence. b. Silence Evac Signals Switch. This should be a momentary switch to silence all audible evacuation devices in the building. The Authority Having Jurisdiction may also require that this switch extinguish visual appliances. A yellow indicator light should be placed just above this switch to indicate that the evacuation signals have been silenced. c. System Reset Switch. This should be a momentary switch to reset the fire alarm system to a normal state. If off-normal conditions have not been corrected, the system should resound and again display the off-normal conditions. (3) Standard Visual Indicators. Standard light-emitting indicators should be located approximately as shown in the upper left area of the interface and should function as follows. a. Normal. This green indicator should illuminate when all power is applied to the system and no off-normal situations exist. b. Fire Alarm. This red indicator should illuminate when any fire condition exists in the building. When a fire condition exists that has not been acknowledged, the indicator should flash. c. Supervisory. This yellow indicator should illuminate when any supervisory condition exists in the building. When a supervisory condition exists that has not been acknowledged, the indicator should flash. d. Trouble. This yellow indicator should illuminate when any trouble condition exists in the building. When a trouble condition exists that has not been acknowledged, the indicator should flash. (4) Display area. The display should be located in the upper right area of the interface, approximately as shown. The display is intended to show the minimum information to describe off-normal conditions. Additional display information may be located outside of the fire service interface border. The display may be the sequential or simultaneous type. a. Simultaneous display. This method should use multiple indicators to indicate off-normal conditions simultaneously. Fire alarm indicators should be red. Supervisory and trouble indicators should be yellow. New off-normal conditions should flash until acknowledged. b. Sequential display. This method should use an alphanumeric display to indicate one or more off-normal events. Multiple off-normal events may be scrolled through the display by operating the display controls described below. If different types of off-normal conditions are shown together, they should be displayed in the priority order of (1) fire alarm; (2) supervisory; (3) trouble; (4) other.

Figure A-4-8 Typical arrangement of components and markings for Fire Service Interface

376

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA (5) Display Controls. Control switches for the display should be located in the lower right area of the Fire Service Interface approximately as shown. These momentary switches should only be provided if the display is the sequential type. a. Next Switch. Press of this switch should cause the display to scroll forward to the next off-normal event. If the last (lowest priority) event was shown, the display will revert to the first event. b. Previous Switch. Press of this switch should cause the display to scroll back to the previous off-normal event. If the first (highest priority) event was shown, the display will go to the last event. c. Menus Switch. This is a further optional control. Press of this switch should cause the display to show one or more menus of displays and control functions available with this fire alarm system. The Next and Previous keys may be used to navigate through the menus. d. Select switch. This is a further optional control to be used in conjunction with the Menus, Next and Previous switches. When the display cursor is on a particular display or control function, press of this switch will cause the display or control function to be executed. SUBSTANTIATION: Proposal 72-361 has several flaws, which are corrected by these recommendations. The Proposal calls for a “two line by 40 character” display. This places an unnecessary cost and complexity burden on very small panels. For larger control panels, this display size is unnecessarily restrictive. Many fire control units today use alphanumeric displays larger than 80 characters to provide valuable supplemental information to the user. This comment removes restrictions on display implementation and technology. Additional definitions and standardization of alphanumeric display functions and format may be valuable to the fire service, but are beyond the scope of this proposal. These may be the subject of future Proposals and refinement of the Fire Service Standard Interface. The Proposal also lacks a system reset switch and a supervisory indicator that are common and necessary functions of North American fire alarm systems today. The Comments add those functions.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


72-297-(4-9 and A-4-9) : Accept TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the following text be added as new Section 7.10. The Technical Correlating Committee affirms that the text is enforceable.“7.10* Standard Fire Service Interface. Where required by the Authority Having Jurisdiction annuniciators, information display systems, and controls for portions of the fire alarm system providedfor use by the fire service shall be designed, arranged, and located in accordance with the requirements of the organizations intended to use the equipment.” Relocate the annex material added by the action of Proposal 72-361 and Comment 72-296 to new A.7.10. The existing text in A-4-8 in the 1999 edition is to remain as A.7.9.SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-361RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that further consideration be given to the proposal with regard to the Section 4-9 of the submitter’s recommendation. The language proposed is enforceable. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the recommendation of the Technical Correlating Committee to give further consideration to the submitter’s proposal. However the committee reaffirms its previous action and statement. The committee feels that the proposed language may result in undue and burdensome actions on the part of the Authority Having Jurisdiction.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 15 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: SCHIFILITI: The proposed code level text does not give the Authority Having Jurisdiction any more authority than they already have and it does not impose any requirements by itself. It merely serves as a placeholder and reference to the annex material. Though unenforceable text is technically not permitted, I think it would be a useful introduction to the material in the Annex.

————————————————-


72-298-(Chapter 5 [2002 Ed. Chapter 8]) : Accept TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee advises that Chapter Scope (Application) statements are the responsibility of the Technical Correlating Committee and the Technical Correlating Committee accepts the Committee Action.SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-362RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee advises that Chapter Scope (Application) statements are the responsibility of the Technical Correlating Committee and, with the exclusion of Subsection 8.1.1, the Technical Correlating Committee accepts the text proposed for Section 8.1. The Technical Correlating Committee directs that Section 8.1 be rewritten to correlate with the Technical Correlating Committee NOTE on Proposal 72-380. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.

COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept The Committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee and directs that the following actions be taken: A. Delete Section 8.1.1 B. Renumber subsequent subsections.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Section 8.1 correctly states the application of Chapter 8.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-


72-299-(Chapter 5 [2002 Ed. Chapter 8]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-362RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on this proposal does not comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects because the revised text contains numerous changes that go far beyond the “manual of style” justification for the proposal. B. Combining changes resulting from public proposals with wholesale “manual of style” changes pursuant to a committee proposal makes it very difficult to track all of the changes that have been made, and nearly impossible to verify that those changes comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects. C. The manual of style proposals from each technical committee should be stand-alone proposals which can be reviewed to verify that the only thing that has changed is the style; not the requirements. D. Correlation of accepted manual of style proposal - presumably editorial revisions - with other changes initiated via public proposals should be handled by the Technical Correlating Committee or NFPA staff.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee disagrees with the submitter’s substantiation for the following reasons: The committee action does comply with NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. The changes in proposal that go beyond NFPA Manual of Style revisions are either specifically identified in the recommendation of the proposal or are identified by reference to other proposals acted upon individually. These changes are supported in the substantiation of Proposal 72-362 or in the individual proposals. The combination of changes resulting from public proposals with changes made for the Manual of Style was directed by the Technical Correlating Committee in order to provide a complete text in the new style showing all changes in the proper context. This was done to enhance the usability and simplify the review of this material for both the committee and the public. Text that is based on changes made by public proposals has been identified by a bold reference to the public proposal number. The correlation of several proposals into the final document, especially with such broad changes in style and format, can often be difficult because of potentially conflicting or unclear committee actions. Showing all changes in their proper context offers a complete text that has been reviewed by the committee and has had opportunity for public review and comment.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-

377


Committee: SIG-SSS72-300-(5-2.2.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-365RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on 72-365 violates the Regulations Governing Committee Projects in that the committee statement does not address the submitter’s substantiation. B. The committee action statement clearly reflects that the Chapter 5 committee is engaging in prohibited restraint of trade and violating both the intent of the standard (i.e., 1-2.1) and NFPA policy (Section 3-3.6 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects). It is not up to NFPA in general, or to the NFAC Chapter 5 Technical Committee in particular, to mandate contractual relationships between subscribers and their monitoring services. C. Regulation of the supervising station industry is outside the scope of NFPA 72: “1-1 Scope. NFPA 72 covers the application, installation, location, performance, and maintenance of fire alarm systems and their components.” D. The portion of the committee statement that says: “In addition, NFPA 72 requires listing for equipment and components of fire alarm systems so the requirement for a listed company is consistent” is incorrect, in that these requirements do not, in fact, require listed companies to install, maintain, and monitor supervising station fire alarm systems - they only give a listed prime contractor control over those contracts. In fact, on the very next proposal (ROP 72-366), this committee explicitly REJECTED a proposed requirement for a listed contractor or contractors to provide all elements of central station service. E. The argument that ONLY a listed prime contractor is needed doesn’t hold water either, as there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in 5-2.2.2 that says the prime contractor is responsible for the quality of their subcontractor’s work. If we applied the Committee’s logic to 1-5.1.2, a single piece of listed equipment per system would suffice to meet the requirement.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reaffirms its action and statement on Proposal 72-365.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-(Log #131)

Committee: SIG-SSS72-301-(5-2.2.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-367RECOMMENDATION: Revise 5-2.2.2 as follows: 5-2.2.2 Section 5-2 shall apply to central station service, which consists of the following elements: (1) Installation of fire alarm transmitters (2) Alarm, guard, supervisory, and trouble signal monitoring (3) Retransmission (4) Associated record keeping and reporting (5) Testing and maintenance (6) Runner service The central station service elements shall be provided under contract to a subscriber by one of the following: 5. A listed central station that provides all of the elements of central station service with its own facilities and personnel. 6. A listed central station that provides, as a minimum, the signal monitoring, retransmission, and associated record keeping and reporting with its own facilities and personnel and that shall be permitted to subcontract all or any part of the installation, testing, maintenance and runner service. 7. A listed fire alarm service local company that provides the installation and testing and maintenance with its own facilities and personnel and that subcontracts the monitoring; retransmission, and associated record keeping and reporting to a listed central station. The required runner service shall be provided by the listed fire alarm service local company with its won personnel or the listed central station with its own personnel. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action statement on ROP 72-367 clearly reflects that the Chapter 5 Committee is engaging in prohibited restraint of trade. It is not up to NFPA in general, or to the NFAC Chapter 5 Technical Committee in particular, to decide who’s on an equal footing with whom in contracting for or brokering monitoring services. B. Regulation of the supervising station industry is outside the scope of NFPA 72: “1-1 Scope. NFPA 72 covers the application, installation, location, performance, and maintenance of fire alarm systems and their components.” C. The prime contractor concept was originally billed as a “single-point-of-contact” kind of thing; now it seems that the committee is okay with divvying up the spoils two ways; neither approach has ever been shown to be of any benefit to the public. D. This is America, not some third world country being run by corrupt bureaucrats as their personal private enterprise, and in America, Americans are free to contract with whomever they want for whatever services are required. In accordance with 1-2.1, “it is the intent of this code to establish the required levels of performance, extent of redundancy, and quality of installation but not to establish the methods by which these requirements are to be achieved.”

E. Requirements like this violate the Regulations Governing Committee Projects and NFPA policy and undermine the integrity of the consensus standards making process.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on Comment 72-300 (Log #61).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-


72-302-(5-2.2.2 through 5-2.2.5) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-366RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on Proposal 72-366 violates the Regulations Governing Committee Projects in that the committee statement does not address the submitter’s substantiation. B. The current requirements of 5-2.2.2 through 5-2.2.5, and current proposals to expand those requirements to encompass all remote station fire alarm systems as well, have been justified on the premise that there’s considerable benefit to the public from having this work done by listed companies. However, since neither the current requirements, nor the proposed expanded requirements, actually require that - they simply exclude anybody who’s not a listed company from contracting directly to provide any of the elements of central station service - there’s no assurance that the public is getting any benefit from these requirements at all. This proposal would require listed companies to actually provide all elements of central station service, which is what most of the public thinks is required now. C. This proposal is based on the premise that on the whole, there’s a positive, qualitative difference between the work performed by listed companies whose work is spot checked by an internationally recognized quality assurance program, and work that’s performed by contractors who are regulated piecemeal, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, whether they’re regulated at all. Unqualified alarm installing companies have been the bane of the fire alarm industry for years. D. The Chapter 5 Committee should either accept the premise that work done by listed contractors is, on the whole, significantly better than work done by unlisted and perhaps unqualified contractors - in which case they should accept this proposal - or they should reject the premise (as either unsubstantiated or outside the scope of the standard) - in which case there’s NO JUSTIFICATION for the current requirements of 5-2.2.2 through 5-2.2.5. The current situation, where these requirements inappropriately give listed “prime contractors” and UL control of the fire alarm monitoring industry without actually requiring them to do the work or verify the compliance of the installed systems - that is, to provide the public with any benefit in return - only serves to undermine the integrity of the consensus standards making process. COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reaffirms its action and statement on Proposal 72-366.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-


72-303-(5-2.2.2 through 5-2.2.5) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-366RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee statement on this proposal violates the Regulations Governing Committee Projects by ignoring the proponent’s substantiation. B. Rather than responding to the serious issues raised, the first sentence of the committee statement confirms the problem identified in Items A and B of the substantiation, and the second is rhetorical gibberish; i.e., “the listing requirements ensures compliance with minimum performance criteria and is validated by third party verification.” What is that supposed to mean anyway? Since the proposal was to REQUIRE listed contractors, and since the committee action was to REJECT; there is no contractor “listing requirement” ensuring anything with respect to the actual installation. As enforcement is outside the scope of the standard, NFPA 72 obviously can’t “ensure performance” with itself either; trying to require compliance with requirements as required gets silly in a hurry. The “minimum performance criteria” at issue is exactly “the CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP REQUIRED for central station service,” and it’s at issue because it constitutes a prohibited restraint of trade! And “validated?” How do you validate compliance to the NFAC under a requirement that’s been formally interpreted - by THIS committee no less - to not actually require even a simple inspection of the installed system, and where the alleged “third party” issuing the certificate is a party to the installation contract but is not required to have actually performed ANY of the work?

378

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA The ONLY thing that is clear from this statement is that this committee intends to do whatever it feels like without regard for minor inconveniences like public proposals, facts, scope, NFPA policy, or the rules governing committee projects. C. It is frankly amazing that the Chapter 5 Committee rejected this proposal immediately after their committee statement on ROP 72-365, which reads in part: “NFPA 72 requires listing for equipment and components of fire alarm systems so the requirement for a listed company is consistent.” Rejecting a proposal explicitly requiring fire alarm systems to be installed by listed contractors is obviously NOT consistent with the committee’s statement on the previous proposal, nor is it consistent with the requirement for fire alarm equipment to be listed since provision of a listed control panel clearly doesn’t mitigate the need for listed smoke detectors. D. Irresponsible committee actions like this, especially when compounded by sloppy oversight from the Technical Correlating Committee, create a “why bother to submit proposals?” attitude amongst the public, undermine the integrity of the consensus standards making process, and provide ammunition for would-be federal regulators who think they could do a better job.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reaffirms its action and statement on Proposal 72-366.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-


72-304-(5-2.2.3) : Reject SUBMITTER: Daniel G. Decker, Safety Systems, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-368RECOMMENDATION: Section 5-2.2.3 should be deleted as recommended by the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee statement does not address the problem pointed out in the substantiation. The substantiation proved the requirements were added in order to mandate enrollment in one of two specific programs, in violation of NFPA policy. If the committee feels other organizations should be permitted to provide these services, the language describing these two specific programs should be deleted as proposed. B. The committee statement ignores the implicit endorsement given to the UL and FM certification programs by specifically describing those programs as requirements in the standard. Such endorsement is clearly in violation of NFPA policy; reference the Technical Correlating Committee comment on Proposal 72-64. If there were a requirement that all fire alarm control panels be gray and have a stylized N on the front, the committee would clearly (I hope) recognize that as an improper endorsement of a specific product. The language in 5-2.2.2.3 is no different in improperly endorsing specific services from two specific vendors. C. The committee statement is essentially an excuse to continue violating the NFPA policy regarding endorsements. While the committee statement implies mandating two specific services is not a barrier to other vendors providing those services, it is simply not true in the real world. I have attended presentations by Technical Committee members (among others) that review the requirements in this section, and then review the specifics of their program, and (wink, wink, nod, nod) “look at how specifically our program meets the requirements of NFPA 72”. There is clearly an implicit endorsement of these programs, and those that market those programs clearly utilize that endorsement to further their marketing goals. D. These requirements, which regulate contractual relationships, not fire alarms system, are outside the scope of NFPA 72. The language in this section does not even permit the Authority Having Jurisdiction to verify compliance with NFPA 72; only the two specific programs operated by the two specific vendors are permitted. E. The current text continues to be in violation of NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects, specifically Section 3-3.6: “Each Technical Committee shall, as far as practicable, prepare documents in terms of required performance, avoiding specifications of materials, devices or methods so phrased as to preclude obtaining the desired result by other means. It shall base its recommendation upon one or more of the following factors; namely, fire experience, research data, engineering fundamentals or other such information as may be available.” No evidence has been provided as to why a third party verification must use a “certificate” or a “placard”, other than the evidence presented with this proposal that proved the intent was to mandate two specific vendors of third party verification. The Committee Statement fails to address the issues raised in the substantiation for the proposal. Note: Supporting material available for review upon your request at NFPA Headquarters.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reaffirms its action and statement on Proposal 72-368.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-


72-305-(5-2.2.3 through 5-2.2.3.2.1) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-55 and 72-138RECOMMENDATION: Revise 5-2.2.3 through 5-2.2.3.2.1 as follows: 5-2.2.3 The prime contractor shall conspicuously indicate that the supervising station transmitter, including the connection(s) to the protected premises fire alarm control unit(s) fire alarm system providing service at a protected premises complies with all the requirements of this code by providing a means of third party verification, as specified in 5-2.2.3.1 or 5-2.2.3.2. 5-2.2.3.1 The installation shall be certificated. 5-2.2.3.1.1 Supervising station transmitters, including their associated connection(s) to the protected premises fire alarm control unit(s) Fire alarm systems providing service that complies with all the requirements of this code shall be certified by the organization that has listed the central station, and a document attesting to this certification shall be located on or within 36 in. (1m) of the fire alarm system control unit or, if no control unit exists, on or within 36 in. (1 m) of a fire alarm system component. 5-2.2.3.1.2 A central repository of issued certification documents, accessible to the Authority Having Jurisdiction, shall be maintained by the organization that has listed the central station. 5-2.2.3.2 The installation shall be placarded. 5-2.2.3.2.1 Supervising station transmitters, including their associated connection(s) to the protected premises fire alarm control unit(s) Fire alarm systems providing service that complies with all the requirements of this code shall be conspicuously marked by the central station to indicate compliance. The marking shall be by one or more placards that meet the requirements of the organization that has listed the central station and requires the placard. 5-2.2.3.2.2 The placard(s) shall be 20 in.2 (130 cm2) or larger, shall be located on or within 36 in. (1 m) of the fire alarm system control unit or, if no control unit exists, on or within 36 in. (1 m) of a fire alarm system component, and shall identify the central station by name and telephone number. SUBSTANTIATION: A. Consistent with the committee statement on ROP 72-55 and the Technial Correlating Committee’s direction on ROP 72-138, the scope of Chapter 5 is defined by Figure 5-5.1. The recommended changes to 5-2.2.3 through 5-2.2.3.2.1 limit those requirements to the portions of protected premises fire alarm systems that are within the scope of Chapter 5. B. Chapter 5 does not have jurisdiction to mandate “certification” or “placarding” of anything at the protected premises except for the supervising station transmitter and connections to the protected premises control unit. If third party verification is necessary for the balance of the fire alarm installation at the protected premises, it is up to Chapter 3 to require it.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Figure 5-5.1 (8.5.1) delineates the respective responsibilities for hardware compliance and does not state that the protected premises (local) system is functionally separate from the supervising station transmitter in a complete fire alarm system installation. Where a communications method is used to transmit signals off premises, the protected premises (local) fire alarm equipment becomes an integral part of a supervising station fire alarm system.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-


72-306-(5-2.2.3 through 5-2.2.3.2.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-368RECOMMENDATION: Delete 5-2.2.3 through 5-2.2.3.2.2. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on 72-368 violated the Regulations Governing Committee Projects as the committee statement does not address Mr. Decker’s substantiation. The requirements in question were clearly promulgated specifically to codify 2 proprietary programs, in clear violation of NFPA policy, and should be deleted on that basis alone. B. No technical substantiation has ever been provided demonstrating why organizations who list central stations are qualified, or are the only organizations qualified, to certify protected premises installations for compliance with NFPA 72. What is it about being a testing laboratory, that tests system components for compliance to UL’s or FM’s product standards, that makes anybody an expert on fire alarm system installations? Obviously, many individuals and organizations and Authorities Having Jurisdiction who do not list central stations determine and certify compliance with NFPA 72 all the time. This is a prohibited restraint of trade on its face. C. The fact that deletion of this section would eliminate “third party verification” from Chapter 5 does not contradict the substantiation provided; it’s exactly what the submitter is asking for. Furthermore, it has been established by formal interpretation that neither “certification” nor “placarding” necessarily involves “third party verification” of compliance at all. Hence, no actual verification is actually being eliminated.

379

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPACOMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on Comment 72-304 (Log #198).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-


72-307-(5-3.4.6 [2002 Ed. 8.3.4.3, A.8.3.4.3) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Harvey M. Fox, Keltron CorporationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-362 & 72-511aRECOMMENDATION: The current wording of A.8.3.4.3 does not specify the type of review and, therefore, is ineffective. Please remove A.8.3.4.3 and add the following as (c) to 8.3.4.3: Status of signal initiating inputs that have been acknowledged but not yet restored shall be redisplayed periodically for two seconds minimum. Period from one event to the next shall be not less than two seconds and not more than five seconds.SUBSTANTIATION: The purpose of this change is to make sure that an unrestored event is not lost. It is unsatisfactory to rely on the operator to remember that, for example, an outstanding fire alarm has not been addressed. Therefore, automatic redisplay must be instituted.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Add second sentence to A-8.3.4.3 (in the ROP) to read: “One method for such a review could be by the use of equipment that would automatically redisplay the information.”COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee addressed the submitter’s intent by modifying the wording in the annex.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-


72-308-(5-4.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-381RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: This is 3pv all over again, only this time via the back door. For those of us who argued that central stations service was not necessary for all fire alarm systems, nor that it provided the benefits that some argue it did, now we are right back to the same requirement only under a different title called remote station. There is no justification provided that shows that placarding or certificating systems are needed for the great majority of fire alarm systems that are present. For those of us who already may do all this right, i.e., installation, testing, and maintenance; we are now having this requirement thrown at us again because we elected to connect to a remote station instead of a central station. This chapter is stepping outside of their scope’s boundary in my opinion. A protected premises system is a protected premises system. What type of supervising station the protected premises fire alarm system is connected to should not have any ramifications relative to a certification program by UL, as would be required with this change. This allows Chapter 5 to essentially have complete jurisdiction over the system at the protected premises. It is presently possible to get a protected premises certificated by UL and all owners are open to choose this option. But, connection to bring emergency forces is usually mandated by the building codes, and once this is done, the requirement to connect would automatically kick in this certification. We in the VA, more often than not, connect to a supervising station, but we don’t need to have supervisory signals monitored. This new requirement mandates SUPERVISORY SIGNALS BE MONITORED by the remote station, without exception, as opposed to allowing it to be monitored if needed, same as trouble signals. There is no justification for mandating that a supervisory signal be monitored by remote stations. They can be monitored just as easily as they have been, and the same as trouble signals. This chapter should provide regulations for those of us who use supervising station facilities that don’t meet any of the Chapter’s supposed headings, i.e., not really a remote station, not really a proprietary, not really a central station, without requiring all this ridiculous regulation. There is no such thing as a remote supervising station fire alarm system (regardless of the definition) except that local system protecting the remote supervising station facility. To use this term, as has been done for quite a while, and imply that it envelops the system at the protected premises remote from the supervising station, is outside the scope of this chapter. The Technical Correlating Committee should review the use of the term “remote supervising station fire alarm system” (and others) and direct this chapter to stay within its boundaries concerning system requirements. See the diagram provided in Figure 5-5.1 that shows the protected premises’ versus supervising station demarcation. Reject the proposal.COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: There are three issues that the submitter raises: third party verification, supervisory signal monitoring and scope issues. Comment 72-312a (Log #CC600) addresses the Committee’s action relating to third party verification. The substantiation for Proposal 72-381, specifically paragraph b, addresses the reasons that supervisory signals need to be monitored. Regarding the scope issue, it is the position of the Technical Committee that Figure 5-5.1 (8.5.1) delineates the respective responsibilities for hardware compliance and does not indicate that the protected premises (local) system is functionally separate from the supervising station transmitter in a complete fire alarm system installation. Where a communications method is used to transmit signals off premises, the protected premises (local) fire alarm equipment becomes an integral part of a supervising station fire alarm system.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-


72-309-(5-4.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Daniel G. Decker, Safety Systems, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-381RECOMMENDATION: Section 5-4.2.3 should be deleted in its entirety from the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The submitter provides inadequate and misleading substantiation for requiring “means of third party verification”. Specifically, there is no documentation of any problem with remote station service, as it currently exists in order to provide justification for this change. There is no evidence presented that the proposed language in 5-4.2.3 would in any way offer any benefit. The statement referring to jurisdictions requiring remote stations to be certificated is curious indeed, as a certification program for remote stations does not currently exist. B. The proposed language creates an implicit endorsement of the UL and FM certification programs by specifically describing those programs as requirements in the standard. Such endorsement is clearly in violation of NFPA policy; reference the Technical Correlating Committee comment on Proposal 72-64. If there were a requirement that all fire alarm control panels be gray and have a stylized N on the front, the committee would clearly (I hope) recognize that as an improper endorsement of a specific product. The proposed language in 5-4.2.3 is no different in improperly endorsing specific services from two specific vendors. C. Such requirement is outside the scope of the committee. The UL certification program, referenced in proposed 5.4.2.3.1, lumps local, proprietary, and remote station certification for firms into one category. Such certification is based on the system at the protected premises, and does not involve any evaluation of the remote station itself. Certification based on the system installed at the protected premises is properly the jurisdiction of the Protected Premises Technical Committee, and is outside the scope of this Technical Committee. (Copy of the UL program description has been provided). D. These requirements, which regulate contractual relationships, not fire alarm systems, are outside the scope of NFPA 72. The Technical Correlating Committee has determined that even maintaining a record of system impairments is outside the scope of this document, obviously attempting to require enrollment in a specific certification program would be equally out of scope - reference the Technical Correlating Committee comment on Proposal 72-143. The language in this section does not even permit the Authority Having Jurisdiction to verify compliance with NFPA 72; only the two specific programs operated by the two specific vendors are permitted. E. The proposed text is in violation of NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects, specifically Section 3-3.6: “Each Technical Committee shall, as far as practicable, prepare documents in terms of required performance, avoiding specifications of materials, devices or methods so phrased as to preclude obtaining the desired result by other means. It shall base its recommendation upon one or more of the following factors; namely, fire experience, research data, engineering fundamentals or other such information as may be available.” No evidence has been provided as to why a third party verification must use a “certificate” or a “placard”, when such language clearly references two specific programs operated by two specific vendors (see Proposal 72-368). NOTE: Supporting Material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and substantiation on Comment 72-312a (Log #CC600).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-

380


Committee: SIG-SSS72-310-(5-4.2) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-381RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept in Principle.SUBSTANTIATION: We agree that this is an acceptable method of providing third party acceptance of remote station fire alarm systems and that it will increase the quality of installations and operations of fire alarm systems. (See also our comments on Proposal 72-145).COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and substantiation on Comment 72-312a (CC600).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-


72-311-(5-4.2.1, 5-4.2.2, 5-4.2.3 [2002 Ed. 8.4.1.4, 8.4.1.5, and 8.4.1.6]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Brad Shipp, NBFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-381RECOMMENDATION: 8.4.1.4 (1999 Section 5-4.2.1) [ROP 72-381] Remote supervising station fire alarm systems shall provide an automatic audible and visible indication of alarm, supervisory, and if required, of trouble conditions at a location remote from the protected premises. (1999 Section 5-4.2.2 deleted) [ROP 72-381] 8.4.1.5 (1999 Section 5-4.2.3) [ROP 72-381] The loading capacities of the remote supervising station equipment for any approved method of transmission shall be designated in Section 8.5. 8.4.1.6 [ROP 72-381] Where signals are transmitted to an alternate location in accordance with Section 8.4.2.1.2 or 8.4.2.1.3, the fire alarm systems shall be provided with a conspicuous indication that the systems meet all requirements of this Code by providing a means of third party verification, as specified in 8.4.1.6.1 or 8.4.1.6.2. 8.4.1.6.1 [ROP 72-381] The installation shall be certified. 8.4.1.6.1.1 [ROP 72-381] Fire alarm systems that comply with all requirements of this Code shall be certificated by the organization that has listed the local fire alarm service company, and a document attesting to this certification shall be located on or within 1m (36 in) of the fire alarm system control unit, or if no control unit exists, on or within 1 m (36 in) of a fire alarm system component. 8.4.1.6.1.2 [ROP 72-381] A central repository of issued certification documents, accessible to the authority having jurisdiction, shall be maintained by the organization that has listed the local fire alarm service company. 8.4.1.6.2 [ROP 72-381] The installation shall be placarded. 8-4.1.6.2.1 [ROP 72-381] Fire alarm systems that comply with all requirements of this Code shall be conspicuously marked by the local fire alarm service company to indicate compliance. The marking shall be by one or more placards that meet the requirements of the organization that has listed the local fire alarm service company. 8.4.1.6.2.2 [ROP 72-381] The placard(s) shall be 130 cm2 8.4.1.6.1.1 [ROP 72-381] Fire alarm systems that comply with all requirements of this Code shall be certificated by the organization that has listed the local fire alarm service company, and a document attesting to this certification shall be located on or within 1m (36 in) of the fire alarm system control unit, or if no control unit exists, on or within 1 m (36 in) of a fire alarm system component. 8.4.1.6.1.2 [ROP 72-381] A control repository of issued certification documents, accessible to the authority having jurisdiction, shall be maintained by the organization that has listed the local fire alarm service company. 8.4.1.6.2 [ROP 72-381] The installation shall be placarded. 8.4.1.6.2.1 [ROP 72-381] Fire Alarm systems that comply with all requirements of this Code shall be conspicuously marked by the local fire alarm service company to indicate compliance. The marking shall be by one or more placards that meet the requirements of the organization that has listed the local fire alarm service company. 8.4.1.6.2.2 [ROP 72-381] The placard(s) shall be 130 cm2 (20 in2) or larger, shall be located on or within 1 m (39 in) of a fire alarm system control unit, or if no control unit exists, on or within 1 m (39 in) of a fire alarm system component, and shall identify the local fire alarm service company by name and telephone number.

SUBSTANTIATION: Existing certification programs conducted by UL and FM rely upon annual spot inspections of a sample of the certificated accounts. Both organizations have traditionally been unable to fill inspector positions due to the lack of qualified applicants. It is unreasonable to expect that either group or any new group will be able to add the required number of inspectors to perform these inspections in a timely manner. This is especially true since local inspectors will be required to ensure that occupancy permits can be issued in a timely manner. It will be dangerous to life safety if the Authority Having Jurisdiction defer inspections based upon the false hope that third party certification organizations will be able to meet the demand for the required frequency of inspections. This proposal would delegate the determination of the qualifications of the Remote Station to the third party certification organization. Neither UL or FM have established qualifications for a Remote Station. There is no guarantee that the requirements would be equivalent or similar. Without an established requirement to be listed as a remote station service, certification could be granted when a local Authority Having Jurisdiction sends a letter to the third party certification organization stating the Authority Having Jurisdiction authorizes the fire alarm monitoring company to be a remote station. No visit by the third party certification organization to each remote station to ensure the facility meets any requirements of NFPA 72 is required. With a listing process of this nature, it appears the goal is an increase in the listing organization’s revenue rather than an increase in life-safety. Many state governments, in cooperation with their state fire marshals, have implemented programs through legislation or regulation requiring education and certification programs. Significant gains in life-safety have been made through this process. To replace state agencies with listing organizations having less qualified capabilities, would diminish those states’ efforts.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and substantiation on Comment 72-312a (CC600).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-


72-312-(5-4.3) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-382RECOMMENDATION: Rework the proposal to eliminate the reference to remote supervising station fire alarm systems. SUBSTANTIATION: See my comment on 72-381. When does a remote supervising station fire alarm system become one? When it is connected to a remote supervising station, I suspect the committee answer would be. Once again, this whole section creates problems since it mandates requirements for local systems that are connected to a remote supervising station, and that is outside the scope of this chapter. Just identify what one gets or has to do, when selecting the remote option. The Life Safety Code states: “When fire department notification is required by another section of this code, the fire alarm system shall be arranged to transmit the alarm automatically via any of the following means acceptable to the AHJ and shall be in accordance with NFPA 72. 1. Auxiliary alarm system 2. Central station connection 3. Proprietary system 4. Remote station connection” No where in the code does any occupancy call for a “remote supervising station fire alarm system.” Prior to the consolidation of the alphabet series of codes, these terms may have had valid meanings, but it is time to complete the consolidation (or split again). The Technical Correlating Committee should reestablish chapter boundaries and clarify what is intended. The old NFPA 72C clearly intended the protected premises to be part of the remote supervising station fire alarm system, but that was long ago. COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Revise 5-4.3.1 (8.4.2.1 in the ROP) to read as follows: “Fire alarm systems utilizing remote supervising station connections shall transmit fire alarm and supervisory signals to a facility meeting the requirements of either 8-4.2.1.1, 8-4.2.1.2 or 8-4.2.1.3.”COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee action addresses the terminology issues raised by the submitter. The Committee statement on Comment 72-305 (Log #126) clearly addresses the scope issues raised by the submitter.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-

381

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA(Log #CC600)

Committee: SIG-SSS72-312a-(5-4.3 [2002 Ed. 8..4.1.6, 8.4.1.6.3]) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Supervising Station Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-382RECOMMENDATION: Change 8.4.1.6 to read: “Where signals are transmitted to an alternate location in accordance with Section 8.4.2.1.2, the fire alarm systems shall be provided with a conspicuous indication that the systems meet all requirements of this Code by providing a means of third party verification, as specified in 8.4.1.6.1, 8.4.1.6.2 or 8.4.1.6.3.” Add 8.4.1.6.3 to read as follows: “The installation shall meet the requirements of a state or local government that has a systematic program in place to ensure that the installation and the ongoing testing, inspection, and maintenance meet all of the requirements of this Code.” SUBSTANTIATION: Some state and local governments have implemented systematic programs through legislation or regulation to achieve quality assurance. The Committee action recognizes these programs as an alternative to certification or placarding.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-


72-313-(5-4.3.1, 5-4.3.2, 5-4.3.3 [2002Ed. 8.4.2.1, 8.4.2.2, and 8.4.2.3]) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Brad Shipp, NBFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-382RECOMMENDATION: Revise the following to read: 8.4.2.1 (1999 Section 5-4.3.1) [ROP 72-382] Remote supervising station fire alarm systems shall transmit fire alarm and supervisory signals to a facility meeting the requirements of either 8.4.2.1.1, 8.4.2.1.2 or 8.4.2.1.3. 8.4.2.1.1 (1999 Section 5-4.3.1) [ROP 72-382] Fire alarm and supervisory signals shall be permitted to be received at the public fire service communications center, at the fire station, or at the governmental agency that has the public responsibility for taking prescribed action to ensure response upon receipt of a fire alarm signal. 8.4.2.1.2 (1999 Section 5-4.3.1) [ROP 72-382] Where permitted by the authority having jurisdiction, fire alarm and supervisory signals shall be permitted to be received at a listed central station. 8.4.2.1.3 (1999 Section 5-4.3.1 [ROP 72-382] Where permitted by the Authority Having Jurisdiction, fire alarm and supervisory signals shall be permitted to be received at an alternate location approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction. 8.4.2.2 (1999 Section 5-4.3.2) [ROP 72-382] Trouble signals shall be received at a constantly attended location that has personnel on duty who are trained to recognize the type of signal received as to take prescribed action. The location shall be permitted to be other than that at which alarm and supervisory signals are received. 8.4.2.3 (1999 Section 5-4.3.3) [ROP 72-382] If locations other than the public fire service communications center are used for the receipt of signals, access to receiving equipment shall be restricted in accordance with the requirements of the Authority Having Jurisdiction. SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal adds a new method of compliance in Remote Station section (8.4). It recognizes the use of listed Central Stations. Listed Central Station Service is clearly covered in Section 8.2, Section 8.4, however, covers Remote Station Services. This is an attempt to market Central Station Services to the Authority Having Jurisdiction over Remote Station Service, it is not for life-safety. It will only advertise Central Station Services and NFPA code should not be used for advertisement for special interest groups.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle 1. Delete section 8.4.2.1.2. 2. Renumber subsequent subsections. 3. Add new Annex A.8.4.2.1.2 to read as follows: “A listed central station may be considered an acceptable alternate location for receipt of fire alarm and supervisory signals.”COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee’s actions make it clear that the use of a listed central station is an acceptable alternative.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-


72-314-(5-4.3.1 and 5-4.3.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-381RECOMMENDATION: Delete 5-4.3.1 and 5-4.3.2. SUBSTANTIATION: A. Third party verification of anything besides supervising station transmitters and/or supervising station equipment is

outside the scope of Chapter 5. B. Third party verification has been addressed in Chapter 1 for ALL SYSTEMS; reference ROP 72-145. As code compliance is a fundamental requirement applicable to all fire alarm systems - not just supervising station systems - jurisdiction properly belongs to Chapter 1. C. It is not the responsibility of NFPA 72 to decide what level of protection or code enforcement is appropriate for any given application or in any particular jurisdiction; those responsibilities properly belong to the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. Unlike proposed 5-4.3.1 and 5-4.3.2 which take the Authorities Having Jurisdiction’s prerogatives unto themselves, the wording of ROP 72-145 simply provides a tool which local Authorities Having Jurisdiction can use, or elect NOT to use, as appropriate for their individual circumstances.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee action and substantiation on Comment 72-312a (Log #CC600). In addition, the third party verification addressed in Chapter 1 applies to verifying that the initial installation meets the minimum requirements of the Code and does not assure ongoing oversight. A fire alarm system being monitored by other than the owner or the public fire service communications center requires that certain responsibilities relating to system reliability be delegated, which is within the scope of this Technical Committee.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-


72-315-(5-4.3.1 and 5-4.3.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-381RECOMMENDATION: Delete 5-4.3.1 and 5-4.3.2 SUBSTANTIATION: A. Requiring a UL certificate or FM placard violates explicit NFPA policy with respect to the endorsement of particular products and services. B. The claim that these paragraphs do not require enrollment in specific UL and FM programs is not credible, as the author of the current text of 5-2.2.3.1 or 5-2.2.3.2, which is substantially identical to proposed 5-4.2.3.1 and 5-4.2.3.2, is on record publicly affirming that these requirements were written specifically to codify those two programs; one by UL and one by FM. In a December 1998 posting to the Automatic Fire Alarm Association list server, Dean Wilson (Chair of the NFPA 71 Technical Committee at that time) wrote - in reference to the 1996 edition text which became 5-2.2.3.1 or 5-2.2.3.2 in the 1999 edition: “The language used to describe these means of verification in NFPA 71 attempted to explain in as few words as possible programs that were, and are, reasonably complex. Before writing those words, The Technical Committee on Signaling Systems for Central Station Service listened to lengthy presentations from UL’s Isaac Papier and FMRC’s Jack Abbott. Since I chaired the Technical Committee at that time, let me assure readers that the Technical Committee made no mistake about what they intended. The content and the intent passed unanimously. Some may feel confused by what “verification” means. Let me assure you that the members who wrote NFPA 71-1989 suffered from no such confusion. We knew then, and we know now, the scopes of THE TWO PROGRAMS that meet the requirements.” A copy of the full text of this e-mail posting is on file at NFPA; reference ROP 72-141. C. Besides the problem with NFPA’s endorsement policy, these requirements are also indeterminate because the details of the mandated certification and placarding programs are determined entirely outside of the consensus standards making process and are subject to change without notice. For example, nobody told Chapter 5 until the NFPA Annual Meeting in May 1999 that FM hadn’t routinely inspected “placarded” systems in years; a revelation they’ve conveniently managed to overlook ever since. D. NFPA should not allow itself to be used as a front allowing private corporations to manipulate the fire protection marketplace like it was their personal sandbox. This kind of disregard for NFPA policy compromises NFPA’s responsibility in establishing fire safety standards and is dangerous to the integrity and future of the consensus standards making process.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on Comment 72-314 (Log #41). In addition, nothing precludes other entities from developing and implementing certification programs to systematically assure code compliant fire alarm system installation, testing, maintenance and inspection.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-

382


Committee: SIG-SSS72-316-(5-4.3.1 and 5-4.3.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-381RECOMMENDATION: Delete 5.4.3.1 and 5.4.3.2. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The proposal substantiation (in the ROP) is incorrect in that neither “certification” or “placarding” as described in the proposal actually “assure compliance with the code.” Code compliance is certainly desirable, but you can’t ensure it without actually inspecting and testing the system; neither of which is required prior to issuance of a certificate or placard, or in fact, anytime thereafter. This is why Proposal 72-145 requires an actual inspection and test, prior to certification. B. No causal link has been established between certification/placarding and an improvement in quality or a decrease in false alarms. Installation quality has increased substantially in the last decade (mostly through improved education and professionalism in the industry), while false alarms have decreased markedly (mostly as a result of better detector technology). This has occurred nationwide despite the fact that only a tiny percentage of installed systems are placarded or certificated. C. Even amongst UL listed installing companies, only a tiny percentage of the systems they install are placarded or certificated. These companies have not documented any problem with maintaining quality or minimizing false alarms in their other installations, which begs the question if Simplex or Honeywell can install thousands of code compliant systems without placarding or certificating them, why can’t everybody? D. Even in jurisdictions which require placarding or certification of new installations, the installed base of systems consists largely of “grandfathered” non-placarded and non-certificated systems. For those jurisdictions to claim 70-90% reductions in false alarms, as a result of ordinances affecting only a tiny percentage of their installed system base, completely discounting any connection to the vastly improved detector technology that has been so effective everywhere else, is not even close to reasonable. E. Thousands of years of collective experience demonstrates that most false alarms come from misapplication of detection devices and/or older, poorly maintained systems. If false alarms are a problem in a given jurisdiction, the solution is qualified inspections and routine maintenance, not paying UL for a piece of paper certifying compliance of a system they have never looked at and are unlikely to ever look at. F. In light of A-E above, and as a reflected in Tom Brown’s explanation of negative on the original proposal, no technical basis has been demonstrated for requiring certification or placarding of remote station systems. In accordance with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects, the appropriate committee action is to reject.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on Comment 72-315 (Log #137).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-


72-317-(5-5.3.2.1.1 Exception) : Reject SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-395RECOMMENDATION: Accept the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: What fire alarm evaluation needs to be done to allow customer owned telephone equipment into the process? What is the process? Who says that the customer’s telephone system does not provide reliable access to dial tone? The committee needs to establish what “reliable” is before they go and eliminate this proposal. It is possible that the customer’s system is more reliable. The committee has not provided proper justification for rejecting this proposal. What does “To allow customer-owned telephone equipment into the process without fire alarm evaluation runs counter to the committee’s intent” supposed to mean? The committee either needs to spell out the intent to show “the customer” what shortcomings their system has or accept the proposal.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Premises telephone systems are susceptible to numerous failures including, but not limited to, standby power supply and dial tone degradation. In addition, DACS have limited supervision and private telephone equipment is not listed for fire alarm use. The Committee continues to support the use of telephone company provided POTS lines for use with DACS because of their established reliability.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-


72-318-(5-5.3.2.1.2 and 5-5.3.2.1.4) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-391RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee statement is incorrect. The requirements for DACTs are in the applicable product standards, which are what nationally recognized testing laboratories use as a basis for their listings. Nobody lists fire alarm equipment for compliance to NFPA 72. B. If this rationale were legitimate, NFPA 72 would need to include complete product specifications for thousands of different kinds of fire alarm system components; something that’s obviously not the case.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Due to the unique nature of DACS, the Code established minimum criteria for use by the Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories in the development of their product standards.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-


72-319-(5-5.4.11 [2002 Ed. 8.5.4.11]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Douglas H. Brunmeier, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-362RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire paragraph 8.5.4.11 and its exception. SUBSTANTIATION: The exception to paragraph 8.5.4.11 already exists as a basic requirement in paragraph 8.5.4.7 making the need for signal priority unnecessary.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Section 8.5.4.7 deals with end to end communication time; section 8.5.4.11 addresses shared communication paths. The committee believes these are two separate issues and both sections are necessary.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre

————————————————-

(Log #92)Committee: SIG-PRS

72-320-(Chapter 6 [2002 Ed. Chapter 9]) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-400aRECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee advises that Chapter Scopes (Application) statements are the responsibility of the Technical Correlating Committee and the Technical Correlating Committee rejects the text proposed for Section 9.1. Specifically, auxiliary fire alarm reporting systems are not defined. The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the proposed text on this chapter be revised for organization, clarity and to fully comply with Manual of Style. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has revised Section 9.1 and the entire chapter in accordance with the comments of the Technical Correlating Committee. Refer to the committee action on 72-321a (Log #CC4).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:10VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 9 NOT RETURNED: 1 Fisher

————————————————-


72-321-(Chapter 6 [2002 Ed. Chapter 9]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-400aRECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on this proposal does not comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects because the revised text contains numerous changes that go far beyond the “manual of style” justification for the proposal. B. Combining changes resulting from public proposals with wholesale “manual of style” changes pursuant to a committee proposal makes it very difficult to track all of the changes that have been made, and nearly impossible to verify that those changes comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.

383

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA C. The manual of style proposals from each technical committee should be stand-alone proposals which can be reviewed to verify that the only thing that has changed is the style; not the requirements. D. Correlation of accepted manual of style proposal - presumably editorial revisions - with other changes initiated via public proposals should be handled by the Technical Correlating Committee or NFPA staff.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee disagrees with the submitter’s substantiation for the following reasons: The committee action does comply with NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. The changes in proposal that go beyond NFPA Manual of Style revisions are either specifically identified in the recommendation of the proposal or are identified by reference to other proposals acted upon individually. Theses changes are supported in the substantiation of Proposal 72-400a or in the individual proposals. The combination of changes resulting from public proposals with changes made for the Manual of Style was directed by the Technical Correlating Committee in order to provide a complete text in the new style showing all changes in the proper context. This was done to enhance the usability and simplify the review of this material for both the committee and the public. Text that is based on changes made by public proposals has been identified by a bold reference to the public proposal number. The correlation of several proposals into the final document, especially with such broad changes in style and format, can often be difficult because of potentially conflicting or unclear committee actions. Showing all changes in their proper context offers a complete text that has been reviewed by the committee and has had opportunity for public review and comment. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:10VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 9 NOT RETURNED: 1 Fisher

————————————————-

(Log #CC4)Committee: SIG-PRS

72-321a-(Chapter 6) : Accept TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee advises that Chapter Scope (Application) statements are the responsibility of the Technical Correlating Committee and the Technical Correlating Committee accepts the Committee Action. The Technical Correlating Committee concurs with the committees action to delete 6-16.5 and 6-16.6 as they outside the scope of the committee. The Technical Correlating Committee directs that Section 9.4 be revised delete the term “alarm boxes” because it is not defined. Revise 9.4 title and 9.4.1 text to read as follows: 9.4 Alarm Transmission Equipment (Auxiliary Boxes, Master Boxes and Street Boxes) 9.4.1 General The requirements of 9.4.1 shall apply to all alarm transmission equipment. 9.4.1.1 [1999 6-4.9] Concurrent operation of at least four boxes shall not result in the loss of an alarm. 9.4.1.2 [1999 6-5.1] Boxes, when in an abnormal condition, shall leave the circuit usable. 9.4.1.3 [1999 6-5.2] Boxes shall be designed so that recycling does not occur when a box-actuating device is held in the actuating position and shall be ready to accept a new signal as soon as the actuating device is released. 9.4.1.4* [1999 6-5.3*] Boxes, when actuated, shall give a visible or audible indication to the user that the box is operating or that the signal has been transmitted to the public fire service communications center. 9.4.1.5 [1999 6-5.10] Box cases and parts that are accessible to the public shall be of insulating materials or permanently and effectively grounded. All ground connections to street boxes shall comply with the requirements of NFPA 70, National Electrical Code®, Article 250.

SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Public Fire Reporting Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:400aRECOMMENDATION: Revised proposed Chapter 9 to read as follows:

CHAPTER 9 Public Fire Alarm Reporting Systems

9.1 [1999 6.1] Application.

9.1.1 [1999 6.1.2]

The installation and use of public fire alarm reporting systems and auxiliary fire alarm systems shall comply with the requirements of this chapter.

9.1.2 [1999 6.1.2]

The requirements of this chapter shall apply to systems and equipment for the transmission and reception of fire alarm and other emergency signals, including those from auxiliary fire alarm systems connected to the public fire alarm reporting system.

9.1.3 [1999 6.1.1]

The requirements of Chapter 4 and Chapter 10 shall also apply, unless they are in conflict with this chapter.

9.1.4

The requirements of this chapter shall not apply to Chapter 11 unless otherwise noted.

9.1.5

The application of public fire alarm reporting systems and auxiliary fire alarm systems to provide defined reporting functions from or within private premises shall be permitted where approved by the authority having jurisdiction.

9.2 [1999 6-2] General Fundamentals.

9.2.1* [1999 6-2.1*]

Public fire alarm reporting systems shall be designed, installed, operated and maintained in accordance with this chapter to provide reliable transmission and receipt of fire alarms in a manner acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.

9.2.2 [1999 6-2.2]

A public fire alarm reporting system, as described herein, shall be permitted to be used for the transmission of other signals or calls of a public emergency nature, provided such transmission does not interfere with the transmission and receipt of fire alarms.

9.3 [1999 6-3] Management and Maintenance. [ROP 72-400a]

9.3.1 [1999 6-3.1] [ROP 72-400a]

All systems shall be under the control of a designated jurisdictional employee.

9.3.2 [1999 6-3.2]

Maintenance by an organization or person other than from the jurisdiction or an employee of the jurisdiction shall be by written contract, guaranteeing performance acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.

9.3.3 [1999 6-3.1]

Where maintenance is provided by an organization or person(s) other than the jurisdiction or its employees, complete written records of the installation, maintenance, test, and extension of the system shall be forwarded to the designated employee as soon as possible.

9.3.4 [1999 6-3.3]

All equipment shall be accessible to the authority having jurisdiction for the purpose of maintenance.

9.3.5 [1999 6-4.2]

Records of wired public fire alarm reporting system circuits shall include the following:

(1) Outline plans showing terminals and box sequence

(2) Diagrams of applicable office wiring

(3) List of materials used, including trade name, manufacturer, and year of purchase or installation

9.3.6 [1999 6-4.2.1]

Public fire alarm reporting systems as defined in this chapter, shall, in their entirety, be subject to a complete operational acceptance test upon completion of system installation.

9.3.6.1 [1999 6-4.2.1]

This test(s) shall be made in accordance with the requirements of the authority having jurisdiction; however, in no case shall the operational functions tested be less than those stipulated in Chapter 10.

9.3.6.2 [1999 6-4.2.1]

Acceptance tests shall also be performed on any alarm reporting devices as identified in this chapter that are added subsequent to the installation of the initial system.

[1999 6-4.3 through 6-4.8 deleted] [ROP 72-400a]

9.4 Alarm Transmission Equipment (Alarm Boxes)

9.4.1 General

The requirements of 9.4.1 shall apply to all alarm transmission equipment.

9.4.1.1 [1999 6-4.9]

Concurrent operation of at least four boxes shall not result in the loss of an alarm.

9.4.1.2 [1999 6-5.1]

Alarm boxes, when in an abnormal condition, shall leave the circuit usable.

9.4.1.3 [1999 6-5.2]

384

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAAlarm boxes shall be designed so that recycling does not occur when a box-actuating device is held in the actuating position and shall be ready to accept a new signal as soon as the actuating device is released.

9.4.1.4* [1999 6-5.3*]

Alarm boxes, when actuated, shall give a visible or audible indication to the user that the box is operating or that the signal has been transmitted to the public fire service communications center.

9.4.1.5 [1999 6-5.10]

Alarm box cases and parts that are accessible to the public shall be of insulating materials or permanently and effectively grounded. All ground connections to street boxes shall comply with the requirements of NFPA 70, National Electrical Code®, Article 250.

9.4.2 [1999 6-5] Publicly Accessible Fire Service Boxes (Street Boxes).

9.4.2.1 Fundamental Requirements.

The requirements of 9.4.2.1 shall apply to all publicly accessible fire service boxes.

9.4.2.1.1 [1999 6-4.1]

Means for actuation of alarms by the public shall be located where they are conspicuous and accessible for operation.

9.4.2.1.2 [1999 6-5.4]

The street box housing shall protect the internal components from the weather.

9.4.2.1.3 [1999 6-5.5]

Doors on street boxes shall remain operable under adverse climatic conditions, including icing and salt spray.

9.4.2.1.4 [1999 6-5.6]

Street boxes shall be recognizable as such, and shall have instructions for use plainly marked on their exterior surfaces.

9.4.2.1.5 [1999 6-5.7]

Street boxes shall be securely mounted on poles, pedestals, or structural surfaces as directed by the authority having jurisdiction.

9.4.2.1.6 [1999 6-6.1]

The location of publicly accessible boxes shall be designated by the authority having jurisdiction.

9.4.2.1.7 [1999 6-6.2]

Schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and places of public assembly shall have a box located at the main entrance, as directed by the authority having jurisdiction.

9.4.2.1.8 [1999 6-5.8]

Street boxes shall be conspicuously visible and be highlighted with a distinctive color.

9.4.2.1.9 [1999 6-5.8] [ROP 72-404]

All publicly accessible boxes mounted on support poles shall be identified by a wide band of distinctive colors or signs placed 2.44 m (8 ft) above the ground and visible from all directions wherever possible.

9.4.2.1.10* [1999 6-5.9*]

Location-designating lights of distinctive color, visible for at least 460 m (1500 ft) in all directions, shall be installed over street boxes. The street light nearest the street box, where equipped with a distinctively colored light, shall meet this requirement.

9.4.2.1.11 [1999 6-5.11] [ROP 72-405]

Street boxes installed inside a structure the installation shall comply with 9.4.2.1.11.1 and 9.4.2.1.11.2.

9.4.2.1.11.1 [1999 6-5.11]

The street box shall be placed as close as is practicable to the point of entrance of the circuit.

9.4.2.1.11.2 [1999 6-5.11]

The exterior wire shall be installed in conduit or electrical metallic tubing in accordance with Chapter 3 of NFPA 70, National Electrical Code.

9.4.2.2 Coded Wired Street Boxes.

The requirements of 9.7 shall also apply.

9.4.2.3 [1999 6-5.12] Coded Radio Street Boxes.

9.4.2.3.1 [1999 6-5.12.1]

Coded radio street boxes shall be designed and operated in compliance with all applicable rules and regulations of the FCC, as well as with the

requirements established herein.

9.4.2.3.2* [1999 6-14.6.3*]

Each coded radio box shall automatically transmit a test message at least once in each 24-hour period.

9.4.2.3.3 [1999 6-5.12.2]

Coded radio street boxes shall provide no less than three specific and individually identifiable functions to the public fire service communications center, in addition to the street box number, as follows:

(1) Test

(2) Tamper

(3) Fire

9.4.2.3.4* [1999 6-5.12.3*] [ROP 72-400a]

Coded radio street boxes shall transmit to the public fire service communications center as follows

(1) no less than one repetition for “test,”

(2) no less than one repetition for “tamper,”

(3) no less than two repetitions for “fire.”

9.4.2.3.5 [1999 6-5.12.4]

Where multifunction coded radio street boxes are used to transmit signals in addition to those in 9.5.2.2 each such additional signal shall be individually identifiable.

9.4.2.3.6 [1999 6-5.12.5]

Multifunction coded radio street boxes shall be designed so as to prevent the loss of supplemental or concurrently actuated messages.

9.4.2.3.7 [1999 6-5.12.6]

An actuating device held or locked in the activating position shall not prevent the activation and transmission of other messages.

9.4.2.3.8 [1999 6-5.12.7.1]

The primary power source for coded radio street boxes shall be permitted to be from one or more or the following as approved by the authority having jurisdiction

(1) a utility distribution system

(2) a photovoltaic power system

(3) user power

(4) self-powered using either an integral battery or other stored energy source

9.4.2.3.9 [1999 6-5.12.7.3]

Boxes powered by a utility distribution system shall comply with 9.4.2.3.9.1 through 9.4.2.3.9.6.

9.4.2.3.9.1

Boxes shall have an integral standby, sealed, rechargeable battery that is capable of powering box functions for at least 60 hours in the event of primary power failure. Transfer to standby battery power shall be automatic and without interruption to box operation.

9.4.2.3.9.2 [1999 6-5.12.7.3]

A local trouble indication shall activate upon primary power failure.

9.4.2.3.9.3 [1999 6-5.12.7.3]

Boxes operating from primary power shall be capable of operation with a dead or disconnected battery.

9.4.2.3.9.4 [1999 6-5.12.7.3]

A battery charger shall be provided in compliance with 1-5.2.8.2 [1999], except as modified in 9.4.2.3.9.

9.4.2.3.9.5 [1999 6-5.12.7.3]

When the primary power has failed, boxes shall transmit a power failure message to the public fire service communications center as part of subsequent test messages until primary power is restored.

9.4.2.3.9.6 [1999 6-5.12.7.3]

A low-battery message shall be transmitted to the public fire service communications center where the remaining battery standby time is less than 54 hours.

9.4.2.3.10 [1999 6-5.12.7.4]

Boxes powered by a photovoltaic system shall comply with 9.4.2.3.10.1 through 9.4.2.3.10.5.

9.4.2.3.10.1

Photovoltaic power systems shall provide box operation for not less than 6 months.

9.4.2.3.10.2 [1999 6-5.12.7.4]

385

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAPhotovoltaic power systems shall be monitored for integrity.

9.4.2.3.10.3 [1999 6-5.12.7.4]

The battery shall have power to sustain operation for a minimum period of 15 days without recharging.

9.4.2.3.10.4 [1999 6-5.12.7.4]

The box shall transmit a trouble message to the public fire service communications center when the charger has failed for more than 24 hours. This message shall be part of all subsequent transmissions.

9.4.2.3.10.5 [1999 6-5.12.7.4]

Where the remaining battery standby duration is less than 10 days, a low-battery message shall be transmitted to the public fire service communications center.

9.4.2.3.11 [1999 6-5.12.7.5]

User-powered boxes shall have an automatic self-test feature.

9.4.2.3.12

Self-powered boxes shall comply with 9.4.2.3.12.1 through 9.4.2.3.12.3.

9.4.2.3.12.1 [1999 6-5.12.7.2] [ROP 72-406]

Self-powered boxes shall operate for a period of not less than 6 months.

9.4.2.3.12.2 [1999 6-5.12.7.2]

Self-powered boxes shall transmit a low power warning message to the public fire service communications center for at least 15 days prior to the time the power source will fail to operate the box. This message shall be part of all subsequent transmissions.

9.4.2.3.12.3 [1999 6-5.12.7.2]

Use of a charger to extend the life of a self-powered box shall be permitted where the charger does not interfere with box operation. The box shall be capable of operation for not less than 6 months with the charger disconnected.

9.4.2.4 [1999 6-5.13] Telephone Street Boxes.

The requirements of 9.7 shall also apply.

9.4.2.4.1 [1999 6-5.13.1]

Where a handset is used, the caps on the transmitter and receiver shall be secured to reduce the probability of the telephone street box being disabled due to vandalism.

9.4.2.4.2 [1999 6-5.13.2]

Telephone street boxes shall be designed to allow the public fire service communications center operator to determine whether or not the telephone street box has been restored to normal condition after use.

[1999 6-6 relocated to 9.5.1.7 ]

9.4.3 [1999 6-16] Auxiliary Fire Alarm Systems.

9.4.3.1 Application.

The equipment and circuits necessary to connect a protected premises to a public fire alarm reporting system shall comply with the requirements of 9.4.3.

9.4.3.1.1 [1999 6-16]

The requirements of Chapter 5 in addition to those of Chapters 4 and 10 shall apply to auxiliary fire alarm systems, unless they conflict with the requirements of Section 9.4.3.

9.4.3.1.2 [1999 6-16]

Where permitted by the authority having jurisdiction, the use of systems described in Chapter 9 shall be permitted to provide defined reporting functions from or within private premises.

9.4.3.1.3

The requirements of 9.7 shall also apply to coded wired auxiliary fire systems.

9.4.3.2 [6-16.4] Types of Systems.

9.4.3.2.1 [1999 6-16.4.1] [ROP 72-400a]

Auxiliary fire alarm systems shall be of the following two types.

(a) * Local Energy Type.

(1) Local energy systems shall be permitted to be of the coded or noncoded type.

(2) Power supply sources for local energy systems shall conform to Chapter 4.

(3) Transmitter trouble signals shall be annunciated at the fire command center.

(b) * Shunt Type.

(1) Shunt systems shall be noncoded with respect to any remote electrical tripping or actuating devices.

(2) All conductors of the shunt circuit shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, Article 346, for rigid conduit, or Article 348, for electrical metallic tubing.

(3) Both sides of the shunt circuit shall be in the same conduit.

(4) Where a shunt loop is used, it shall not exceed a length of 230m (750 ft) and shall be in conduit.

(5) Conductors of the shunt circuits shall not be smaller than No. 14 AWG and shall be insulated as prescribed in NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, Article 310.

(6) The power for shunt-type systems shall be provided by the public fire alarm reporting system.

(7) * A local system made to an auxiliary system by the addition of a relay whose coil is energized by a local power supply and whose normally closed contacts trip a shunt-type master box shall not be permitted.

9.4.3.2.2 [1999 6-16.4.2]

The interface of the two types of auxiliary fire alarm systems with the three types of public fire alarm reporting systems shall be in accordance with Table 9.4.3.2.2.

Table 9.4.3.2.2 Application of Public Fire Alarm Reporting Systems with Auxiliary Fire Alarm Systems

Reporting Systems

Local Energy Type

Shunt Type

Coded wired

Yes Yes

Coded radio

Yes No

Telephone series

Yes No

9.4.3.2.3 [1999 6-16.4.3]

The application of the two types of auxiliary fire alarm systems shall be limited to the initiating devices specified in Table 9.4.3.2.3.

Table 9.4.3.2.3 Application of Initiating Device with Auxiliary Fire Alarm Systems

Initiating Devices

Local Energy Type

Shunt Type

Manual fire alarm

Yes Yes

Waterflow or actuation of the fire extinguishing system(s) or suppression system(s)

Yes Yes

Automatic detection devices

Yes No

9.4.3.3 System Arrangement and Operation.

9.4.3.3.1 [1999 6-16.4.4.1]

Shunt-type auxiliary systems shall be arranged so that one auxiliary transmitter does not serve more than 9290 m2 (100,000 ft2 ) total area.

Exception: Where otherwise permitted by the authority having jurisdiction.

9.4.3.3.2 [1999 6-16.4.4.2]

A separate auxiliary transmitter shall be provided for each building, or where permitted by the authority having jurisdiction, for each group of buildings of single ownership or occupancy.

386

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA9.4.3.3.3 [1999 6-16.4.4.3]

The same box shall be permitted to be used as a public fire alarm reporting system box and as a transmitting device for an auxiliary system where permitted by the authority having jurisdiction, provided that the box is located at the outside of the entrance to the protected property.

9.4.3.3.4 [1999 6-16.4.4.3]

Where 9.4.3.3.3 is applied, the fire department shall be permitted to require the box to be equipped with a signal light to differentiate between automatic and manual operation, unless local outside alarms at the protected property serve the same purpose.

9.4.3.3.5 [1999 6-16.4.4.4]

The transmitting device shall be located as required by the authority having jurisdiction.

9.4.3.3.6 [1999 6-16.4.4.5]

The system shall be designed and arranged so that a single fault on the auxiliary system shall not jeopardize operation of the public fire alarm reporting system and shall not, in case of a single fault on either the auxiliary or public fire alarm reporting system, transmit a false alarm on either system.

Exception: Shunt systems complying with 9.4.3.2.1(b).

9.4.3.3.7 [6-14.2]

A means that is available only to the agency responsible for maintaining the public fire alarm reporting system shall be provided for disconnecting the auxiliary loop to the connected property.

9.4.3.3.8 [6-14.2]

Notification shall be given to the designated representative of the property when the auxiliary box is not in service.

9.4.3.3.9 [1999 6-16.2.1]

An auxiliary fire alarm system shall be used only in connection with a public fire alarm reporting system that is approved for the service. A system approved by the authority having jurisdiction shall meet this requirement.

9.4.3.3.10 [1999 6-16.2.2]

Permission for the connection of an auxiliary fire alarm system to a public fire alarm reporting system, and acceptance of the type of auxiliary transmitter and its actuating mechanism, circuits, and components connected thereto, shall be obtained from the authority having jurisdiction.

[1999 6-16.2.3 deleted] [ROP 72-400a]

9.4.3.3.11 [1999 6-16.2.4]

Section 9.4.3 shall not require the use of audible alarm signals other than those necessary to operate the auxiliary fire alarm system. Where it is desired to provide fire alarm evacuation signals in the protected property, the alarms, circuits, and controls shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 6 in addition to the provisions of Section 9.4.3.

9.4.3.3.12 [ROP 72-421]

Multi-zone auxiliary fire alarm systems shall provide a means for transmitting an alarm to the public reporting system upon the subsequent actuation of initiating devices on other initiating device circuits or subsequent actuation of addressable initiating devices.

9.4.3.3.13 [1999 6-16.4.1(b)(4)] [ROP 72-400a]

Where an auxiliary transmitter is located within a private premises, it shall be installed in accordance with 9.4.2.1.11 and 9.7.2.

[1999 6-16.7 deleted] [ROP 72-400a]

9.4.4 Master Boxes

Master boxes shall comply with the requirements of 9.4.1 through 9.4.3.

9.5 Alarm Receiving Equipment at Public Fire Service Communications Center.

9.5.1 [1999 6-11.1] General.

The requirements of 9.5.1 shall apply to all alarm receiving equipment.

9.5.1.1 Type A and Type B Systems

9.5.1.1.1

Alarm systems shall be Type A or Type B.

9.5.1.1.2 [1999 6-2.3]

A Type A system shall be provided where the number of all alarms required to be retransmitted exceeds 2500 per year.

9.5.1.1.3 [1999 6-2.3.1]

Where a Type A system is required, the automatic electronic retransmission of incoming alarms shall be permitted provided both the following conditions

are met:

(1) Approved facilities are provided for the automatic receipt, storage, retrieval, and retransmission of alarms in the order received.

(2) The operator(s) of the dispatch facility shall have the capability to immediately over ride the automatic retransmission and revert to manual retransmission.

9.5.1.2 [1999 6-11.2] Visual Recording Devices.

9.5.1.2.1 1999 6-11.1.1]

Alarms from boxes shall be automatically received and recorded at the public fire service communications center.

9.5.1.2.2 [1999 6-11.2.1]

A device for producing a permanent graphic recording of all alarm, supervisory, trouble, and test signals received or retransmitted, or both, shall be provided at each public fire service communications center for each alarm circuit and tie circuit.

9.5.1.2.3

Reserve recording devices shall be provided in accordance with 9.5.1.2.3.1 and 9.5.1.2.3.2.

9.5.1.2.3.1 [1999 6-11.2.1] [ROP 72-400a]

Where each circuit is served by a dedicated recording device, the number of reserve recording devices required on site shall be equal to at least 5 percent of the circuits in service and in no case less than 1 device.

9.5.1.2.3.2 [1999 6-11.2.1]

Where two or more circuits are served by a common recording device, a reserve recording device shall be provided on site for each circuit connected to a common recorder.

9.5.1.2.4 [1999 6-11.2.2]

In a Type B wire system, one such recording device shall be installed in each fire station and at least one shall be installed in the public fire service communications center.

9.5.1.2.5 [1999 6-11.1.2]

A permanent visual record and an audible signal shall be required to indicate the receipt of an alarm. The permanent record shall indicate the exact location from which the alarm is being transmitted.

9.5.1.2.6 [1999 6-11.1.2]

The audible signal device shall be permitted to be common to two or more box circuits and arranged so that the fire alarm operator is able to manually silence the signal temporarily by a self-restoring switch.

9.5.1.2.7 [1999 6-11.1.3]

Facilities shall be provided that automatically record the date and time of receipt of each alarm.

Exception: Only the time shall be required to be automatically recorded for voice recordings.

9.5.1.3 [1999 6-11.3] System Integrity.

9.5.1.3.1 [1999 6-11.3.1]

Wired circuits upon which transmission and receipt of alarms depend, shall be constantly monitored for integrity to provide prompt warning of conditions adversely affecting reliability.

9.5.1.3.2 [1999 6-11.3.2]

The power supplied to all required circuits and devices of the system shall be constantly monitored for integrity.

9.5.1.4 [6-11.4] Trouble Signals.

9.5.1.4.1 [1999 6-11.4.1] [ROP 72-400a]

Trouble signals shall be indicated where there is a trained and competent person on duty at all times.

9.5.1.4.2 [1999 6-11.4.2] [ROP 72-400a]

Trouble signals shall be distinct from alarm signals and shall be indicated by a visual and audible signal.

9.5.1.4.3 [1999 6-11.4.3]

The audible signal shall be permitted to be common to more than one circuit that is monitored for integrity.

9.5.1.4.4 [1999 6-11.4.4]

A switch for silencing the audible trouble signal shall be permitted, provided the visual signal remains operating until the silencing switch is restored to its normal position.

9.5.1.4.5 [1999 6-11.4.5]

387

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAThe audible signal shall be responsive to faults on any other circuits that occur prior to restoration of the silencing switch to its normal position.

9.5.1.5 [1999 6-7] Power Supply. [ROP 72-407]

The forms and arrangements for Public Fire Reporting Systems power supplies shall comply with 9.5.1.5.1 through 9.5.1.5.8.

9.5.1.5.1 [1999 6-7.1.8]

Each box circuit or coded radio receiving system shall be served by the following:

(1) * Form 4A. An inverter, powered from a common rectifier, receiving power by a single source of alternating current with a floating storage battery having a 24-hour standby capacity.

(2) * Form 4B. An inverter, powered from a common rectifier, receiving power from two sources of alternating current with a floating storage battery having a 4-hour standby capacity.

(3) * Form 4C. A rectifier, converter, or motor-generator receiving power from two sources of alternating current with transfer facilities to apply power from the secondary source to the system within 30 seconds.

9.5.1.5.2 [1999 6-7.1.8.2]

Form 4A and Form 4B shall be permitted to distribute the system load between two or more common rectifiers and batteries.

9.5.1.5.3 [1999 6-7.1.1]

Batteries, motor-generators, or rectifiers shall be able to supply all connected circuits without exceeding the capacity of any battery or overloading any generator or rectifier, so that circuits developing grounds or crosses with other circuits each shall be able to be supplied by an independent source to the extent required by 9.5.1.5.1.

9.5.1.5.4 [1999 6-7.1.2]

Provision shall be made for supplying any circuit from any battery, generator, or rectifier.

9.5.1.5.5 [1999 6-7.1.2]

Enclosed fuses shall be provided at points where supplies for individual circuits are taken from common leads.

9.5.1.5.6 [1999 6-7.1.4]

Local circuits at public fire service communications centers shall be supplied in accordance with 9.5.1.5.6.1 and 9.5.1.5.6.2.

9.5.1.5.6.1 [1999 6-7.1.4]

The source of power for local circuits required to operate the essential features of the system shall be monitored for integrity.

9.5.1.5.6.2 [1999 6-7.1.4]

Local circuits at public fire service communications centers shall be supplied either in common with box circuits or coded radio-receiving system circuits or by a separate power source.

9.5.1.5.7 [1999 6-7.1.5]

Visual and audible means to indicate a 15 percent or greater reduction of normal power supply (rated voltage) shall be provided.

9.5.1.5.8 [1999 6-7.1.6] [ROP 72-408]

Where the electrical service/capacity of the equipment required under 2-7 of NFPA 1221, Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Emergency Services Communications Systems, satisfies the needs of equipment in this chapter, such equipment shall not be required to be duplicated.

[1999 6-7.1.7 deleted]

9.5.1.6 [1999 6-7.2] Rectifiers, Converters, Inverters, and Motor-Generators.

9.5.1.6.1 [1999 6-7.2.1]

Rectifiers shall be supplied through an isolating transformer that takes energy from a circuit not to exceed 250 volts.

9.5.1.6.2 [1999 6-7.2.2]

Complete spare units or spare parts shall be in reserve.

9.5.1.6.3 [6-7.2.3]

One spare rectifier shall be provided for every 10 operating rectifiers on a system. No system shall have less than one spare.

9.5.1.6.4 [1999 6-7.2.4]

Leads from rectifiers or motor-generators, with storage battery floating, shall have fuses rated at not less than 1 ampere and not more than 200 percent of maximum connected load. Where not provided with battery floating, the fuse shall be not less than 3 amperes.

9.5.1.7 [1999 6-7.3] Engine-Driven Generators.

The installation of engine-driven generator sets shall conform to the provisions of NFPA 37, Standard for the Installation and Use of Stationary Combustion Engines and Gas Turbines, NFPA 110, Standard for Emergency and Standby Power System and NFPA 1221, Emergency Services Communications Systems.

9.5.1.8 [1999 6-7.4] Float-Charged Batteries.

9.5.1.8.1 [1999 6-7.4.1]

Float-charged batteries shall be of the storage type. Primary batteries (dry cells) shall not be used. Lead-acid batteries shall be in jars of glass or other approved transparent materials; other types of batteries shall be in containers approved for the purpose.

9.5.1.8.2 [1999 6-7.4.2]

Float-charged batteries shall be located on the same floor of the building as the operating equipment and shall be available for maintenance and inspection. The battery room shall be above ground and shall be ventilated to prevent accumulation of explosive gas mixtures; special ventilation shall be required only for unsealed cells.

9.5.1.8.3 [1999 6-7.4.3]

Batteries shall be mounted to provide effective insulation from the ground and from other batteries.

9.5.1.8.4 [1999 6-7.4.3] [ROP 72-409]

Battery mounting shall be protected against deterioration, and shall provide stability, especially in geographic areas subject to seismic disturbance.

9.5.1.9 [1999 6-2.4] Equipment Fire Protection.

Where applicable, electronic computer/data processing equipment shall be protected in accordance with NFPA 75, Standard for the Protection of Electronic Computer/Data Processing Equipment.

9.5.2 [1999 6-13] Coded Wired Reporting Systems.


9.5.2.1.1 [1999 6-13.1]

For a Type B system, the effectiveness of noninterference and succession functions between box circuits shall be no less than between boxes in any one circuit.

9.5.2.1.2 [1999 6-13.1]

The disablement of any metallic box circuit shall cause a warning signal in all other circuits, and, thereafter, the circuit or circuits not otherwise broken shall be automatically restored to operative condition.

9.5.2.1.3 [1999 6-13.2]

Box circuits shall be sufficient in number and laid out so that the areas that would be left without box protection in case of disruption of a circuit do not exceed those covered by 20 properly spaced boxes where all or any part of the circuit is of aerial open-wire, or 30 properly spaced boxes where the circuit is entirely in underground or messenger-supported cable.

9.5.2.1.4 [1999 6-13.3]

Where all boxes on any individual circuit and associated equipment are designed and installed to provide for receipt of alarms through the ground in the event of a break in the circuit, the circuit shall be permitted to serve twice the number of aerial open-wire and cable circuits, respectively, as are specified in 9.5.2.1.3.

9.5.2.1.5 [1999 6-13.4] [ROP 72-415]

The installation of additional boxes in an area served by the number of boxes spaced as indicated in 9.5.2.1.1 through 9.5.2.1.4 shall not constitute geographical overloading of a circuit.

9.5.2.1.6 [1999 6-13.5]

Sounding devices for signals shall be provided for box circuits.

9.5.2.1.6.1 [1999 6-13.5.1]

A common sounding device for more than one circuit shall be permitted to be used in a Type A system and shall be installed at the public fire service communications center.

9.5.2.1.6.2 [1999 6-13.5.2]

In a Type B system, a sounding device shall be installed in each fire station at the same location as the recording device for that circuit, unless installed at the public fire service communications center, where a common sounding device shall be permitted.

9.5.2.2 [1999 6-10] Constant-Current (100 milliampere) Systems

Constant-current systems shall comply with the requirements of 9.5.2.2.

388

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA9.5.2.2.1 [1999 6-10.1.1]

Means shall be provided for manually regulating the current in box circuits so that the operating current is maintained within 10 percent of normal throughout changes in external circuit resistance from 20 percent above to 50 percent below normal.

9.5.2.2.2 [1999 6-10.1.2]

The voltage supplied to maintain normal line current on box circuits shall not exceed 150 volts, measured under no-load conditions, and shall be such that the line current cannot be reduced below the approved operating value by the simultaneous operation of four boxes.

9.5.2.2.3 [1999 6-10.1.3]

Visual and audible means to indicate a 20 percent or greater reduction in the normal current in any alarm circuit shall be provided.

9.5.2.2.4 [1999 6-10.1.3]

All devices connected in series with any alarm circuit shall function when the alarm circuit current is reduced to 70 percent of normal.

9.5.2.2.5 [1999 6-10.1.4]

Meters shall be provided to indicate the current in any box circuit and the voltage of any power source. Meters used in common for two or more circuits shall be provided with cut-in devices designed to reduce the probability of cross-connecting circuits.

9.5.2.2.6 [1999 6-7.1.2]

Necessary switches, testing, and signal transmitting and receiving devices shall be provided to allow the isolation, control, and test of each circuit up to at least 10 percent of the total number of box and dispatch circuits, but never less than two circuits.

9.5.2.3 [1999 6-7.1.3] Grounded Common Current Systems

Where common-current source systems are grounded, the requirements of 9.5.2.3.1 and 9.5.2.3.2 shall apply.

9.5.2.3.1 [1999 6-7.1.3]

Where common-current source systems are grounded, the ground shall not exceed 10 percent of resistance of any connected circuit and shall be located at one side of the battery.

9.5.2.3.2 [1999 6-7.1.3]

Visual and audible indicating devices shall be provided for each box and dispatch circuit to give immediate warning of ground leakage endangering operability.

9.5.3 [1999 6-14] Coded Radio Reporting Systems.


9.5.3.1.1 [1999 6-14.3.1]

Type A systems shall comply with 9.5.3.1.1.1 through 9.5.3.1.1.6.

9.5.3.1.1.1* [1999 6-14.3.1.1*] [ROP 72-400a]

Two separate receiving networks shall be required for each frequency. Each network shall include the following:

(1) antenna

(2) RF receiver

(3) signaling processing equipment

(4) time/date alarm printer

(5) audible alerting device

(6) power supply

9.5.3.1.1.2 [1999 6-14.3.1.1] [ROP 72-400a]

Both receiving networks shall be installed at the public fire service communications center.

9.5.3.1.1.3 [1999 6-14.3.1.1] [ROP 72-400a]

Failure of either receiving network shall not affect the receipt of messages from boxes.

9.5.3.1.1.4 [1999 6-14.3.1.2] [ROP 72-400a]

Where the system configuration is such that a polling device is incorporated into the receiving network to allow remote or selective initiation of box tests, a separate such device shall be included in each of the two required receiving networks.

9.5.3.1.1.5 [1999 6-14.3.1.2]

The polling devices shall be configured for automatic cycle initiation in their primary operating mode, shall be capable of continuous self-monitoring, and shall be integrated into the network(s) to provide automatic switchover and operational continuity in the event of failure of either device.

9.5.3.1.1.6 [1999 6-14.3.1.3]

Test signals from boxes shall not be required to include the date as part of their permanent recording, provided that the date is automatically printed on the recording tape at the beginning of each calendar day.

9.5.3.1.2 [1999 6-14.3.2]

Type B systems shall comply with 9.5.3.1.2.1 and 9.5.3.1.2.2.

9.5.3.1.2.1 [1999 6-14.3.2.1]

For each frequency used, a single, complete receiving network shall be permitted in each fire station, provided the public fire service communications center conforms to 9.5.3.1.1.1 through 9.5.3.1.1.3. Where the jurisdiction maintains two or more alarm reception points in operation, one receiving network shall be permitted to be at each alarm reception point.

9.5.3.1.2.2 [1999 6-14.3.2.2]

Where alarm signals are transmitted to a fire station from the public fire service communications center using the coded radio-type receiving equipment in the fire station to receive and record the alarm message, a second receiving network conforming to 9.5.3.1.2.1 shall be provided at each fire station, and that receiving network shall employ a frequency other than that used for the receipt of box messages.

9.5.3.1.3 [1999 6-11.2.1]

A device for producing a permanent graphic recording of all alarm, supervisory, trouble, and test signals received or retransmitted, or both, shall be provided at the public fire service communications center.

9.5.3.1.4 [1999 6-14.1.2]

Where box message signals to the public fire service communications center or acknowledgment of message receipt signals from the public fire service communications center to the box are repeated, associated repeating facilities shall conform to the requirements indicated in 7-1.1.4(d) of NFPA 1221, Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Emergency Services Communications Systems.

9.5.3.2 [1999 6-14.1] Radio Box Channel (Frequency).

9.5.3.2.1 [1999 6-14.1.1]

The number of boxes permitted on a single frequency shall be governed by the following.

(1) For systems that use one-way transmission in which the individual box automatically initiates the required message (refer to 9.5.3.4.3) using circuitry integral to the boxes, not more than 500 boxes shall be permitted on a single frequency.

(2) For systems that use a two-way concept in which interrogation signals (refer to 9.5.3.4.3) are transmitted to the individual boxes from the public fire service communications center on the same frequency used for receipt of alarms, not more than 250 boxes shall be permitted on a single frequency. Where interrogation signals are transmitted on a frequency that differs from that used for receipt of alarms, not more than 500 boxes shall be permitted on a single frequency.

(3) A specific frequency shall be designated for both fire and other fire-related or public safety alarm signals and for monitoring for integrity signals.

9.5.3.3 [1999 6-14.4] Power.

Power shall be provided in accordance with Section 9.5.1.5.

[1999 6-14.5 deleted] [ROP 72-400a]

9.5.3.4 [1999 6-14.6] Monitoring for Integrity.

9.5.3.4.1 [1999 6-14.6.1]

All coded radio box systems shall provide constant monitoring of the frequency in use. Both an audible and a visual indication of any sustained carrier signal, where in excess of 15-second duration, shall be provided for each receiving system at the public fire service communications center.

9.5.3.4.2 [1999 6-14.6.2]

The power supplied to all required circuits and devices of the system shall be monitored for integrity.

9.5.3.4.3* [1999 6-14.6.3*]

Each coded radio box shall automatically transmit a test message at least once in each 24-hour period.

9.5.3.4.4 [1999 6-14.6.4]

Receiving equipment associated with coded radio-type systems, including any related repeater(s), shall be tested at least hourly. The receipt of test messages that do not exceed 60-minute intervals shall meet this requirement.

9.5.3.4.5 [1999 6-14.6.5]

Radio repeaters upon which receipt of alarms depend shall be provided with dual receivers, transmitters, and power supplies. Failure of the primary

389

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAreceiver, transmitter, or power supply shall cause an automatic switchover to the secondary receiver, transmitter, or power supply.

Exception: Manual switchover shall be permitted provided it is completed within 30 seconds.

9.5.3.4.6 [1999 6-14.6.6] [ROP 72-400a]

Trouble signals shall actuate a sounding device located where there is always a trained and competent person on duty.

9.5.3.4.7 [1999 6-14.6.7] [ROP 72-400a]

Trouble signals shall be distinct from alarm signals and shall be indicated by a visual and audible signal.

9.5.3.4.7.1 [1999 6-14.6.7]

The audible signal shall be permitted to be common to two or more monitored circuits.

9.5.3.4.7.2 [1999 6-14.6.7]

A switch for silencing the audible trouble signal shall be permitted where the visual signal remains operating until the silencing switch is restored to its normal position.

9.5.3.4.8 [1999 6-14.6.8]

The audible signal shall be responsive to subsequent faults in other monitored functions prior to restoration of the silencing switch.

9.5.3.5 [1999 6-14.3] Physical Protection of Transmission Line. [ROP 72-417]

The antenna transmission line between the transmitter and the antenna shall be installed in rigid metal, intermediate metal conduit, or electrical metallic tubing in accordance with NFPA 70, National Electrical Code.

9.5.4 [1999 6-15] Telephone (Series) Reporting Systems.

9.5.4.1 [1999 6-15.1]

Recording devices shall be provided in accordance with 9.5.4.1.1 and 9.5.4.1.2.

9.5.4.1.1 [1999 6-15.1]

A permanent visual recording device installed in the public fire service communications center shall be provided to record all incoming box signals.

9.5.4.1.2 [1999 6-15.1]

A spare recording device shall be provided for five or more box circuits.

9.5.4.2 [1999 6-15.2]

A second visual means of identifying the calling box shall be provided.

9.5.4.3 [1999 6-15.3]

Audible signals shall indicate all incoming calls from box circuits.

9.5.4.4 [1999 6-15.4]

All voice transmissions from boxes for emergencies shall be recorded with the capability of instant playback.

9.5.4.5 [1999 6-15.5]

A voice recording facility shall be provided for each operator handling incoming alarms to eliminate the possibility of interference.

9.5.4.6 [1999 6-15.6]

Box circuits shall be sufficient in number and laid out so that the areas that would be left without box protection in case of disruption of a circuit do not exceed those covered by 20 properly spaced boxes where all or any part of the circuit is of aerial open-wire, or 30 properly spaced boxes where the circuit is entirely in underground or messenger-supported cable.

9.5.4.7 [1999 6-15.7]

Where all boxes on any individual circuit and associated equipment are designed and installed to provide for receipt of alarms through the ground in the event of a break in the circuit, the circuit shall be permitted to serve twice the number of aerial open-wire and cable circuits, respectively, as is specified in 9.5.4.6.

9.5.4.8 [1999 6-15.8] [ROP 72-418]

The installation of additional boxes in an area served by the number of boxes spaced as indicated in 9.5.4.6 shall not constitute geographical overloading of a circuit.

9.6 [1999 6-12] Remote Receiving Equipment — Facilities for Receipt of Box Alarms at a Remote Communications Center.

When the alarm receiving equipment is located at a location other than where the box circuit protection, controls, and power supplies are located, the following requirements, in addition to all of the requirements of Section 9.5, shall apply.

9.6.1 [1999 6-12]

All equipment used to provide the primary and remote receiving facilities shall be listed for its intended use and shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 70, National Electrical Code.

9.6.2 [1999 6-12.1]

The monitoring for integrity of all box circuits shall be provided with a visual and audible means to indicate a 20 percent or greater reduction or increase in the normal current in any box alarm circuit. The visual means shall identify the exact circuit affected.

9.6.3 [1999 6-12.2]

Monitoring for integrity of all power supplies shall be provided with visual and audible means to indicate a loss of primary or standby power supplies at both the public fire service communications center and remote communications center.

9.6.4 [1999 6-12.3]

A minimum of two separate means of interconnection shall be provided between the public fire service communications center and remote communications center receiving equipment. This interconnection shall be dedicated and shall not be used for any other purpose.

9.6.5 [1999 6-12.4]

When data transmission or multiplexing equipment is used that is not an integral part of the alarm-receiving equipment, a visual and audible means shall be provided to monitor the integrity of the external equipment. This shall include monitoring all primary and stand-by power supplies as well as the transmission of data.

9.6.6 [1999 6-12.5]

Power shall be provided in accordance with Section 9.5.1.5.

9.6.7 [1999 6-12.5]

The use of an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) to comply with standby power requirements shall not be permitted.

9.6.8 [1999 6-9.1.3]

Tie circuits shall be provided in accordance with 9.6.8.1 through 9.6.8.3.

9.6.8.1 [1999 6-9.1.3.1]

A separate tie circuit shall be provided from the public fire service communications center to each subsidiary communications center.

9.6.8.2 [1999 6-9.1.3.2]

The tie circuit between the public fire service communications center and the subsidiary public fire service communications center shall not be used for any other purpose.

9.6.8.3 [1999 6-9.1.3.3]

In a Type B wire system, where all boxes in the system are of the succession type, it shall be permitted to use the tie circuit as a dispatch circuit to the extent permitted by NFPA 1221, Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Emergency Services Communications Systems.

9.7 Public Cable Plant

Cabling systems and interconnections between alarm transmission equipment and alarm receiving equipment shall comply with the requirements of Section 9.7.

9.7.1 [1999 6-8] Requirements for Metallic Systems and Metallic Interconnections.

9.7.1.1 [1999 6-8.1] Circuit Conductors.

9.7.1.1.1 [1999 6-8.1.3]

Exterior cable and wire shall conform to International Municipal Signal Association (IMSA) specifications or an approved equivalent.

Exception: Where circuit conductors are provided by a public utility on a lease basis, IMSA specifications shall not apply.

9.7.1.1.2 [1999 6-8.1.4]

Where a public box is installed inside a building, the circuit from the point of entrance to the public box shall be installed in rigid metal, intermediate metal conduit, or electrical metallic tubing in accordance with NFPA 70, National Electrical Code.

Exception: This requirement shall not apply to coded radio box systems.

9.7.1.1.3 [1999 6-8.1.1]

Wires shall be terminated so as to prevent breaking from vibration or stress.

9.7.1.1.4 [1999 6-8.1.2] [ROP 72-410]

Circuit conductors on terminal racks shall be identified and isolated from conductors of other systems wherever possible and shall be protected from

390

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAmechanical injury.

9.7.1.2 [1999 6-8.2] Cables.

The requirements of 9.7.1.2 shall apply to 9.7.1.2, 9.7.1.3, 9.7.1.4, 9.7.1.5 and 9.7.1.6.

9.7.1.2.1 [1999 6-8.2.1.1]

Exterior cable and wire shall conform to IMSA specifications or an approved equivalent.

9.7.1.2.2 [1999 6-8.2.1.1.1]

Overhead, underground, or direct burial cables shall be specifically approved for the purpose.

9.7.1.2.3 [1999 6-8.2.1.1.2]

Cables used in interior installations shall comply with NFPA 70, National Electrical Code.

[1999 6-8.2.1.2, 6-8.2.1.2.1 and 6-8.2.1.3 deleted] [ROP 72-400a] [ROP 72-411]

9.7.1.2.4 [1999 6-8.2.1.4]

The combination of other signal wires in the same cable with fire alarm wires shall comply with 9.7.1.2.4.1 and 9.7.1.2.4.2.

9.7.1.2.4.1 [1999 6-8.2.1.4]

Other municipally controlled signal wires shall be permitted to be installed in the same cable with fire alarm wires.

9.7.1.2.4.2 [1999 6-8.2.1.4]

Cables controlled by or containing wires of private signaling organizations shall be permitted to be used for fire alarm purposes only by permission of the authority having jurisdiction.

9.7.1.2.5 [1999 6-8.2.1.5]

Signaling wires that are able to introduce a hazard, because of the source of current supply, shall be protected in accordance with NFPA 70, National Electrical Code.

9.7.1.2.6 [1999 6-8.2.1.6]

All cables with all taps and splices made shall be tested for insulation resistance when installed, but before connection to terminals. Such tests shall indicate an insulation resistance of at least 200 megohms per mile between any one conductor and all other conductors, the sheath, and the ground.

9.7.1.3 [1999 6-8.2.2] Underground Cables.

9.7.1.3.1 [1999 6-8.2.2.1]

Underground cables in duct or direct burial shall be brought aboveground only at points where liability of mechanical injury or of disablement from heat incidental to fires in adjacent buildings is minimized.

9.7.1.3.2 [1999 6-8.2.2.2]

Cables shall be permitted in duct systems and manholes containing low-tension fire alarm system conductors only, except low-tension secondary power cables shall be permitted.

9.7.1.3.3 [1999 6-8.2.2.2]

Where in duct systems or manholes that contain power circuit conductors in excess of 250 volts to ground, fire alarm cables shall be located as far as possible from such power cables and shall be separated from them by a noncombustible barrier or by such other means as is practicable to protect the fire alarm cables from injury.

9.7.1.3.4 [1999 6-8.2.2.3]

All cables installed in manholes shall be racked and marked for identification.

9.7.1.3.5 [1999 6-8.2.2.4]

All conduits or ducts entering buildings from underground duct systems shall be effectively sealed against moisture or gases entering the building.

9.7.1.3.6 [1999 6-8.2.2.5]

Cable joints shall be located only in manholes, fire stations, and other locations where accessibility is provided and where there is little liability of injury to the cable due to either falling walls or operations in the buildings.

9.7.1.3.6.1 [1999 6-8.2.2.5]

Cable joints shall be made to provide and maintain conductivity, insulation, and protection at least equal to that afforded by the cables that are joined.

9.7.1.3.6.2 [1999 6-8.2.2.5]

Open cable ends shall be sealed against moisture.

9.7.1.3.7 [1999 6-8.2.2.6]

Direct-burial cable, without enclosure in ducts, shall be laid in grass plots,

under sidewalks, or in other places where the ground is not likely to be opened for other underground construction.

9.7.1.3.7.1 [1999 6-8.2.2.6]

Where splices are made, such splices shall be accessible for inspection and tests.

9.7.1.3.7.2 [1999 6-8.2.2.6]

Such cables shall be buried at least 500 mm (18 in) deep and, where crossing streets or other areas likely to be opened for other underground construction, shall be in duct or conduit or be covered by creosoted planking of at least 50 mm × 100 mm (2 in. × 4 in.) with half-round grooves, spiked or banded together after the cable is installed.

9.7.1.4 [1999 6-8.2.3] Aerial Construction.

9.7.1.4.1 [1999 6-8.2.3.1]

Fire alarm wires shall be run under all other wires except communications wires.

9.7.1.4.1.1 [1999 6-8.2.3.1] [ROP 72-412]

Precautions shall be provided where passing through trees, under bridges, over railroads, and at other places where injury or deterioration is possible.

9.7.1.4.1.2 [1999 6-8.2.3.1]

Wires and cables shall not be attached to a crossarm that carries electric light and power wires, except circuits carrying up to 220 volts for public communications use, and then only where the 220-volt circuits are tagged or otherwise identified.

9.7.1.4.2 [1999 6-8.2.3.2]

Aerial cable shall be supported by messenger wire of approved tensile strength.

Exception: Two-conductor cable that has conductors of No. 20 AWG or larger size and has mechanical strength equal to No. 10 AWG hard-drawn copper.

9.7.1.4.3 [6-8.2.3.3]

Single wire shall meet IMSA specifications and shall not be smaller than No. 10 Roebling gauge if of galvanized iron or steel, No. 10 AWG if of hard-drawn copper, No. 12 AWG if of approved copper-covered steel, or No. 6 AWG if of aluminum. Span lengths shall not exceed the manufacturer’s recommendations.

9.7.1.4.4 [1999 6-8.2.3.4] [ROP 72-413]

Wires to buildings shall contact only intended supports and shall enter through an approved weatherhead or sleeves slanting upward and inward. Drip loops shall be formed on wires outside of buildings.

9.7.1.5 [1999 6-8.2.4] Leads Down Poles.

9.7.1.5.1 [1999 6-8.2.4.1]

Leads down poles shall be protected against mechanical injury. Any metallic covering shall form a continuous conducting path to ground. Installation, in all cases, shall prevent water from entering the conduit or box.

9.7.1.5.2 [1999 6-8.2.4.2]

Leads to boxes shall have 600-volt insulation approved for wet locations, as defined in NFPA 70, National Electrical Code.

9.7.1.6 [1999 6-8.2.5] Wiring Inside Buildings.

9.7.1.6.1 [1999 6-8.2.5.1]

At the public fire service communications center, conductors shall extend as directly as possible to the operating room in conduits, ducts, shafts, raceways, or overhead racks and troughs of a type of construction affording protection against fire and mechanical injury.

9.7.1.6.2 [1999 6-8.2.5.2] [ROP 72-400a]

All conductors inside buildings shall be installed in nonflexible raceways as covered in Chapter 3 of NFPA 70, National Electrical Code.

9.7.1.6.3 [1999 6-8.2.5.3]

Conductors shall have an approved insulation. The insulation or other outer covering shall be flame retardant and moisture resistant.

9.7.1.6.4 [1999 6-8.2.5.4]

Conductors shall be installed as far as possible without splices or joints. Splices or joints shall be permitted only in listed junction or terminal boxes.

9.7.1.6.4.1 [1999 6-8.2.5.4]

Fire alarm circuits shall be identified by the use of red covers or doors. The words “public fire alarm circuit” shall be clearly marked on all terminal and junction locations to prevent unintentional interference.

9.7.1.6.4.2 [1999 6-8.2.5.4]

Wire terminals, terminal boxes, splices, and joints shall conform to NFPA 70,

391

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPANational Electrical Code.

[1999 6-8.2.5.5 deleted] [ROP 72-400a]

9.7.1.6.5 [1999 6-8.2.5.6]

Cable and wiring exposed to a fire hazard shall be protected in an approved manner.

9.7.1.6.6 [1999 6-8.2.5.7]

Cable terminals and cross-connecting facilities shall be located in or adjacent to the operations room.

9.7.1.6.7 [1999 6-8.2.5.8]

Where signal conductors and electric light and power wires are run in the same shaft, they shall be separated by at least 51 mm (2 in.), or either system shall be encased in a noncombustible enclosure.

9.7.2 [1999 6-9] Signal Transmission and Receiving Circuits.

Signal transmission and receiving circuits shall comply with the requirements of 9.7.2.

9.7.2.1 [1999 6-9.1.1] General.

9.7.2.1.1 [1999 6-9.1.1.1]

ANSI/IEEE C2, National Electrical Safety Code, shall be used as a guide for the installation of outdoor circuitry.

9.7.2.1.2 [1999 6-9.1.1.2]

Installation shall provide for the following:

(1) Continuity of service

(2) Protection from mechanical damage

(3) Disablement from heat that is incidental to fire

(4) Protection from falling walls

(5) Damage by floods, corrosive vapors, or other causes

9.7.2.1.3 [1999 6-9.1.1.3]

Open local circuits within single buildings shall be permitted in accordance with Chapter 3 (1999)

9.7.2.1.4 [1999 6-9.1.1.4]

All circuits shall be routed so as to allow tracing of circuits for trouble.

9.7.2.1.5 [1999 6-9.1.1.5]

Circuits shall not pass over, under, through, or be attached to buildings or property not owned by or under the control of the authority having jurisdiction or the agency responsible for maintaining the system.

Exception: Where the circuit is terminated at a public fire alarm reporting system initiating device on the premises and where a means, approved by the authority having jurisdiction, is provided to disconnect the circuit from the building or property.

9.7.2.2 [1999 6-9.1.2] Box Circuits.

Interior box circuits shall comply with 9.7.2.2.1 and 9.7.2.2.2.

9.7.2.2.1 [1999 6-9.1.2]

A means provided only to the authority having jurisdiction or the agency responsible for maintaining the public fire alarm reporting system shall be provided for disconnecting the circuit inside the building.

9.7.2.2.2 [1999 6-9.1.2]

Definite notification shall be given to the designated building representative when the interior box(es) is out of service.

9.7.3* [1999 6-9.1.4*] Circuit Protection.

Circuit protection shall be provided in accordance with 9.7.3.1 through 9.7.3.12.

9.7.3.1 [1999 6-9.1.4.1.1]

The protective devices shall be located close to or be combined with the cable terminals.

9.7.3.2 [1999 6-9.1.4.1.2]

Surge arresters approved for the purpose shall be provided and shall be marked with the name of the manufacturer and model designation.

9.7.3.3 [1999 6-9.1.4.1.3]

All surge arresters shall be connected to a ground in accordance with NFPA 70, National Electrical Code.

9.7.3.4 [1999 6-9.1.4.1.4]

All fuses shall be plainly marked with their rated ampere capacity. All fuses

rated over 2 amperes shall be of the enclosed type.

9.7.3.5 [1999 6-9.1.4.1.5]

Circuit protection required at the public fire service communications center shall be provided in every building that houses public fire service communications center equipment.

9.7.3.6 [1999 6-9.1.4.1.6]

Each conductor entering a fire station from partially or entirely aerial lines shall be protected by a lightning arrester.

9.7.3.7 [1999 6-9.1.4.2.1]

All conductors entering the public fire service communications center shall be protected by the following devices, in the order named, starting from the exterior circuit:

(1) A fuse rated at 3 amperes minimum to 7 amperes maximum and not less than 2000 volts

(2) A surge arrester(s)

(3) A fuse or circuit breaker rated at 1/2 ampere

9.7.3.8 [1999 6-9.1.4.2.2]

In regard to (g), the 1/2-ampere protection on the tie circuits shall be omitted at subsidiary public fire service communications centers.

9.7.3.9 [1999 6-9.1.4.3.1]

At junction points of open aerial conductors and cable, each conductor shall be protected by a surge arrester(s) of the weatherproof type. There also shall be a connection between the surge arrester ground, any metallic sheath, and messenger wire.

9.7.3.10 [1999 6-9.1.4.3.2]

Aerial open-wire and non-messenger-supported, two-conductor cable circuits shall be protected by a surge arrester(s) at intervals not to exceed 610 m (2000 ft).

9.7.3.11 [1999 6-9.1.4.3.3]

Where used for aerial construction, surge arresters, other than of the air-gap or self-restoring type, shall not be installed in fire alarm circuits.

9.7.3.12 [1999 6-9.1.4.3.4]

All protective devices used for aerial construction shall be accessible for maintenance and inspection. SUBSTANTIATION: Chapter 9 has been reorganized in accordance with the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee in Comment 72-320. These organizational changes are limited to those of an editorial nature. It is expected that this reorganization effort will continue for the next cycle and may include proposals for changes of a more technical nature. Also in response to Comment 72-320, Section 9.1 has been revised to use the correct terminology for Auxiliary Fire Alarm System. The Committee recognizes that requirements regarding testing and maintenance still reside (in part) in Chapter 9 and that these should be moved to the Chapter on Testing and Maintenance. However, moving these rules will require further development to prepare a comprehensive package for relocation. A Task Group will be formed to complete this work for the next cycle. 1999 Sections 6-16.5 and 6-16.6 have been deleted as a matter of correlation because the requirements for operation and personnel at public fire service communications centers are outside the jurisdiction of the Technical Committee on Public Fire Alarm Reporting Systems. It is recommended that the Technical Correlating Committee review this for concurrence as a proper point of correlation.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:10VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 9 NOT RETURNED: 1 Fisher

————————————————-(Log #93)

Committee: SIG-TMS72-322-(Chapter 7 [2002 Ed. Chapter 10]) : Accept TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee advises that Chapter Scope (Application) statements are the responsibility of the Technical Correlating Committee and the Technical Correlating Committee accepts the Committee Action concerning Section 10.1. The Technical Correlating Committee directs that a new Section 10.4.6 be added to the committee action of Comment 72-322 to correct an omission in the transfer of information from Section 11.10.4 of Proposal 72-463 to read as follows: “10.4.6 Battery Replacement. Where batteries are used as a source of energy, they shall be replaced in accordance with the recommendations of the alarm equipment manufacturer.” Renumber the subsequent sections accordingly.

392

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPASUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-422aRECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Action on this Proposal be revised to breakout the requirements for smoke and heat alarms and relocate all testing and maintenance requirements from the chapter on single- and multiple-station alarms and household fire alarm systems to the chapter on testing and maintenance. Reference is made (for information only) to Proposal 72-424. Reference is also made to the Technical Correlating Committee Note on Proposal 72-463. The Technical Correlating Committee advises that Chapter Scopes (Application) statements are the responsibility of the Technical Correlating Committee and the Technical Correlating Committee rejects the text proposed for Section 10.1. The Technical Correlating Committee directs that Section 10.1 be rewritten to correlate with the Technical Correlating Committee direction concerning the relocation of all testing and maintenance requirements from the chapter on single- and multiple station alarms and household fire alarm systems to the chapter on testing and maintenance. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept Make the following changes in the recommendation of Proposal 72-422a: Revise 10.1.1 and 10.1.2 to read as follows: 10.1.1 The inspection, testing and maintenance of fire alarm systems, their initiating devices and notification appliances shall comply with the requirements of this chapter. 10.1.2 The inspection, testing and maintenance of single- and multiple-station smoke and heat alarms, and household fire alarm systems shall comply with the requirements of this chapter. Delete 10.1.3 and renumber accordingly. Add the following to proposed Table 10.4.2.2, following Section 13.d.5 as follows: Device 6. Single- and Multiple-Station Heat Alarms Method Functional tests shall be conducted according to manufacturers instructions. Non-restorable heat detectors shall not be tested with heat. Add the following to proposed Table 10.4.2.2, following Section 13.g.1 as follows: Device 2. Single- and Multiple-Station Smoke Alarms Method Functional tests shall be conducted according to manufacturers instructions.Add the following to Table 10.4.3 as new Sections 15.j ,k, and l as follows:

Revise current Table 10.4.3 item 15h. “component” to read “System Smoke Detectors - Functional

Renumber current j, k, and l, accordingly

Revise 10.4.3.2 and subsections to read as follows: 10.4.3.2* Sensitivity of smoke detectors and single- and multiple-station smoke alarms in other than one- and two-family dwellings shall be tested in accordance with 10.4.3.2.1 through 10.4.3.2.6. 10.4.3.2.1 Sensitivity shall be checked within 1 year after installation. 10.4.3.2.2 Sensitivity shall be checked and every alternate year thereafter unless otherwise permitted by compliance with 10.4.3.2.3. 10.4.3.2.3 After the second required calibration test, if sensitivity tests indicate that the device has remained within its listed and marked sensitivity range (or 4 percent obscuration light gray smoke, if not marked), the length of time between calibration tests shall be permitted to be extended to a maximum of 5 years. 10.4.3.2.3.1 If the frequency is extended, records of nuisance alarms and subsequent trends of these alarms shall be maintained. 10.4.3.2.3.2 In zones or in areas where nuisance alarms show any increase over the previous year, calibration tests shall be performed. 10.4.3.2.4 To ensure that each smoke detector or smoke alarm is within its listed and marked sensitivity range, it shall be tested using any of the following methods:

(1) Calibrated test method (2) Manufacturerís calibrated sensitivity test instrument (3) Listed control equipment arranged for the purpose (4) Smoke detector/control unit arrangement whereby the detector causes a signal at the control unit where its sensitivity is outside its listed sensitivity range (5) Other calibrated sensitivity test methods approved by the authority having jurisdiction 10.4.3.2.5 Detectors or smoke alarms found to have a sensitivity outside the listed and marked sensitivity range shall be cleaned and recalibrated or be replaced.Exception: Devices listed as field adjustable shall be permitted to be either adjusted within the listed and marked sensitivity range and cleaned and recalibrated, or they shall be replaced. 10.4.3.2.6 The detector or smoke alarm sensitivity shall not be tested or measured using any device that administers an unmeasured concentration of smoke or other aerosol into the detector or smoke alarm. Revise 10.4.4 and subsections to read as follows: 10.4.4 Household Fire Alarm Systems. 10.4.4.1 Testing. Household fire alarm systems shall be tested by a qualified service technician at least every three years according to the methods of Table 10.4.2.2. 10.4.4.2 Maintenance. Maintenance of household fire alarm systems shall be conducted according to manufacturers instructions. Add a new 10.4.5 to read as follows: 10.4.5 Replacement of Smoke Alarms in One- and Two-Family Dwellings. Unless otherwise recommended by the manufacturer, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms installed in one- and two-family dwellings shall be replaced when they fail to respond to operability tests, but shall not remain in service longer than 10 years from the date of manufacture. [Renumber current Section 10.4.5 accordingly.]COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee. The committee has reviewed the testing and maintenance material in Section 11.10 of Proposal 72-463 and has revised the text of the testing chapter to incorporate appropriate testing requirements. The intent of the committee was to keep the functional testing requirements device specific rather than occupancy specific. Section 10.4.3.2 was revised to correlate with actions on other comments and to address proper terminology (detector versus smoke alarm). Sensitivity testing of single- and multiple-station smoke alarms in other than one- and two-family dwellings has been the committee’s position for the last several code editions and has been clarified by the action on Proposal 72-441a.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-323-(Chapter 7 [2002 Ed. Chapter 10]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-422aRECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on this proposal does not comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects because the revised text contains numerous changes that go far beyond the “manual of style” justification for the proposal. B. Combining changes resulting from public proposals with wholesale “manual of style” changes pursuant to a committee proposal makes it very difficult to track all of the changes that have been made, and nearly impossible to verify that those changes comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects. C. The manual of style proposals from each technical committee should be stand-alone proposals which can be reviewed to verify that the only thing that has changed is the style; not the requirements. D. Correlation of accepted manual of style proposal - presumably editorial revisions - with other changes initiated via public proposals should be handled by the Technical Correlating Committee or NFPA staff.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee disagrees with the submitter’s substantiation for the following reasons: The committee action does comply with NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. The changes in proposal that go beyond NFPA Manual of Style revisions are either specifically identified in the recommendation of the proposal (by reference and the use of legislative text) or are identified by reference to other proposals acted upon individually. Theses changes are supported in the substantiation of Proposal 72-422a or in the individual proposals. The combination of changes resulting from public proposals with changes made for the Manual of Style was directed by the Technical Correlating Committee in order to provide a complete text in the new style showing all changes in the proper context. This was done to enhance the usability and simplify the review of this material for both the committee and the public. Text that is based on changes made by public proposals has been identified by

“Component Init/Reaccept Monthly Annually

j. Battery (Only) Operated Single and Multiple-Station Smoke Alarms

X(Weekly) X

k. AC powered Single- and Multiple Station Smoke Alarms

X

l. Single- and Multiple-Station Heat Alarms

X X

393

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAa bold reference to the public proposal number. The correlation of several proposals into the final document, especially with such broad changes in style and format, can often be difficult because of potentially conflicting or unclear committee actions. Showing all changes in their proper context offers a complete text that has been reviewed by the committee and has had opportunity for public review and comment. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-(Log #350)

Committee: SIG-TMS72-324-(7-1.1.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Jon Nisja, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-425RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal and accept. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed wording is needed in NFPA 72 for those jurisdictions that do not adopt the Life Safety Code. Technical Committee action on 72-143 and 459 dealing with impairments was accepted in principle in part. This proposal is consistent with the Committee Action. We do not believe that the Technical Correlating Committee is correct that this is not within the scope of the Technical Committee. NFPA 72 is the best place to address this material. This wording is similar to NFPA 25.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Section 7-1.1.2 requires the system owner be notified of system impairments. The NFPA Standards Council is responsible for committee scopes. The work of the committee is limited to these specified scopes. The committee can only interpret these scope statements. The local building or fire code has the responsibility for corrective actions in response to system impairments.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-(Log #CC700)

Committee: SIG-TMS72-324a-(7-1.1.2) : TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the action on Comment 72-324a be reported as “Accept in Principle” and that the following action be taken and reported in the ROC for Comment 72-324a:In the Committee Action text of Proposal 72-459 (page 1383 ROP), revise the text by deleting the underlined text after the heading “Impairments” and replace it with “The requirements of Section 1-7 shall be applicable when a system is impaired.” The remaining text shall remain. The paragraph would read as follows: 7.1.1.2 Impairments. The requirements of Section 1-7 shall be applicable when a system is impaired. System defects and malfunctions shall be corrected. If a defect or malfunction is not corrected at the conclusion of system inspection, testing, or maintenance, the system owner or the owner’ s designated representative shall be informed of the impairment in writing within 24 hours. The manual of style rewrite in Proposal 72-422a would be revised to read:10.2.1.2 Impairments. {1999 7-1.1.2} [ROP 72-459] [MOS] (a) The requirements of Section 4.6 shall be applicable when a system is impaired. (b) System defects and malfunctions shall be corrected. (c) If a defect or malfunction is not corrected at the conclusion of system inspection, testing, or maintenance, the system owner or the owner’ s designated representative shall be informed of the impairment in writing within 24 hours. The Technical Correlating Committee has reconsidered the issue of scope and believes that the direction provided above conforms with the scope of the committee.SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Testing and Maintenance of Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-459RECOMMENDATION: Accept the Committee Action on Proposal 72-459. SUBSTANTIATION: The committee disagrees with the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee to “reject.” The committee continues to feel that the proposed text is within the scope of the Technical Committee. Notification of the system owner is required in other chapters (for example Chapter 5) of the code. The committee believes that the proposed language on impairment belongs in the chapter on testing and maintenance because impairments are most likely found during the testing of the system. The end users and the authority having jurisdiction would most likely look for information on impairments in this chapter. The chapter on testing and maintenance is unique in that it applies to both existing and new installations.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-325-(7-1.2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-426RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Committee reconsider this Proposal and address the submitter’s concerns. The definition of “ownership” presently in the code does not address the submitter’s concerns. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee to reconsider. The committee reaffirms it original action on Proposal 72-426. Refer to the Committee Action and Statement on Comment 72-35 (Log #70).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-326-(7-1.2.2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-427RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Action on this Proposal be reconsidered and that this material be rewritten to comply with the Manual of Style. Explanatory material must be located in the annex. Because NFPA technical committes do not evaluate specific products or services from specific vendors, NFPA documents can not really require the use of specific products or services within the requirements of the code. This action shall be considered by the committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept 1. Revise 7-1.2.2 [10.2.2.5] as follows: “10.2.2.5* Service personnel shall be qualified and experienced in the inspection, testing, and maintenance of fire alarm systems. Qualified personnel shall include, but shall not be limited to, individuals with any of the following qualifications: (1) Factory trained and certified (2) Certified by state or local authority (3) Trained and qualified personnel employed by an organization listed by a national testing laboratory for the servicing of fire alarm systems (4) A third party certification program acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.” 2. Add a new section to Annex A as follows: “A.10.2.2.5 Examples of third party certification programs can include, but are not limited to the following: 1. National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies (NICET) fire alarm certified Level II or higher 2. International Municipal Signal Association (IMSA) fire alarm certified Level II” The list of examples of qualified personnel is for informational purposes only and does not include all available services or programs. Information concerning programs referenced above has been provided by outside sources and has not been independently verified, endorsed or certified by the NFPA or any of its technical committees.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee. Changes have been made for conformance with the NFPA Manual of Style as directed.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-327-(7-1.2.2(2)) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-429RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Action on this Proposal be reconsidered and that this material be rewritten to comply with the Manual of Style. Explanatory material must be located in the annex. Because NFPA technical committes do not evaluate specific products or

394

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAservices from specific vendors, NFPA documents can not really require the use of specific products or services within the requirements of the code. This action shall be considered by the committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.\COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee to reconsider. Refer to the Committee Action and Statement on Comment 72-326 (Log #95).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-328-(7-1.2.2(3)) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-430RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Action on this Proposal be reconsidered and that this material be rewritten to comply with the Manual of Style. Explanatory material must be located in the annex. Because NFPA technical committes do not evaluate specific products or services from specific vendors, NFPA documents can not really require the use of specific products or services within the requirements of the code. This action shall be considered by the committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee to reconsider. Refer to the Committee Action and Statement on Comment 72-326 (Log #95).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-329-(7-1.6.2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-432RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Committee clarify the Committee Action on this Proposal. The Committee’s action appears to have been Accepted in Principle. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee to clarify the Committee Action. The committee agrees that the action on Proposal 72-432 was “accept in principle.” Refer to the Committee Action on Proposal 72-431.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-

(Log #CC2)Committee: SIG-TMS

72-330-(7-1.6.2 [2002 Ed. 10.4.1.2.1.3]) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Testing and Maintenance of Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-422aRECOMMENDATION: Revise the text of 10.4.1.2.1.3 so that it is shown as being underlined. SUBSTANTIATION: This was an error in processing of the ROP.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-331-(Table 7-2.2, Item 13.g.1) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-439RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Committee clarify the Committee Statement on this Proposal. The Committee Statement needs to completely address the concerns of the Submitter. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee to address the concerns of the submitter and reaffirms its original action to reject Proposal 72-439.The functional test coupled with a sensitivity test is sufficient to ensure that a smoke detector will provide a timely response. Measuring and recording the sensitivity range limits may provide trending information. However, the proposed requirements would not require replacement of a detector until it is outside its marked sensitivity range. This is no more effective than current code requirements. Modern analog/addressable smoke detectors and control units test sensitivity ranges several times each day, and will immediately report a detector specific trouble condition to system operators when a detector is outside its listed sensitivity range or becomes dirty. Additionally, if the report is ignored or if the sensitivity continues to move away from its intended range, an additional detector specific trouble condition is reported to system operators. This is a distinct advantage over manual sensitivity tests, which are conducted biannually. Recording sensitivity values provides no advantage at significantly increased cost to the consumer.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-(Log #100)

Committee: SIG-TMS72-332-(Table 7-2.2, Item 13.g.1) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-440RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Committee clarify the Committee Statement on this Proposal. The Committee Statement needs to completely address the concerns of the Submitter. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee to address the concerns of the submitter. Refer to the Committee Statement on Comment 72-331(Log #99). In addition the code require a semiannual visual inspection, and detector maintenance in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-(Log #101)

Committee: SIG-TMS72-333-(Table 7-2.2, Item 13.g.1) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-441RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Committee clarify the Committee Statement on this Proposal. The Committee Statement needs to completely address the concerns of the Submitter. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee to address the concerns of the submitter. Refer to the Committee Statement on Comments 72-331(Log #99) and 72-332 (Log #100). The committee reaffirms its original action on Proposal 72-441.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-

395


Committee: SIG-TMS72-334-(Table 7-2.2, Item 13. g 2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-441aRECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Action on this Proposal be revised to break out the requirements for smoke and heat alarms and relocate all testing and maintenance requirements from the chapter on single- and multiple-station alarms and household fire alarm systems to the chapter on testing and maintenance. Reference is made (for information only) to Proposal 72-424. Reference is also made to the Technical Correlating Committee Note on Proposal 72-463. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee. Refer to the Committee Action on Comment 72-322 (Log #93).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-335-(Table 7-2.2, Item 13. g 2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-445RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that this Proposal be reconsidered and correlated with the action on Proposal. 72-441a (and the associated Technical Correlating Committee NOTE). This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee. Refer to the Committee Action on Comment 72-322 (Log #93).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-336-(Table 7-2.2, Item 13. g 2) : Reject SUBMITTER: John F. Deubler, Schirmer Engineering Corporation/Rep. American Hotel & Lodging AssociationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-441aRECOMMENDATION: Recommendation revises Section title and in doing so will require annual sensitivity testing of single station smoke detectors in other than one-b and two-family dwellings. This section should remain as existing without modification. SUBSTANTIATION: The technical committee does not provide justification supporting the annual sensitivity testing of single station smoke detectors. An analysis of the annual degradation of detector sensitivity coupled with the expected detector lifespan should be provided to justify sensitivity testing versus periodic detector replacement.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee considers the testing requirements for systems detectors and single- and multiple-station smoke alarms, in other than one- and two-family dwellings, to be the same. As such they should be inspected and tested in the same manner. Sensivity testing is currently not required on an annual basis.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-337-(Table 7-2.2, Item 14. b) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-443RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal.

SUBSTANTIATION: A. The proponent’s substantiation is wrong in several respects: 1) The concern that “subjective judgment is too imprecise” cited in the proposal substantiation is based on the false argument that subject based testing is necessarily subjective. Subject based testing such as the test described in ROP 72-434 is entirely objective. That is, we’re not talking about someone’s opinion of whether something is intelligible or not, but rather a simple, word-by-word comparison of what was read over the microphone to what was written down by the listener. In principle, this is no different than electronically comparing a digitized waveform generated by an intelligibility meter to a preprogrammed algorithm representing what somebody thinks voice systems are supposed to sound like, except that you’re evaluating the real thing instead of comparing a wave form to a computer model. The proponent’s concern about an Authority Having Jurisdiction having “clues” during a test that are not present during an actual emergency is the reason ROP 72-434 specifically calls for a nonstandard message to be used. 2) The presumed need for precision is not currently in the code. The standard does not presently require a precise, quantitative determination of sound quality. It simply requires voice evacuation systems to meet the threshold of intelligibility; a determination that the methodology suggested in ROP 72-434 specifically designed to make. That is, messages are either understood well enough to be written down verbatim (in which case they’re obviously intelligible) or they’re not (in which case the messages are unintelligible). The standard should not require a precise, quantitative determination of sound quality in the 2002 edition because there were NO PROPOSALS in the ROP either asking for such a requirement or substantiating a need for such a requirement. Consequently, the action of the Chapter 4 Technical Committee moving the appendix material on analytical testing of voice intelligibility to the body of the standard was in clear violation of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects and should not be allowed to stand. Furthermore, since there was no proposal asking for this action at the ROP stage, it’s NEW material (which cannot be considered) at the ROC stage, which in turn should preclude it from becoming code in the 2002 edition. Obviously, if there’s no requirement for a quantitative intelligibility value, there’s no need for Chapter 7 to define a test for one. 3) Analytical testing will NOT provide a consistent way of determining whether a system is compliant (intelligible) or not, because what it measures ISN’T intelligibility. The key to “intelligibility” is understanding; something no meter is likely to ever have, no matter how much it costs. Since a sound meter can’t understand anything, it substitutes a comparison between the output of the sound system to an idealized computer model of human speech - and provides a numerical indication of how well the two match. If you have a good match, the meter tells you the system’s “intelligible. Of course, perfectly reproduced Latin, or for that matter gibberish, will register as “intelligible” too even though nobody understands the Latin and the gibberish is still gibberish; which unambiguously demonstrates that what these meters measure is not, and cannot be, intelligibility. B. The methodology described in this proposal is very complex by comparison to ROP 72-434, based on standards which practically nobody has, and requires the use of expensive electronic equipment that is not in common use and for which no field history is available. In effect, the proponent is asking the committee to mandate the purchase of newfangled $3000 gadgets (that nobody’s tried yet) to ascertain something that ANYBODY can determine using nothing more complicated than a 50 cent newspaper. C. A major practical advantage of the test described in ROP 72-434 over the method proposed in 72-443 (besides the fact that it’s free and actually determines intelligibility) is that an Authority Having Jurisdiction can make it stick. If a voice system is really unintelligible, it doesn’t matter who does the ROP 72-443 test or (assuming you use a new, nonstandard message each time) how many times they repeat; it simply won’t pass. Analytical methods, on the other hand, are sure to create situations where either an intelligible system yields a CIS of less than 0.70, or an unintelligible system yields a CIS of 0.70 or greater, or both. D. Since there’s none of these meters floating around to play with, it seems rather unlikely that anybody on the Chapter 7 committee knows what a CIS of 0.70 really sounds like, and certainly neither the Authority Having Jurisdiction community nor the general public has a clue. How good or bad is it, or more to the point, how much worse is a CIS of 0.69 than a CIS of 0.70? Does a change of 0.01 in the CIS really turn an acceptable voice evacuation system into a pumpkin, or does it just mean you have to point the meter in a slightly different direction, take another reading, and thereby “fix” the system? It seems rather unreasonable for the proponent of 72-443 to argue for this requirement on the basis of “consistency” when you can generate a CIS by any one of 7 different methods, turn the meter in a different direction, or add or drop a reading, and get DIFFERENT results. E. Whether intelligibility meters will end up being too tough or too easy (quite possible if a 0.70 CIS really lets you get by understanding only 80% of the words) will depend on the algorithm(s) they employ and on whether or not 0.70 is really the right number to be using for ALL applications; something only some field experience will determine. Certainly we shouldn’t force everybody to use $3000 intelligibility meters if it’s going to get us systems that sound WORSE than the systems we’ve got now...another reason to get some field experience with these things before mandating their use. F. The proposed test method actually determines whether a system passes or fails based on an AVERAGE measurement, less one standard deviation. This obviously implies that it’s okay for voice systems to be unintelligible in some areas, as long as they’re intelligible most places. This is in stark contrast

396

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAto audibility testing, where we verify audibility room by room, require additional signals in those areas that are deficient, and do not allow really loud signals in the restrooms to offset deficient audibility elsewhere. Intelligibility testing should be handled the same way - every area required to have voice evacuation should be intelligible, and really good intelligibility in some places should not be an excuse for unintelligibility in other places. This is not a problem with the test method described in ROP 72-434.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The original proposal (72-443) was Accepted in Principle. Only annex material was added. No changes were made to the body of the code. The test prescribed in Proposal 72-434 is subjective, not quantitative. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-338-(Table 7-2.2, Item 14. b) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-434RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. Add a note to the original proposal text that reads as follows: “Note: A detailed discussion of subject based test methods is described in ANSI S3.2-1999.” SUBSTANTIATION: A. The submitter understands that the committee is in favor of developing performance based standards, and that they included subject based testing as an alternative in their action on 72-443. However, the intent of the proposal was to describe a simple test that anyone can understand and perform; not to refer them to an ANSI standard that they are unlikely to have on hand. Adding the proposed note incorporates ANSI S3.2 as an appropriate reference, without compromising the intent of the proposal. B. The submitter respectfully points out that the method proposed by the submitter of 72-443 is new and uses rather expensive equipment that practically nobody currently has, and which, consequently, practically nobody in the fire alarm industry has any experience using in the field. Consequently, while there’s undoubtedly considerable “science” behind it, the application of that science to real world situations in the fire alarm industry is untried and, at this point, purely hypothetical. C. There are a great number of potential problems with using analytical devices to measure intelligibility, not the least of which is being able to turn the machine 180 degrees, take another reading, and thereby “fix” the system. How these kinds of things are going to be dealt with in practice should be worked out BEFORE the NFAC mandates the use of this new technology to fix a problem (i.e., being able to tell whether a voice message was intelligible or not) that most people never knew we had. D. The Chapter 7 Committee should think twice before adopting a testing standard that will open the door to mandatory re-acceptance testing every time somebody changes the drapes, carpeting, or furnishings. E. In the event this technology stands the test of time and the challenges of field application and demonstrates a practical benefit over simple, subject based testing, the lucky patent holder of this device can and should submit a proposal for incorporating that technology into the NFAC. Until then, it is highly inappropriate for NFPA to effectively mandate the purchase of anybody’s squeaky new $3000 gadget; even if they did buy milk and cookies for the Chapter 4 Technical Committee. F. See also my comment on ROPs 72-319 and 72-443.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the Committee Action and Statement on Comment 72-337 (Log #134). In addition the test method described in the proposal is only one of two methods identified in the annex.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-(Log #192)

Committee: SIG-TMS72-339-(Table 7-2.2, Item 14. b) : Reject SUBMITTER: William Keezer, WJ Keezer Associates/Rep. National Systems Contractors AssociationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-443RECOMMENDATION: Revert to the original text of the proposal, but with the content of Proposal 72-435 added as follows: 7-2.2 Table Line/Item 14(b) Change the text of the test method for Audible Textual Notification Appliances, and add an Appendix item as follows: Sound pressure level for non-voice tones and signals shall be measured with sound level meter meeting ANSI S1.4a, Specifications for Sound Level Meters, Type 2 requirements. Levels throughout the protected area shall be measured and recorded. The Sound Level Meter shall be set in accordance with ANSI S3.41. Time-weighted characteristic F (FAST). Record the maximum output when the audible emergency evacuation signal is on.Audible information shall be verified to be distinguishable and understandable. System voice intelligibility will be measured in accordance with the guidelines in Annex A of IEC 60849, Second Edition: 1998, Sound

Systems for Emergency Purposes. When tested in accordance with Annex B, clause B1 of IEC 60849, the system will equal or exceed the equivalent of a Common Intelligibility Scale (CIS) score of 0.70. Intelligibility is achieved when the quantity Iav - s as specified in B3 of IEC 60849 meets or exceeds this value. Measure and record values throughout protected area. A-7-2.2 Table Line/Item 14(b) Iav is the arithmetical average of the measured intelligibility values on the CIS and s (sigma) is the standard deviation of those measured values. Seven different methods of determining intelligibility are permitted by the CIS. These methods and the limitations on their use are described in Annex A of IEC 60849, Second Edition: 1998, Sound Systems for Emergency Purposes. Objective means of determining intelligibility are found in IEC 60268, Part 16, Second Edition: 1998, The Objective Rating of Speech Intelligibility by Speech Transmission Index. Subject-based techniques for measuring intelligibility are defined by ANSI S3.2-1989, Method for Measuring the Intelligibility of Speech over Communication Systems. ANSI S3.2-1989 should be considered an acceptable alternative to ISO TR 4870, where referenced in IEC 60268, Part 16, Second Edition: 1998, The Objective Rating of Speech Intelligibility by Speech Transmission Index. SUBSTANTIATION: Problem:1) The Committee’s action does not address the fact that sound pressure level measurements are not applicable to the measurement of voice message systems.2) The committee’s action to Accept in Principle is in marked contradiction with the wording of the original proposal and the intent of the submitter. Substantiation:1) The original proposal clearly stated that such measurements are for non-voice tones and signals (only). Evaluation of voice message systems requires determination for suitability by different evaluation methods. The committee’s revision of the original proposal resulted in retention of the original text for 7-2.2 Table Line/Item 14(b) and refusal to incorporate this clarification. 2) The wording of the original proposal and the intent of the submitter was to require the confirmation of the potential intelligibility of a voice/alarm system through objectively applied measurement methods, not “verification”. The addition of unenforceable Annex material does not accomplish this “in Principle” nor in fact.3) While an Authority Having Jurisdiction is always entitled to employ an intelligibility evaluation technique of his/her choosing, the default measurement techniques should be those recognized by professionals to be objective and technically defensible. The phrase “but not limited to . . .” leaves the door open to non-standard methods of evaluation which are potentially without technical merit.4) Any voice/alarm system intended for life safety applications is inherently defective if it cannot provide adequate intelligibility, and potentially defective if not proven adequate through proper testing. Many Chapter 7 committee members proclaimed they had no problem designing and installing intelligible voice/alarm systems in their professional capacities, yet this committee doesn’t want such systems to be verified as such - attempting to prohibit the retroactive application of such a requirement. All systems that can be demonstrated to deliver an intelligible message would be subject to the same tests for continued proper operation. Regardless of the Code used at the time of system design, an audible system that fails its annual test must be repaired or it constitutes a hazard to life safety. Likewise, a system that is relied upon to deliver a voice message for the safety of the occupants and fails an annual test should be repaired because it cannot perform its intended life safety function. Whether the system was capable of satisfactory performance at the time of original installation or not is immaterial. Relying on a system that constitutes a life safety hazard is a greater hazard to the facility owner than the potential cost of modifications.5) The fact that the committee (NFA-TMS) “is uncomfortable with the ability to accurately measure and test intelligibility” suggests the committee is either uncomfortable with, or incapable of understanding substantial technical substantiation to the contrary. A dispassionate and thorough reading of the substantiation for 72-443 should not result in this conclusion. The committee should make an effort to understand IEC 60268, part 16 where many of the committee’s concerns, especially those of measurability and accuracy, are thoroughly addressed. Finally, re-reading the substantiation for the May 1999 ROP proposal 72-676-(6-3.1.6 and A-6-3.1.6 (new)) will reveal further references on the rationale behind the objective measurement of intelligibility. The submitter respectfully suggests that the international technical committees responsible for the content of IEC 60849 and IEC 60268-16 have significantly more experience and expertise in the field of voice/alarm systems than does NFPA’s Committee on Inspection, Testing and Maintenance. The ability to perform good science is not limited by the boundary of the Atlantic Ocean. NFPA should respect the expertise of these committees and not try to dilute the potential efficacy of their documents by permitting unproven measurement techniques, untested systems, or the continued existence of sub-standard systems. We should build on their work, not compromise it.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: System designers, installers and the authority having jurisdiction all have a responsibility to assure that systems are intelligible. It has not been demonstrated that there is an industry wide problem that would require this level of testing in a minimum standard.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-

397


Committee: SIG-TMS72-340-(Table 7-2.2, Item 14. b) : Accept SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-443RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept in Principle by moving the proposed text to an Annex section. SUBSTANTIATION: We agree with the Committee Action and urge the Technical Committee to retain this information as an Annex item, at least until such time that test instruments are available in abundance, including features and manufacturers.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-341-(7-3.2.1) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-451RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Committee clarify the Committee Statement on this Proposal. The Committee Statement needs to completely address the concerns of the Submitter. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee to address the concerns of the submitter. Refer to the Committee Statement on Comment 72-331(Log #99). The committee reaffirms its previous action.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-342-(7-3.2.1 Exception No. 2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-453RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Action on this Proposal be revised to breakout the requirements for smoke and heat alarms and relocate all testing and maintenance requirements from the chapter on single- and multiple-station alarms and household fire alarm systems to the chapter on testing and maintenance. Reference is made (for information only) to Proposal 72-424. Reference is also made to the Technical Correlating Committee Note on Proposal 72-463. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.

COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee. Refer to the Committee Action on Comment 72-322 (Log #93)NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-343-(7-3.3) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-455RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Action on this Proposal be revised to breakout the requirements for smoke and heat alarms and relocate all testing and maintenance requirements from the chapter on single- and multiple-station alarms and household fire alarm systems to the chapter on testing and maintenance. Reference is made (for information only) to Proposal 72-424. Reference is also made to the Technical Correlating Committee Note on Proposal 72-463. This action shall

be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee. Refer to the Committee Action on Comment 72-322 (Log #93).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-344-(7-3.3) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-456RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Action on this Proposal be revised to breakout the requirements for smoke and heat alarms and relocate all testing and maintenance requirements from the chapter on single- and multiple-station alarms and household fire alarm systems to the chapter on testing and maintenance. Reference is made (for information only) to Proposal 72-424. Reference is also made to the Technical Correlating Committee Note on Proposal 72-463. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee. Refer to the Committee Action on Comment 72-322 (Log #93).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-

(Log #141a)Committee: SIG-TMS

72-345-(7-6 ) : Reject SUBMITTER: Thomas W. Jaeger, Gage-Babcock & Assoc., Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-459RECOMMENDATION: I agree with the Technical Correlating Committee that proposals 72-143 and 72-459 are outside the scope of NFPA 72 and should be referred to the Technical Committee for NFPA 1. SUBSTANTIATION: I am a member of the Technical Committee on the Fire Prevention Code (NFPA 1), but these comments are my personal comments and not the Technical Committee’s. NFPA 1 is in cycle for and working on the 2003 edition. There are Public Proposals in process for NFPA 1 dealing with impairments of fire protection systems which could address the issues in proposals 72-143 and 72-459 at the public comment period for NFPA 1. This would allow implementation of the direction the National Fire Alarm Code Technical Correlating Committee has given to their Technical Committee on Testing and Maintenance of Fire Alarm Systems.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee notes that the submitter did not provide any recommended text. Refer to the Committee Action and Substantiation on Comment 72-324a (Log #CC700).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-346-(7-6) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Jim Everitt, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-459RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the Technical Correlating Note. SUBSTANTIATION: We do not believe that the inclusion of impairment requirements is not the scope of NFPA 72. The scope of the technical committee is “The Committee has primary responsibility of documents on the proper testing and maintenance of signaling systems, their components and their interface equipment.” NFPA 25 addresses impairment in their documents so the precedence has been set. If the requirements for impairments is given to the Fire Prevention Code Technical Committee there will be no requirements dealing with impairments of fire alarms systems for jurisdictions that do not adopt NFPA 1.

398

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPACOMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the Committee Action and Substantiation on Comment 72-324a (Log #CC700).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-347-(7-6) : Reject SUBMITTER: Jon Nisja, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-459RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: 7.6 Impairments

7.6.1 General. This section provides the minimum requirements for a fire alarm system impairment program. Adequate measures shall be taken during the impairment to ensure that increased risks are minimized and the duration of the impairment is limited.

7.6.2 Impairment Coordinator. The building owner shall assign an impairment coordinator to comply with the requirements of this section. In the absence of a specific designee, the owner shall be considered the impairment coordinator.

Exception: Where the lease, written use agreement, or management contract specifically grants the authority for inspection, testing, and maintenance of the fire alarm system(s) to the tenant, management firm, or managing individual, the tenant, management firm, or managing individual shall assign a person as impairment coordinator.

7.6.3 Tag Impairment System.

7.6.3.1* A tag shall be used to indicate that a system, or part thereof, has been removed from service.

7.6.3.2* The tag shall be posted at each fire alarm control panel and remote annunciator panel indicating which system, or part thereof, has been removed from service. The authority having jurisdiction shall specify where the tag is to be placed.

7.6.4 Impaired Equipment. The impaired equipment shall be considered to be the fire alarm system, or part thereof, that is removed from service. This shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following:

(a) Fire Alarm Control Panel

(b) Alarm Notification Devices

(c) Detection Devices

(d) Control Devices

(e) Signal Transmission Devices

(f) Normal System and Backup Power Systems

(g) Special Hazards Equipment

7.6.5* Preplanned Impairment Programs. All preplanned impairments shall be authorized by the impairment coordinator. Before authorization is given, the impairment coordinator shall be responsible for verifying that the following procedures have been implemented:

(a) The extent and expected duration of the impairment have been determined.

(b) The areas or buildings involved have been inspected and the increased risks determined.

(c) Recommendations have been submitted to management or building owner/manager. Where a required fire alarm system is out of service for more than 4 hours in a 24-hour period, the impairment coordinator shall arrange for one of the following:

1. Evacuation of the building or portion of the building affected by the system out of service

2. * An approved fire watch

3. * Establishment of temporary detection and notification

4. * Establishment and implementation of an approved program to eliminate potential ignition sources and limit the amount of fuel available to the fire

(d) The fire department has been notified.

(e) The insurance carrier, the alarm company, building owner/manager, and other authorities having jurisdiction have been notified.

(f) The supervisors in the areas to be affected have been notified.

(g) A tag impairment system has been implemented. (See Section 7.6.3.)

(h) All necessary tools and materials have been assembled on the impairment site.

7.6.6 Emergency Impairments. Emergency impairments include but are not limited to fire alarm control panel failure, detector and notification troubles, loss of normal or backup power, and equipment failure. When this occurs, appropriate emergency action shall be taken to minimize potential injury and damage. The coordinator shall implement the steps outlined in Section 7.6.5.

7.6.7 Restoring Systems to Service. When all impaired equipment is restored to normal working order, the impairment coordinator shall verify that the following procedures have been implemented:

(a) Any necessary inspections and tests have been conducted to verify that effected systems are operational. The appropriate chapter of this standard shall be consulted for guidance on the type of inspection and test required.

(b) Supervisors have been advised that protection is restored.

(c) The fire department has been advised that protection is restored.

(d) The building owner/manager, insurance carrier, alarm company, and other authorities having jurisdiction have been advised that protection is restored.

(e) The impairment tag has been removed.

A.7.6.3.1 A clearly visible tag alerts building occupants and the fire department that all or part of the fire alarm system is out of service. The tag should be weather resistant, plainly visible, and of sufficient size [typically 4 in. 6 in. (102 mm 152 mm)]. The tag should identify which system is impaired, the date and time impairment began, and the person responsible. Figure A-11-3.1 illustrates a typical impairment tag.

A.7.6.3.2 An impairment tag should be placed on the fire alarm control panel and any remote annunciator panels to alert responding fire fighters of an abnormal condition. An impairment tag that is located on the system control panel only could go unnoticed for an extended period if fire fighters encounter difficulty in gaining access to the building or fire alarm system control room.

A.7.6.5 The need for temporary fire protection, termination of all hazardous operations, and frequency of inspections in the areas involved should be determined. All work possible should be done in advance to minimize the length of the impairment. Where possible, temporary detection and notification should be used to maintain portions of systems while work is completed.

Fire alarm systems should not be removed from service when the building is not in use. Where a system that has been out of service for a prolonged period (such as in the case of idle or vacant properties) is returned to service, qualified personnel should be retained to inspect and test the systems.

A.7.6.5(c)2 A fire watch should consist of trained personnel who continuously patrol the effected area. Ready access to fire extinguishers and the ability to promptly notify the fire department are important items to consider. During the patrol of the area, the person should not only be looking for fire, but making sure that the other fire protection features of the building such as egress routes and sprinkler systems are available and functioning properly.

A.7.6.5(c)3 Temporary detection and notification systems are possible from a number of sources including the use of bullhorns.

A.7.6.5(c) 4 Depending on the use and occupancy of the building, it might be enough in some circumstances to stop certain processes in the building or to cut off the flow of fuel to some machines. It is also helpful to implement ìNo Smokingî and ìNo Hot Workî (cutting, grinding or welding) policies while the system is out of service since these activities are responsible for many fire ignitions.

399


Figure A7.6.3.1

SUBSTANTIATION: The issue of impairments needs to be addressed in NFPA 72. We do not agree with the Technical Correlating Committee that this is not within the scope of NFPA 72. NFPA 25 on water-based systems inspection, maintenance and testing has a chapter dealing with impairments. This proposal took the wording from NFPA 25 and reworded for fire alarms systems. We believe that this will provide consistency in impairment between NFPA 25 and 72.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the Committee Action and Statement on Comments 72-324a (Log #CC700) and 72-324 (Log #350).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-348-(7-6 and A-7-6) : Reject SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnellCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-459RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. I agree with the Technical Correlating Committee. SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal is outside the scope of NFPA 72 and would be appropriate for NFPA 1, Fire Prevention Code. However, although not called “impairments”, some of the submitter’s concerns are currently addressed in NFPA 1, Sections 1-10, 1-13, 1-15, and 1-19. Per the Technical Correlating Committee’s request for referral to NFPA 1, this proposal cannot be treated as a proposal for NFPA 1 because it lacks needed and required direction for the committee to take appropriate actions. There is considerable information to digest and attempting to place it within appropriate sections of NFPA 1 may not meet the submitter’s intent. The submitter should review NFPA 1 and recommend changes he feels are inadequately covered and develop a new proposal for the NFPA 1 and submit it during the next cycle. Any proposals should apply to all required systems and operations, not just the fire alarm system. I am a member of the NFPA 1 Technical Committee.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the Committee Action and Statement on Comments 72-324a (Log #CC700) and 72-324 (Log #350).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-349-(Chapter 8 [2002 Ed. Chapter 11]) : Accept TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the action on Comment 72-349 concerning 11.8.1.1 and 11.8.4.2 be written to make the intended revisions to remove unenforceable language. These actions had been taken by the Technical Committee, but were inadvertently omitted from the balloted text. The Technical Correlating Committee also directs that Section 11.7.4.2 be removed from the committee action for correlation with the action on Comment 72-322. Revise the Committee Action regarding 11.8.1.1 to read: “All equipment shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and applicable electrical standards.” Revise the Committee Action regarding 11.8.4.2 to read: “For sloped ceilings having a rise greater than 1 m in 8 m (1 ft in 8 ft) horizontally, the detector or alarm shall be located within 0.9 m (3 ft) of the peak. The spacing of additional detectors or alarms, if any, shall be based on a horizontal distance measurement, not on a measurement along the slope of the ceiling.” Revise the Committee Action regarding 11.7.4, deleting 11.7.4.2 so that 11.7.4 reads as follows:11.7.4 Operability. Single- and multiple-station alarms, including heat alarms, shall be provided with a convenient means for testing its operability by the occupant, owner or other responsible parties. Retain current ROP section 11.7.4 and renumber accordingly.SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Action on this Proposal be reconsidered for compliance with the Manual of Style. The specific sections that require reconsideration are: 11.8.1.1, 11.8.2.2, 11.8.3.5(i), 11.8.4.2 and 11.11.2(4). The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Action on this Proposal be reconsidered to address the changes resulting from the issuance of TIA 99-1. The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Action on this Proposal be revised to relocate all testing and maintenance requirements to the chapter on testing and maintenance. Reference is made to the Technical Correlating Committee NOTE on Proposal 72-422a. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. The Technical Correlating Committee advises that Chapter Scopes (Application) statements are the responsibility of the Technical Correlating Committee and the Technical Correlating Committee accepts the Committee Action concerning Section 11.1. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept Revise 11.8.1.1 in the ROP to read: “All equipment shall be installed in a workmanlike manner in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and applicable electrical standards.” Revise 11.8.4.2 in the ROP to read: “For sloped ceilings having a rise greater than 1 m in 8 m (1 ft in 8 ft) horizontally, the detector or alarm shall be located on or near the ceiling at or within 0.9 m (3 ft) of the peak. The spacing of additional detectors or alarms, if any, shall be based on a horizontal distance measurement, not on a measurement along the slope of the ceiling.” Revise 11.11.2 (4) in the ROP to read: “(4) Identification of all user interface components and their functions (such as, but not limited to, lights, switches and meters), shall be located adjacent to the component.” Add a sentence to the end of 11.3.5 in the ROP that reads: “Since hearing deficits are often not apparent, the responsibility for advising the appropriate person(s) of the existence of this deficit shall be that of the hearing impaired party.” Insert a new section 11.7.4 in the ROP to read as follows: “11.7.4 Operability. 11.7.4.1 Single- and multiple-station alarms, including heat alarms, shall beprovided with a convenient means for testing its operability by the occupant, owner or other responsible parties. 11.7.4.2 Unless otherwise recommended by the manufacturer, single- andmultiple-station smoke alarms shall be replaced when they fail to respond to operability tests, but shall not remain in service longer than 10 years from the date of installation.” Renumber remaining sections.” Delete A.11.10.5. Delete sections 11.10.1 through 11.10.7 in the ROP. Revise 11.10 in the ROP to read as follows: “11.10 Maintenance and Tests. Fire warning equipment shall be maintained and tested in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and per the requirements of Chapter 10.”

400

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPACOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has reviewed the Technical Correlating Committee’s comments. Sections 11.8.1.1, 11.8.4.2 and 11.11.2 (4) have been addressed. At the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee, TIA 99-1 (8-0 Scope.) has been reviewed. The Scope in the 2002 edition (11.1) has been modified to correlate with the new scope of the Technical Committee. At the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee, TIA 99-1 (8-1.2.5) has been reviewed. This has been addressed in 11.3.1 in the ROP. At the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee, TIA 99-1 (8-1.2.2) has been reviewed and incorporated into 11.3.5 of the ROP. At the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee, TIA 99-1 (8-1.2.3) has been reviewed and has already been incorporated into 11.3.3 of the ROP. At the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee, TIA 99-1 (8-4.1) has been reviewed and has already been incorporated into 11.6.2 of the ROP. At the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee, TIA 99-1 (8-1.4.5) has been reviewed and has already been incorporated into 11.5 of the ROP. The Technical Committee has taken action at the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee in reference to the NOTE in Proposal 72-422a regarding the move of Testing and Maintenance requirements to Chapter 10. Despite the fact that the testing and maintenance requirements have been relocated to the Testing and Maintenance chapter, it is recommended that the Technical Correlating Committee give consideration to the fact that all single- and multiple-station alarms utilize many unsupervised components. For this reason, the Technical Committee recommends that these alarms need to be tested in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, and at a minimum, battery powered alarms shall be tested weekly and 120 VAC powered alarms shall be tested monthly. It should also be noted that monthly testing of alarms has been a primary recommendation of the NFPA Public Education Programs, CPSC and USFA for many years.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 BraveCOMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:CHRISTIAN: While in agreement with the requirements of the proposal, the recommendation at the end of the committee statement which reads as follows is in serious error: ìIt is recommended that the Technical Correlating Committee give consideration to the fact that all single and multiple-station alarms utilize many unsupervised components. For this reason, the Technical Committee recommends that these alarms need to be tested in accordance with the manufacturerís instructions, and at a minimum, battery powered alarms shall be tested weekly and 120VAC powered alarms shall be tested monthly. It should also be noted that monthly testing of alarms has been a primary recommendation of the NFPA Public Education Programs, CPSC and USFA for many years. This statement is in complete error as the reliability requirements for systems smoke detectors and residential smoke alarms are the same. Supervision of power wiring is not synonymous with supervision of circuit operation. It is just as possible for a system detector to become inoperative without providing any indication of failure to the control panel and yet yearly testing has posed no additional risk, which can be documented. The prevailing thought that this somehow promotes an education of the civilian population can be safely debunked by the fact that when asked in the Technical Committee who tests their smoke alarms monthly, nobody admitted to this recommendation. If it is the goal of the committee to issue edicts with only an abstract basis, then this is a valid recommendation. However, if there is any desire to be pragmatic in the policies set forth then this is a poor recommendation and essentially moot since the people it is directed at will be the ones who pay the least attention to it. The program of semi-annual testing and changing of the battery during the transition from daylight savings time and back has been the only education that has been promoted with any kind of diligence. Furthermore, in previous committee meetings it was discussed that this may hinder future product advancement. If a manufacturer were to develop a detector that is ìself-monitoring,î that technology should not be stifled due to the shortsightedness of current methodologies. PACELLI: While in agreement with the requirements of the proposal, the recommendation at the end of the committee statement which reads as follows is in serious error: ìIt is recommended that the Technical Correlating Committee give consideration to the fact that all single and multiple-station alarms utilize many unsupervised components. For this reason, the Technical Committee recommends that these alarms need to be tested in accordance with the manufacturerís instructions, and at a minimum, battery powered alarms shall be tested weekly and 120VAC powered alarms shall be tested monthly. It should also be noted that monthly testing of alarms has been a primary recommendation of the NFPA Public Education Programs, CPSC and USFA for many years. This statement is in complete error as the reliability requirements for systems smoke detectors and residential smoke alarms are the same. Supervision of power wiring is not synonymous with supervision of circuit operation. It is just as possible for a system detector to become inoperative without providing any indication of failure to the control panel and yet yearly testing has posed no additional risk, which can be documented. The prevailing thought that this somehow promotes an education of the civilian population can be safely debunked by the fact that when asked in the Technical Committee who tests their smoke alarms monthly, nobody admitted to this recommendation. If it is the goal of the committee to issue edicts with only an abstract basis, then this is a valid recommendation. However, if there is any desire to be pragmatic in the policies set forth then this is a poor recommendation and essentially moot

since the people it is directed at will be the ones who pay the least attention to it. The program of semi-annual testing and changing of the battery during the transition from daylight savings time and back has been the only education that has been promoted with any kind of diligence. Furthermore, in previous committee meetings it was discussed that this may hinder future product advancement. If a manufacturer were to develop a detector that is ìself-monitoring,î that technology should not be stifled due to the shortsightedness of current methodologies.

————————————————-


72-350-(Chapter 8 [2002 Ed. 11.6]) : TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the action on Comment 72-350 be reported as Accept in Principle in Part and written to reflect the requirements of the 1996 edition of the Code. The Committee had introduced new material in the requirements at the Report on Comments stage. This new material is not accepted, has been removed, and will be held for further study. The committee action text now reads as follows: Change 11.6.1(4) in the ROP to read as follows: If a battery primary power supply is specifically permitted, a battery meeting the requirements of 11.6.6 (non-rechargeable primary battery) or the requirements of 11.6.7 (rechargeable primary battery) shall be used. Add the word “Primary” to the section heading of 11.6.3 as follows: 11.6.3 AC Primary Power Source Revise 11.6.4 to read as follows: 11.6.4 Secondary (Standby) Power Source. If the secondary power source is a battery, the following conditions shall be met: (a) The secondary power source shall be supervised and shall cause a distinctive audible or visible trouble signal upon removal or disconnection of a battery, or a low battery condition. (b) Acceptable replacement batteries shall be clearly identified by manufacturer’s name and model number on the unit near the battery compartment. (c) A rechargeable battery used as a secondary power source shall (1) be automatically recharged by an AC circuit of the commercial light and power source (2) The battery shall be recharged within 4 hours where power is provided from a circuit that can be switched on or off by means other than a circuit breaker, or within 48 hours where power is provided from a circuit that cannot be switched on or off by means other than a circuit breaker. (3) provide a distinctive audible trouble signal before the battery is incapable of operating the device(s) for alarm purposes (4) at the battery condition at which a trouble signal is obtained, be capable of producing an alarm signal for at least 4 minutes followed by not less than 7 days of trouble signal operation (5) produce an audible trouble signal at least once every minute for 7 consecutive days. Change 11.6.6 Primary Power Source (non-rechargeable battery) Add a new section 11.6.7 to read as follows: 11.6.7 Primary Power Source (rechargeable battery) If smoke alarms are powered by a rechargeable battery, the following conditions must be met: (a) The battery must, with proper charging, be able to power the alarm for a life of 1 year. (b) the battery must be automatically recharged by an AC circuit of the commercial light and power source. (c) The battery shall be recharged within 4 hours where power is provided from a circuit that can be switched on or off by means other than a circuit breaker, or within 48 hours where power is provided from a circuit that cannot be switched on or off by means other than a circuit breaker. (d) A distinctive audible trouble signal sounds before the battery is incapable of operating the device(s) for alarm purposes. (e) For a unit employing a lock-in alarm feature, automatic transfer is provided from alarm to a trouble condition. (f) At the battery condition at which a trouble signal is obtained, the unit is capable of producing an alarm signal for at least 4 minutes followed by not less than 7 days of trouble signal operation. (g) The audible trouble signal is produced at least once every minute for 7 consecutive days.SUBMITTER: Nick Rutter, Sprue Aegis picCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-460RECOMMENDATION: Change 11.6.1(4) to read as follows: If a battery primary power supply is specifically permitted, a primary battery capable of operating the device for at least 1 year in the normal condition , followed by 4 minutes of alarm, followed by at least 6 days of trouble meeting the requirements of 11.6.6 (non-rechargeable primary battery) or the requirements of 11.6.7 (rechargeable primary battery) shall be used. Add the word “Primary” to the section heading of 11.6.3 as follows: 11.6.3 AC Primary Power Source Revise 11.6.4 to read as follows: 11.6.4 Secondary (Standby) Power Source. If the secondary power source is a battery, the following conditions shall be met: (a) The secondary power source shall be supervised and shall cause a distinctive audible or visible trouble signal upon removal or disconnection of a battery, or a low battery condition.

401

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA (b) Acceptable replacement batteries shall be clearly identified by manufacturer’s name and model number on the unit near the battery compartment. (c) A rechargeable battery used as a secondary power source shall (1) be non-replaceable (2) with proper charging, be able to power the alarm for a life of 10 years (3) be automatically recharged by an AC circuit of the commercial light and power source (4) be recharged within 72 hours to a level capable of powering the smoke alarm for 30 days (5) provide a distinctive audible trouble signal before the battery is incapable of operating the device(s) for alarm purposes (6) at the battery condition at which a trouble signal is obtained, be capable of producing an alarm signal for at least 4 minutes followed by not less than 14 days of trouble signal operation (7) produce an audible trouble signal at least once every minute for 14 consecutive days. Change 11.6.6 Primary Battery Power Source (non-rechargeable battery) Add a new section 11.6.7 to read as follows: 11.6.7 Primary Power Source (rechargeable battery) If smoke alarms are powered by a rechargeable battery, the following conditions must be met: (a) The battery must be non-replaceable and, with proper charging, be able to power the alarm for a life of 10 years. (b) the battery must be automatically recharged by an AC circuit of the commercial light and power source. (c) The battery shall be recharged, to a level capable of powering the smoke alarm for 30 days, within 8 hours where power is provided from a circuit that can be switched on or off by means other than a circuit breaker, or within 72 hours where power is provided from a circuit that cannot be switched on or off by means other than a circuit breaker. (d) A distinctive audible trouble signal sounds before the battery is incapable of operating the device(s) for alarm purposes. (e) For a unit employing a lock-in alarm feature, automatic transfer is provided from alarm to a trouble condition. (f) At the battery condition at which a trouble signal is obtained, the unit is capable of producing an alarm signal for at least 4 minutes followed by not less than 14 days of trouble signal operation. (g) The audible trouble signal is produced at least once every minute for 14 consecutive days. SUBSTANTIATION: Proposal 72-460 was to return the chapter to the code requirements of the 1996 edition. This comment addresses an omission in the 2002 edition of language that was included in the 1996 edition. The 1996 edition allows the use of smoke alarms with rechargeable batteries (Section 2-3.2.4 Exception No. 1 and 2-3.4.4). The proposed text captures the intent of the 1996 code requirements for alarms with rechargeable batteries while providing language which is consistent with the 2000 Manual of Style and is also applicable to the most current technologies as well as potential technologies in the future.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Change 11.6.1(4) in the ROP to read as follows: If a battery primary power supply is specifically permitted, a primary battery capable of operating the device for at least 1 year in the normal condition , followed by 4 minutes of alarm, followed by at least 6 days of trouble meeting the requirements of 11.6.6 (non-rechargeable primary battery) or the requirements of 11.6.7 (rechargeable primary battery) shall be used. Add the word “Primary” to the section heading of 11.6.3 as follows: 11.6.3 AC Primary Power Source Revise 11.6.4 to read as follows: 11.6.4 Secondary (Standby) Power Source. If the secondary power source is a battery, the following conditions shall be met: (a) The secondary power source shall be supervised and shall cause a distinctive audible or visible trouble signal upon removal or disconnection of a battery, or a low battery condition. (b) Acceptable replacement batteries shall be clearly identified by manufacturer’s name and model number on the unit near the battery compartment. (c) A rechargeable battery used as a secondary power source shall (1) have a life of 10 years with proper charging, if non-replaceable (2) have a life of 5 years with proper charging, if replaceable (3) be automatically recharged by an AC circuit of the commercial light and power source (4) be recharged within 72 hours to a level capable of powering the smoke alarm for 24 hours (5) provide a distinctive audible trouble signal before the battery is incapable of operating the device(s) for alarm purposes (6) at the battery condition at which a trouble signal is obtained, be capable of producing an alarm signal for at least 4 minutes followed by not less than 7 days of trouble signal operation (7) produce an audible trouble signal at least once every minute for 7 consecutive days. Change

11.6.6 Primary Battery Power Source (non-rechargeable battery) Add a new section 11.6.7 to read as follows: 11.6.7 Primary Power Source (rechargeable battery) If smoke alarms are powered by a rechargeable battery, the following conditions must be met: (a) The battery must be non-replaceable and, with proper charging, be able to power the alarm for a life of 10 years. (b) the battery must be automatically recharged by an AC circuit of the commercial light and power source. (c) The battery shall be recharged, to a level capable of powering the smoke alarm for 30 days, within 8 hours where power is provided from a circuit that can be switched on or off by means other than a circuit breaker, or within 72 hours where power is provided from a circuit that cannot be switched on or off by means other than a circuit breaker. (d) A distinctive audible trouble signal sounds before the battery is incapable of operating the device(s) for alarm purposes. (e) For a unit employing a lock-in alarm feature, automatic transfer is provided from alarm to a trouble condition. (f) At the battery condition at which a trouble signal is obtained, the unit is capable of producing an alarm signal for at least 4 minutes followed by not less than 30 days of trouble signal operation. (g) The audible trouble signal is produced at least once every minute for 30 consecutive days.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee edited various text from the submitter to better correlate with the requirements of NFPA 72 1996.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 10 NEGATIVE: 2 NOT RETURNED: 1 BraveEXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: CHRISTIAN: Additional items in this comment were not in the 1996 edition of the code and therefore are new material. This should be held for further investigation. PACELLI: Additional items in this comment were not in the 1996 edition of the code and therefore are new material. This should be held for further investigation.

————————————————-


72-351-(Chapter 8 [2002 Ed. Chapter 11]) : Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAACOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463RECOMMENDATION: Change the Committee Action to Accept in Principle and include the following changes and considerations. A) Change “dwelling” to “dwelling unit” and “dwellings” to “Dwelling units”.B) Add a definition for “Household”.C) Delete all text (and transcribed text from NFPA 101 for Sections 11.5.2 through 11.5.12) from the Chapter relating to other than dwelling units. SUBSTANTIATION: Globally change the references to dwelling and dwellings to dwellings and dwelling units. Dwelling(s) is not defined and no new definition has been submitted. Dwelling Unit(s) is defined and has been redefined. Dwelling Unit(s) is defined and has been redefined and accepted. (See proposal 72-27 and 72-28). Add a definition for Household. The Committee rejected our Proposal 72-38, which would have changed references from household to dwelling. Therefore, the Committee has suggested that a dwelling is not a household for the purposes of applying Chapter 11. The Committee statement says that household is appropriate and consistent with industry terminology and yet we cannot find it defined within the entire NFC. The Committee accepted Proposal 72-39, which adds a new definition for Household Fire Alarm System, but it does not contain the word “dwelling”. It is not clear where Section 11.6.2 Household Fire Alarm Systems, and its subsections apply in Chapter 11, because none of the occupancies listed use the word household that we can find. Remove all extracted references to NFPA 101, as well as all new associated text to these subsections. The new text should be submitted to NFPA 101 for consideration and addition to that document. If the Committee feels this additional information is applicable for those rooms and areas, it should be included in NFPA 101 so the installation requirements are consistent. The Committee’s new text is not going to be embraced by the users of NFPA 101. Secondly, these subsections are not consistent with “other” building codes. We understand the Committee’s intent but “other” building code organizations adopt NFPA 72 by reference as their installation standard. These subsections conflict with many building and fire codes and we are concerned that these organizations will drop their reference to the NFPA 72 rather than amend the adoption by excluding these sections.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle in Part Change “Dwelling” to “Dwelling Unit” and “Dwellings” to “Dwelling Units” in the following sections: 11.1.2 (1); 11.5.1; 11.5.1.1(1) Exception; 11.5.1.1(3) Exception 2; 11.5.1.3 (b); 11.5.3.2. (b). In Section 11.6.3 (e) Exception, change “household” to “dwelling unit”. In Section 11.7.6, change “household” to “dwelling unit”. In Section 11.8.1.4 (2), delete the word “household”. In Section 11.8.1.4 (3), delete the word “household”.

402

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPACOMMITTEE STATEMENT: In principle, the committee has reviewed the submitter’s recommendation, (items A and B), and has changed “dwelling” and “dwellings” as required; and has changed/deleted “household” as required. The committee did not take action on the submitter’s Item C as the Technical Committee has the responsibility to address installation requirements for these occupancies. See Committee Action on Comment 72-360 (Log #272).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-


72-352-(Chapter 8 [2002 Ed. 11.1.3]) : Accept TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee advises that Chapter Scope (Application) statements are the responsibility of the Technical Correlating Committee and the Technical Correlating Committee accepts the Committee Action.SUBMITTER: Daniel T. Gottuk, Hughes Associates, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows: 11.1.3 The requirements for the number, type and location of detection devices shall be designated by the applicable code or authority having jurisdiction. Smoke and heat alarms shall be installed in all occupancies where required by applicable laws, codes or standards. SUBSTANTIATION: The revision more accurately addresses the role of NFPA 72 as an installation standard, which establishes the requirements for the number, type, and location of detection devices.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-


72-353-(Chapter 8 [2002 Ed. 11.3.7 (New)]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Donald E. Sievers, D. E. Sievers & Associates, Ltd./Rep. National Association of the DeafCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-465RECOMMENDATION: Add 11.3.7 to read: Combination smoke detector visible appliances shall be installed in accordance with applicable requirements for smoke detectors. Smoke detectors shall be mounted on the ceiling at least 4 in. (102 mm) from a wall or on a wall with the top of the detector not less than 4 in. (102 mm) nor more than 12 in. (305 mm) below the ceiling. SUBSTANTIATION: The re-write wisely chose to use prescriptive language and criteria. This material was taken from the NFPA 72 1996 edition of prescriptive requirements; Chapters 2 and 6.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The intent of the submitter is currently embodied in the language of the Standard.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-


72-354-(Chapter 8 [2003 Ed. 11.3.8 (New)]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Donald E. Sievers, D. E. Sievers & Associates, Ltd./Rep. National Association of the DeafCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-465RECOMMENDATION: Add 11.3.8 to read as follows: Visible appliances and combination smoke detector visible appliances installed in bedrooms shall be interconnected with hallway smoke detectors, and both shall be powered by the building electrical supply system. SUBSTANTIATION: Deaf occupants need to be warned before the smoke enters the bedrooms just as hearing occupants need to be warned before smoke enters the bedroom. Hearing occupants can hear 85 db at 10 feet from a hallway smoke detector. Deaf occupants cannot and need the visible notification appliance in the bedroom, which needs to be connected to that hallway smoke detector. UL 1971 Listed visible appliances and combination smoke detector visible appliances are required to provide a minimum 177 candela; 120 vac powered. Battery operated smoke detectors cannot power a UL 1971 Listed visible appliance. The re-write wisely chose a path of prescriptive language and criteria to assist the end user, often a landlord, help the deaf occupant.

COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter’s comment does not address the material in Proposal 72-465. Interconnection is addressed in 11.5 of the ROP.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-

(Log #CC3)Committee: SIG-HOU

72-355-(Chapter 8 [2002 Ed. 11.5, 11.5.3.2, 11.5.11, 11.6.1, 11.11.2]) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms and Household Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463RECOMMENDATION: Make the following corrections: Revise 11.5 so that the section number and title are shown without the strikethrough. Revise 11.5.3.2(c) so that it is shown without the strikethrough. Revise 11.5.11 so that the section number and title are shown without the strikethrough. Revise 11.6.1 so that it is shown without the strikethrough. Revise 11.11.2(4) so that it is shown without the strikethrough. Revise 11.11.2(7) so that “Maintenance Instructions” is shown with strikethrough. Revise 11.11.2(8) so that the first occurrence of the word “panel” is shown with strikethrough and the second occurrence is shown underlined. SUBSTANTIATION: These were errors in processing of the ROP.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept The committee notes a change is required to Section 11.5.12.2. Change the last word in ROP 11.5.12.2 from “room” to “rooms”.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-

(Log #CC3a)Committee: SIG-TMS

72-355-(Chapter 8 [2002 Ed. 11.10.5, 11.10.6]) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms and Household Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463RECOMMENDATION: Make the following corrections: Revise 11.10.5* so that the asterisk is shown underlined. Revise 11.10.6 so that the text (but not the title) is shown with strikethrough.SUBSTANTIATION: These were errors in processing of the ROP.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-356-(Chapter 8 [2002 Ed. 11.10]) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on Proposals 72-422a and 72-463, the Technical Correlating Committee directed the Technical Committee on Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms and Household Fire Alarm Systems to correlate with the Technical Committee on Testing and Maintenance of Fire Alarm Systems to relocate all testing and maintenance requirements to the chapter on testing and maintenance. “Section 11.10 of the recommendation of Proposal 72-463” is referred to the Technical Committee on Testing and Maintenance of Fire Alarm Systems for action as it concerns testing and maintenance requirements. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to related Technical Correlating Committee Comments.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee. Refer to the Committee Action on Comment 72-322 (Log #93).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-

403


Sequence number 72-357 was not used.


72-358-(8-1.2.3) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Larry Ratzlaff, Kidde SafetyCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-465RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: Newly installed fire warning equipment for residential occupancies shall produce the audible emergency evacuation signal described in ANSI S3.41. Audible Emergency Evacuation Signal, whenever the intended response is to evacuate the building, the same audible signal shall be permitted to be used for other devices as long as the desired response is immediate evacuation. SUBSTANTIATION: The current proposal removes the wording “newly installed” from the text. Proposal 72-465 is the basis for removing the phrase “in newly installed”. This standard is used by many fire and building inspectors when inspecting existing buildings. Without the text “in newly installed” all smoke alarms in an old structure would also have to produce the ANSI S3.41 emergency evacuation signal, which they may not.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Revise text as follows: “Fire warning equipment to be installed in residential occupancies shall produce the audible emergency evacuation signal described in ANSI S3.41. Audible Emergency Evacuation Signal, whenever the intended response is to evacuate the building, the same audible signal shall be permitted to be used for other devices as long as the desired response is immediate evacuation.”COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The revised wording meets the submitter’s intent.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-


72-359-(8-1.4.1 [2002 Ed. 11-5.1.1, 11.5.1.2, 11.5.2.1, 11.5.3.1(c), 11.5.4.1, 11.5.5.1, 11.5.6.1, 11.5.7.1, 11.5.8.1, 11.5.9.1, 11.5.9.1, 11.5.10.1, 11.5.11.1 and 11.5.12.1]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraphs 11.5.1.1, 11.5.1.2, 11.5.2.1, 11.5.3.1(c), 11.5.4.1, 11.5.5.1, 11.5.6.1, 11.5.7.1, 11.5.8.1, 11.5.9.1, 11.5.9.1.2, 11.5.10.1, 11.5.11.1 and 11.5.12.1. SUBSTANTIATION: A. Requirements mandating the installation of detection devices are outside the scope of NFPA 72; reference Technical Correlating Committee comments on Proposals 72-477 and 72-478. B. Protection requirements for particular occupancies are the province of the building and fire codes; not NFPA 72. C. These paragraphs conflict with 11.1.3.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee has the responsibility to address installation requirements for these occupancies. See Committee Action on Comment 72-360 (Log #272).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-


72-360-(8-1.4.1 [2002 Ed. 11.5]) : Accept in Principle TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Committee Action be written to correlate with the action on Comments 72-372 and 72-374 and to remove exceptions related to sprinkler protection as they are outside the scope of this committee. However, the effect of these exceptions are retained by the wording that specifies “Where required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified occupancy...” The Committee Action text shall read as follows:Replace entire section 11.5.1 through 11.5.12.2 with the following: “11.5.1* One- and Two-Family Dwellings. 11.5.1.1 Smoke Detection. Where required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be installed as follows: (1) All sleeping rooms Exception: Smoke alarms shall not be required in sleeping rooms in existing one- and two-family dwellings. (2) Outside of each separate sleeping area, in the immediate vicinity of the sleeping rooms (3) On each level of the dwelling unit, including basements Exception 2: In existing one- and two-family dwellings approved smoke alarms powered by batteries shall be permitted. 11.5.1.2 Notification.

(a) Fire warning equipment for dwelling units shall provide a sound that is audible in all occupiable dwelling areas (b) Where more than one smoke or heat alarm is installed for new construction, they shall be arranged so that the operation of any smoke or heat alarm causes the alarm in all smoke and heat alarms within the dwelling to sound 11.5.2 Lodging or Rooming Houses. 11.5.2.1 Detection. Where required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be installed in every sleeping room. Such smoke alarms shall not be required to be interconnected. Exception: Existing battery-powered smoke alarms, rather than house electric-powered smoke alarms, shall be permitted where the facility has demonstrated to the authority having jurisdiction that the testing, maintenance, and battery replacement programs will ensure reliability of power to the smoke alarms. 11.5.2.2 Notification. In new construction in which a fire alarm system is not installed, fire warning equipment for lodging or rooming houses shall provide a sound that is audible in all occupiable areas. 11.5.3 New Apartment Buildings. 11.5.3.1 Detection. Where required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be installed as follows: (a) In all sleeping rooms (b) Outside of each separate sleeping area, in the immediate vicinity of the sleeping rooms (c) On each level of the dwelling unit, including basements11.5.3.2 Notification. (a) Fire warning equipment for a dwelling unit shall provide a sound that is audible in all occupiable areas within the dwelling unit (b) Where more than one smoke or heat alarm is installed for new construction, they shall be arranged so that the operation of any smoke or heat alarm causes the alarm in all smoke and heat alarms within the dwelling to sound (c)* The alarm shall sound only within the dwelling unit and shall not actuate the building fire alarm system, unless otherwise permitted by the authority having jurisdiction. Remote annunciation shall be permitted 11.5.4 Existing Apartment Buildings. 11.5.4.1 Detection. Where required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be installed as follows: (a) Outside of each separate sleeping area, in the immediate vicinity of the sleeping rooms (b) On each level of the dwelling unit, including basements Exception: Single-station smoke alarms without a secondary (standby) power source shall be permitted. 11.5.4.2 Notification. The alarm shall sound only within the dwelling unit and shall not actuate the building fire alarm system, unless otherwise permitted by the authority having jurisdiction. Remote annunciation shall be permitted. 11.5.5 New Hotels and Dormitories. 11.5.5.1 Detection. Where required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be installed as follows: (a) In every guest room (b) In every living area and sleeping room within a guest suite11.5.5.2 Notification. (a) The following shall apply to hotel guest rooms and guest suites: (1) Fire warning equipment for hotel guest rooms or guest suites shall provide a sound that is audible throughout the guest room or guest suite (2) Where more than one smoke alarm is installed in new construction for hotel guest rooms or guest suites, they shall be arranged so that the operation of any smoke alarm causes all smoke alarms to sound within the guest room or guest suite This requirement shall not apply to configurations that provide equivalent distribution of the alarm signal. (3)* The alarm shall sound only within the guest room or guest suite and shall not actuate the building fire alarm system, unless otherwise permitted by the authority having jurisdiction. Remote annunciation shall be permitted (b) The following shall apply to dormitory sleeping rooms and sleeping room suites: (1) Fire warning equipment for dormitory sleeping rooms or sleeping room suites shall provide a sound that is audible throughout the sleeping room or sleeping room suite. (2) Where more than one smoke alarm is installed in new construction for dormitory sleeping rooms or sleeping room suites, they shall be arranged so that the operation of any smoke alarm causes all smoke alarms to sound within the dormitory sleeping room or sleeping room suite. This requirement shall not apply to configurations that provide equivalent distribution of the alarm signal. (3)* The alarm shall sound only within the sleeping room or sleeping room suite and shall not actuate the building fire alarm system, unless otherwise permitted by the authority having jurisdiction. Remote annunciation shall be permitted. 11.5.6 Existing Hotels and Dormitories.

404

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA 11.5.6.1 Detection. Where required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be installed as follows: (a) In every guest room (b) In every living area and sleeping room within a guest suite (c) These alarms shall not be required to be interconnected (d) Smoke alarms without a secondary (standby) power source shall be permitted 11.5.6.2 Notification. The alarm shall sound only within the hotel guest room or guest suite, or within the dormitory sleeping room or sleeping room suites, and shall not actuate the building fire alarm system, unless otherwise permitted by the authority having jurisdiction. Remote annunciation shall be permitted. 11.5.7 New Day-Care Homes. 11.5.7.1 Detection. Where required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be installed as follows: (a) In all sleeping rooms (b) Smoke alarms shall be powered by a commercial light and power source (c) Smoke alarms without a secondary (standby) power source shall be permitted 11.5.7.2 Notification. The following notification requirements shall apply: (a) Fire warning equipment shall provide a sound that is audible throughout the day-care home (b) Where more than one smoke alarm is installed, they shall be arranged so that the operation of any smoke alarm causes all smoke alarms to sound within the day-care home 11.5.8 Existing Day-Care Homes. 11.5.8.1 Detection. Where required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be installed as follows: (a) In all sleeping rooms (b) Smoke alarms shall be powered by a commercial light and power source Exception to (b): Exception: Existing battery-powered smoke alarms rather than commercial light and powered smoke alarms shall be permitted where, in the opinion of the authority having jurisdiction, the facility has demonstrated testing, maintenance, and battery replacement programs that ensure reliability of power to the smoke alarms. (c) Smoke alarms without a secondary (standby) power source shall be permitted 11.5.8.2 Notification. Fire warning equipment shall provide a sound that is audible throughout the day-care home. 11.5.9. New Residential Board and Care - Small Facility. 11.5.9.1 Detection. 11.5.9.1.1 Where required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be installed as follows: (a) On all levels, including basements but excluding crawl spaces and unfinished attics (b) In all living areas (c) Each sleeping room shall be provided with an approved, listed single-station smoke alarm 11.5.9.2 Notification. Fire warning equipment shall provide a sound that is aubible throughout the residential board and care facility. 11.5.10 New Residential Board and Care - Large Facility. 11.5.10.1 Detection. Where required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be installed as follows: (a) In each sleeping room (b) Smoke alarms shall be powered by a commercial light and power source 11.5.10.2 Notification. Fire warning equipment shall provide a sound that is audible throughout the sleeping room. 11.5.11 Existing Residential Board and Care - Small Facility. 11.5.11.1 Detection. 11.5.11.1.1 Where required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be installed as follows: (a) In all sleeping rooms (b) On all levels, including basements but excluding crawl spaces and unfinished attics (c) Additional smoke alarms shall be installed for living rooms, dens, day rooms, and similar spaces 11.5.11.2 Notification. Fire warning equipment shall provide a sound that is audible throughout the residential board and care facility. 11.5.12 Existing Residential Board and Care - Large Facility. 11.5.12.1 Detection. Where required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be installed as follows: (a) In each sleeping room

(b) Smoke alarms shall be powered by a commercial light and power source Exception No. 1 to (a) and (b): Existing battery-powered smoke alarms, rather than smoke alarms powered by commercial light and power source, shall be accepted where, in the opinion of the authority having jurisdiction, the facility has demonstrated that testing, maintenance, and battery replacement programs ensure the reliability of power to the smoke alarms. Exception No. 2 to (a) and (b): Facilities having an existing corridor smoke detection system that is connected to the building fire alarm system. 11.5.12.2 Notification. Fire warning equipment shall provide a sound that is audible throughout the sleeping rooms.”SUBMITTER: Daniel T. Gottuk, Hughes Associates, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463RECOMMENDATION: Revise text within 11.5 to avoid the direct requirement that installations be in accordance with NFPA 101. The following is provided as an example of a suggested revision. Revise 11.5.1.1 to read as follows: 11.5.1.1 When required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified occupancy, approved, single-station single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be installed in accordance with 9.6.2.10 of NFPA 101 in the following locations: The remaining text is unchanged. SUBSTANTIATION: The revision avoids problems associated with conflict of adoption of NFPA 72 by jurisdictions that do not adopt NFPA 101. For example, California did not adopt Chapter 8 of NFPA 72 - 1999 (the rest of 72-1999 was adopted) because it contained language requiring installations in accordance with NFPA 101, which CA does not use. The proposed wording allows NFPA 72 to provide a complete set of installation requirements while avoiding adoption problems.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleNFPA 72 Committee Action: Accept in Principle.Replace entire section 11.5.1 through 11.5.12.2 with the following: “11.5.1* One- and Two-Family Dwellings. 11.5.1.1 Smoke Detection. When required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be installed as follows: (1) All sleeping rooms Exception: Smoke alarms shall not be required in sleeping rooms in existing one- and two-family dwellings. (2) Outside of each separate sleeping area, in the immediate vicinity of the sleeping rooms (3) On each level of the dwelling unit, including basements Exception 2: In existing one- and two-family dwellings approved smoke alarms powered by batteries shall be permitted. 11.5.1.2 Heat Detection. Approved, single-and multiple- station heat alarms shall be installed in attached garages. 11.5.1.3 11.5.1.2 Notification. (a) Fire warning equipment for dwelling units shall provide a sound that is audible in all occupiable dwelling areas (b) Where more than one smoke or heat alarm is installed for new construction, they shall be arranged so that the operation of any smoke or heat alarm causes the alarm in all smoke and heat alarms within the dwelling to sound 11.5.2 Lodging or Rooming Houses. 11.5.2.1 Detection. When required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be installed in every sleeping room. Such smoke alarms shall not be required to be interconnected. Exception: Existing battery-powered smoke alarms, rather than house electric-powered smoke alarms, shall be permitted where the facility has demonstrated to the authority having jurisdiction that the testing, maintenance, and battery replacement programs will ensure reliability of power to the smoke alarms. 11.5.2.2 Notification. In new construction in which a fire alarm system is not installed, fire warning equipment for lodging or rooming houses shall provide a sound that is audible in all occupiable areas. 11.5.3 New Apartment Buildings. 11.5.3.1 Detection. When required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be installed as follows: (a) In all sleeping rooms Exception to (a): In buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system. (b) Outside of each separate sleeping area, in the immediate vicinity of the sleeping rooms (c) On each level of the dwelling unit, including basements (d) Approved, single-and multiple-station heat alarms shall be installed in attached garages11.5.3.2 Notification. (a) Fire warning equipment for a dwelling unit shall provide a sound that is audible in all occupiable areas within the dwelling unit (b) Where more than one smoke or heat alarm is installed for new construction, they shall be arranged so that the operation of any smoke or heat alarm causes the alarm in all smoke and heat alarms within the dwelling to sound

405

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA (c)* The alarm shall sound only within the dwelling unit and shall not actuate the building fire alarm system, unless otherwise permitted by the authority having jurisdiction. Remote annunciation shall be permitted 11.5.4 Existing Apartment Buildings. 11.5.4.1 Detection. When required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be installed as follows: (a) Outside of each separate sleeping area, in the immediate vicinity of the sleeping rooms (b) On each level of the dwelling unit, including basements Exception: Single-station smoke alarms without a secondary (standby) power source shall be permitted. 11.5.4.2 Notification. The alarm shall sound only within the dwelling unit and shall not actuate the building fire alarm system, unless otherwise permitted by the authority having jurisdiction. Remote annunciation shall be permitted. 11.5.5 New Hotels and Dormitories. 11.5.5.1 Detection. When required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be installed as follows: (a) In every guest room (b) In every living area and sleeping room within a guest suite11.5.5.2 Notification. (a) The following shall apply to hotel guest rooms and guest suites: (1) Fire warning equipment for hotel guest rooms or guest suites shall provide a sound that is audible throughout the guest room or guest suite (2) Where more than one smoke alarm is installed in new construction for hotel guest rooms or guest suites, they shall be arranged so that the operation of any smoke alarm causes the alarm in all smoke alarms to sound within the guest room or guest suite This requirement shall not apply to configurations that provide equivalent distribution of the alarm signal. (3)* The alarm shall sound only within the guest room or guest suite and shall not actuate the building fire alarm system, unless otherwise permitted by the authority having jurisdiction. Remote annunciation shall be permitted (b) The following shall apply to dormitory sleeping rooms and sleeping room suites: (1) Fire warning equipment for dormitory sleeping rooms or sleeping room suites shall provide a sound that is audible throughout the sleeping room or sleeping room suite. (2) Where more than one smoke alarm is installed in new construction for dormitory sleeping rooms or sleeping room suites, they shall be arranged so that the operation of any smoke alarm causes the alarm in all smoke alarms to sound within the dormitory sleeping room or sleeping room suite. This requirement shall not apply to configurations that provide equivalent distribution of the alarm signal. (3)* The alarm shall sound only within the sleeping room or sleeping room suite and shall not actuate the building fire alarm system, unless otherwise permitted by the authority having jurisdiction. Remote annunciation shall be permitted. 11.5.6 Existing Hotels and Dormitories. 11.5.6.1 Detection. When required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be installed as follows: (a) In every guest room (b) In every living area and sleeping room within a guest suite (c) These alarms shall not be required to be interconnected (d) Smoke alarms without a secondary (standby) power source shall be permitted 11.5.6.2 Notification. The alarm shall sound only within the hotel guest room or guest suite, or within the dormitory sleeping room or sleeping room suites, and shall not actuate the building fire alarm system, unless otherwise permitted by the authority having jurisdiction. Remote annunciation shall be permitted. 11.5.7 New Day-Care Homes. 11.5.7.1 Detection. When required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be installed as follows: (a) In all sleeping rooms (b) Smoke alarms shall be powered by a commercial light and power source (c) Smoke alarms without a secondary (standby) power source shall be permitted 11.5.7.2 Notification. The following notification requirements shall apply: (a) Fire warning equipment shall provide a sound that is audible throughout the day-care home (b) Where more than one smoke alarm is installed, they shall be arranged so that the operation of any smoke alarm causes the alarm in all smoke alarms to sound within the day-care home 11.5.8 Existing Day-Care Homes. 11.5.8.1 Detection. When required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be installed as follows: (a) In all sleeping rooms (b) Smoke alarms shall be powered by a commercial light and power source

Exception to (b): Exception: Existing battery-powered smoke alarms rather than commercial light and powered smoke alarms shall be permitted where, in the opinion of the authority having jurisdiction, the facility has demonstrated testing, maintenance, and battery replacement programs that ensure reliability of power to the smoke alarms. (c) Smoke alarms without a secondary (standby) power source shall be permitted 11.5.8.2 Notification. Fire warning equipment shall provide a sound that is audible throughout the day-care home. 11.5.9. New Residential Board and Care - Small Facility. 11.5.9.1 Detection. 11.5.9.1.1 When required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be installed as follows: (a) On all levels, including basements but excluding crawl spaces and unfinished attics (b) In all living areas Exception to (b): Smoke alarms shall not be required in buildings protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system. (c) Each sleeping room shall be provided with an approved, listed single-station smoke alarm 11.5.10 New Residential Board and Care - Large Facility. 11.5.10.1 Detection. When required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be installed as follows: (a) In each sleeping room (b) Smoke alarms shall be powered by a commercial light and power source 11.5.10.2 Notification. Fire warning equipment shall provide a sound that is audible throughout the sleeping room. 11.5.11 Existing Residential Board and Care - Small Facility. 11.5.11.1 Detection. 11.5.11.1.1 When required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be installed as follows: (a) In all sleeping rooms (b) On all levels, including basements but excluding crawl spaces and unfinished attics (c) Additional smoke alarms shall be installed for living rooms, dens, day rooms, and similar spaces Exception No. 1 to (a), (b) and (c): Buildings protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system, that uses quick-response or residential sprinklers, and protected with approved smoke alarms installed in each sleeping room, that are powered by a commercial light and power source. Exception No. 2 to (a), (b) and (c): Where buildings are protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system, that uses quick-response or residential sprinklers, with existing battery-powered smoke alarms in each sleeping room, and where, in the opinion of the authority having jurisdiction, the facility has demonstrated that testing, maintenance, and a battery replacement program ensure the reliability of power to the smoke alarms. 11.5.11.2 Notification. Fire warning equipment shall provide a sound that is audible throughout the residential board and care facility. 11.5.12 Existing Residential Board and Care - Large Facility. 11.5.12.1 Detection. When required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be installed as follows: (a) In each sleeping room (b) Smoke alarms shall be powered by a commercial light and power source Exception No. 1 to (a) and (b): Existing battery-powered smoke alarms, rather than smoke alarms powered by commercial light and power source, shall be accepted where, in the opinion of the authority having jurisdiction, the facility has demonstrated that testing, maintenance, and battery replacement programs ensure the reliability of power to the smoke alarms. Exception No. 2 to (a) and (b): Facilities having an existing corridor smoke detection system that is connected to the building fire alarm system. 11.5.12.2 Notification. Fire warning equipment shall provide a sound that is audible throughout the sleeping room.”COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agrees with the submitter’s substantiation and rewrote section 11.5.1 through 11.5.12.2 to provide clarity.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-(Log #172)

Committee: SIG-HOU72-361-(8-1.4.1 [2002 Ed., 11.5.1.3, 11.5.2.2, 11.5.3.2, 11.5.5.2(b)(1), 11.5.7.2, 11.5.8.2, 11.5.9.2, 11.5.11.2 and 11.5.12.2]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraphs 11.5.1.3, 11.5.2.2, 11.5.3.2, 11.5.5.2(b)(1), 11.5.7.2, 11.5.8.2, 11.5.9.2, 11.5.11.2, and 11.5.12.2.

406

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPASUBSTANTIATION: A. These requirements conflict with the current requirements of 4-3.2 and 4-3.4, and with the proposed requirements of 11.3.4. B. These requirements allow audibility levels substantially less than have been shown to be necessary to accomplish effective occupant notification.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has not identified a conflict with the requirements.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-


72-362-(8-1.4.1 through 8.1.4.1.5) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-467RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. Requirements mandating the installation of detection devices are outside the scope of NFPA 72; reference Technical Correlating Committee comments on proposals 72-477 and 72-478. B. Protection requirements for particular occupancies are the province of the building and fire codes; not NFPA 72.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has the responsibility to address installation requirements for these occupancies per Section 11.1.2.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-


72-363-(8-1.4.1.4.3 (New)) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-468RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on Proposals 72-422a and 72-463, the Technical Correlating Committee directed the Technical Committee on Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms and Household Fire Alarm Systems to correlate with the Technical Committee on Testing and Maintenance of Fire Alarm Systems to relocate all testing and maintenance requirements to the chapter on testing and maintenance. Proposal 72-468 is referred to the Technical Committee on Testing and Maintenance of Fire Alarm Systems for action as it concerns testing and maintenance requirements. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to related Technical Correlating Committee Comments.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept Reject Proposal 72-468.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee. The committee rejects Proposal 72-468. Other provisions of Chapter 7 require the owner to provide testing and maintenance. Also refer to Committee Action and Statement on Comment 72-35 (Log #70).

NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-(Log #375)

Committee: SIG-TMS72-364-(8-1.4.1.4.4 (New)) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-469RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on Proposals 72-422a and 72-463, the Technical Correlating Committee directed the Technical Committee on Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms and Household Fire Alarm Systems to correlate with the Technical Committee on Testing and Maintenance of Fire Alarm Systems to relocate all testing and maintenance requirements to the chapter on testing and maintenance. Proposal 72-469, is referred to the Technical Committee on Testing and Maintenance of Fire Alarm Systems for action as it concerns testing and maintenance requirements. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee

Projects. COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee and affirms the action of the Technical Committee on Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms and Household Fire Alarm Systems on Proposal 72-469.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-365-(8-3.4 [2002 Ed. 11.10.6.1]) : Reject SUBMITTER: John F. Deubler, Schirmer Engineering Corporation/Rep. American Hotel & Lodging AssociationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463 & 72-473RECOMMENDATION: 72-473 recommended annual single station smoke detector testing for one- and two-family dwellings only. The technical committee in modifying section 11.10.6.1 includes all single station detectors. SUBSTANTIATION: The technical committee has not provided technical justification for the annual testing of single station detectors.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter did not provide a clear recommendation but is apparently concerned about the rationale for annual testing. The committee considers all single- and multiple-station smoke alarm installations to be the same and therefore to require the same testing frequency. Refer to the committee actions on Comments 72-322 (Log #93) and 72-324a (Log #CC 700).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-365a-(8-3.4 [2002 Ed. 11.10.6.1]) : Reject SUBMITTER: John F. Deubler, Schirmer Engineering Corporation/Rep. American Hotel & Lodging AssociationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463 & 72-473RECOMMENDATION: 72-473 recommended annual single station smoke detector testing for one- and two-family dwellings only. The technical committee in modifying section 11.10.6.1 includes all single station detectors. SUBSTANTIATION: The technical committee has not provided technical justification for the annual testing of single station detectors.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter has not provided any specific recommendation for action.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-(Log #376)

Committee: SIG-TMS72-366-(8-3.4.1 & 8.3.4.2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-473RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on Proposals 72-422a and 72-463, the Technical Correlating Committee directed the Technical Committee on Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms and Household Fire Alarm Systems to correlate with the Technical Committee on Testing and Maintenance of Fire Alarm Systems to relocate all testing and maintenance requirements to the chapter on testing and maintenance. Proposal 72-473, is referred to the Technical Committee on Testing and Maintenance of Fire Alarm Systems for action as it concerns testing and maintenance requirements. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to related Technical Correlating Committee Comments.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept Reject Proposal 72-473.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee. The committee rejects Proposal 72-473. Refer to the Committee Action on Comments 72-322 (Log #93) and 72-324a (Log #CC700). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-

407


Committee: SIG-TMS72-367-(8-3.5) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-474RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Committee clarify the Committee Action on this Proposal. The Committee needs to consider that the annex is used for supplementary or explanatory information, not for recommendations. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept Reject Proposal 72-474.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee. The committee rejects the proposal because it is outside the scope of the committee.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-367a-(8-3.5 [2002 Ed. 11.10.3]) : Accept SUBMITTER: Daniel T. Gottuk, Hughes Associates, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463RECOMMENDATION: Revise section 11.10.3 as follows: 11.10.3* Replacement of Smoke Alarms Unless otherwise recommended by the manufacturer, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be replaced when they fail to respond to operability tests, but shall not remain in service longer than 10 years from the date of installation manufacture. SUBSTANTIATION: The revision provides greater consistency with the requirements of 11.11.1 (11). Section 11.11.1 (11) requires that smoke alarms have the manufacture date clearly marked on the unit. This date serves as a benchmark for the 10 year replacement. Use of the installation date will lead to confusion on the appropriate replacement date when the manufacture date is marked on the unit.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to 72-370a (Log #274a).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-


72-368-(8-3.5) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-474RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on Proposals 72-422a and 72-463, the Technical Correlating Committee directed the Technical Committee on Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms and Household Fire Alarm Systems to correlate with the Technical Committee on Testing and Maintenance of Fire Alarm Systems to relocate all testing and maintenance requirements to the chapter on testing and maintenance. Proposal 72-474 is referred to the Technical Committee on Testing and Maintenance of Fire Alarm Systems for action as it concerns testing and maintenance requirements. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to related Technical Correlating Committee Comments.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept Reject Proposal 72-474.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee. The committee rejects the proposal because it is outside the scope of the committee.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-368a-(8-3.5) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-474RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Committee clarify the Committee Action on this Proposal. The Committee needs to consider that the annex is used for supplementary or explanatory information, not for recommendations. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.

COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to 72-370a (Log #274a).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-


72-369-(8-3.5 [2002 Ed. 11.10.3]) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Daniel T. Gottuk, Hughes Associates, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463RECOMMENDATION: Revise section 11.10.3 as follows: 11.10.3* Replacement of Smoke Alarms Unless otherwise recommended by the manufacturer, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be replaced when they fail to respond to operability tests, but shall not remain in service longer than 10 years from the date of installation manufacture. SUBSTANTIATION: The revision provides greater consistency with the requirements of 11.11.1 (11). Section 11.11.1 (11) requires that smoke alarms have the manufacture date clearly marked on the unit. This date serves as a benchmark for the 10 year replacement. Use of the installation date will lead to confusion on the appropriate replacement date when the manufacture date is marked on the unit.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the Committee Actions and Statements on Comments 72-322 (Log #93) and 72-370 (Log #274).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-370-(8-3.5 [2002 Ed. 11.10.3 and A.11.10.3]) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Daniel T. Gottuk, Hughes Associates, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-474RECOMMENDATION: Revise section 11.10.3 as follows: 11.10.3* Replacement of Smoke Alarms. Unless otherwise recommended by the manufacturer, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be replaced when they fail to respond to operability tests, but shall not remain in service longer than 10 years from the date of installation manufacture. Delete section A.11.10.3 A.11.10.3 It is recommended that the installation date be permanently marked on each alarm and documented. SUBSTANTIATION: The revision provides greater consistency with the requirements of 11.11.1 (11). Section 11.11.1 (11) requires that smoke alarms have the manufacture date clearly marked on the unit. This date serves as a benchmark for the 10 year replacement. Use of the installation date will lead to confusion on the appropriate replacement date when the manufacture date is marked on the unit. Section A.11.10.3 should be deleted because recommending the installation date be marked on the unit will lead to confusion on the appropriate replacement date.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the Committee Action on Comment 72-322 (Log #93). The committee restricted the requirement to one- and two-family dwellings because the testing requirements for other occupancies includes more extensive testing and inspection requirements. The committee notes that the issue of manufacturer’s date marking raised in the proposal is a product requirement and is not within the scope of this committee. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-

408

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA(Log #274a)

Committee: SIG-HOU72-370a-(8-3.5 [2002 Ed. 11.10.3 and A.11.10.3]) : TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Committee Action on Comment 72-370a be revised to delete Section 11.10.3 and A.11.10.3 to correlate with the Technical Correlating Committee direction on Comment 72-349 and the action on Comment 72-322.SUBMITTER: Daniel T. Gottuk, Hughes Associates, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-474RECOMMENDATION: Revise section 11.10.3 as follows: 11.10.3* Replacement of Smoke Alarms. Unless otherwise recommended by the manufacturer, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be replaced when they fail to respond to operability tests, but shall not remain in service longer than 10 years from the date of installation manufacture. Delete section A.11.10.3 A.11.10.3 It is recommended that the installation date be permanently marked on each alarm and documented. SUBSTANTIATION: The revision provides greater consistency with the requirements of 11.11.1 (11). Section 11.11.1 (11) requires that smoke alarms have the manufacture date clearly marked on the unit. This date serves as a benchmark for the 10 year replacement. Use of the installation date will lead to confusion on the appropriate replacement date when the manufacture date is marked on the unit. Section A.11.10.3 should be deleted because recommending the installation date be marked on the unit will lead to confusion on the appropriate replacement date.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Note that 11.10.3 has been moved per action taken on Comment 72-349 (Log #108).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-(Log #170)

Committee: SIG-HOU72-371-(8-4.8.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-476RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: A. The proposed text violates NFPA policy with respect to endorsement of specific products or services. Reference the committee statement on Proposal 72-486. B. No technical substantiaion has been provided demonstrating that the specified standards are applicable in all applications, that other standards might not be equally applicable, or that other standards might supercede the requirements of the specified standards. C. Product listing requirements are covered in Chapter 1.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee disagrees with the submitter’s substantiation The text provides reference to possible applicable standards and does not endorse specific products or services.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-


72-372-(8-5) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-477RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Committee reconsider the Committee Action on this Proposal. The Technical Correlating Committee directs that requirements for detection devices is the responsibility of the Life Safety Code and is not within the scope of this Technical Committee. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept Delete Section 11.5.1.2 in the ROP. Renumber remaining sections.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has moved on this Comment at the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee. The Technical Committee has received additional statistical data analysis from NFPA and believes that further evaluation of the data is required. Various state Codes are pending and local codes exist that require heat detectors/alarms in attached garages.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-


72-373-(8-5) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Eddie Phillips, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-477RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: We support the Technical Correlating Committee comment that this is a life safety issue. The suggested location of smoke or heat alarms does not correlate with the data presented. The level of protection is inconsistent with the data.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to Committee Action under Comment 72-372(Log #117).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-


72-374-(8-5.3) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-478RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Committee reconsider the Committee Action on this Proposal. The Technical Correlating Committee directs that requirements for detection devices is the responsibility of the Life Safety Code and is not within the scope of this Technical Committee. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept Delete Section 11.5.3.1(c).COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has moved on this Comment at the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee. The Technical Committee has received additional statistical data analysis from NFPA and believes that further evaluation of the data is required. Various state Codes are pending and local codes exist that require heat detectors/alarms in attached garages.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-


72-374a-(11-1.2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms and Household Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463RECOMMENDATION: Renumber Subsections in 11.1.2 to correct for the misnumbering which omitted (3). SUBSTANTIATION:COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-

409

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA(Log #CC509)

Committee: SIG-HOU72-374b-(11-3.2 , and A.11.3.2 (New) ) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms and Household Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-460RECOMMENDATION: Insert a new section 11.3.2 and A.11.3.2 to read as follows: “11.3.2* The installation of smoke alarms or fire alarm systems or combinations of these shall comply with the requirements of this chapter and shall satisfy the minimum requirements for number and location of smoke alarms or smoke detectors by one of the following arrangements: (a) The required minimum number and location of smoke detection devices shall be satisfied (independently) through the installation of smoke alarms. The installation of additional smoke alarms shall be permitted. The installation of additional system-based smoke detectors including partial or complete duplication of the smoke alarms satisfying the required minimum shall be permitted. (b) The required minimum number and location of smoke detection devices shall be satisfied (independently) through the installation of system smoke detectors. The installation of additional smoke detectors shall be permitted. The installation of additional smoke alarms including partial or complete duplication of the smoke detectors satisfying the required minimum shall be permitted. A.11.3.2 This Code establishes minimum standards for the use of fire warning equipment. The use of additional alarms or detectors over and above the minimum standard is encouraged. The use of additional devices may result in a combination of equipment (for example, a combination of single- and multiple-station alarms or a combination of smoke detectors that are part of a security/fire system and existing multiple-station alarms). Though a combination is allowed, one type of equipment must independently meet the requirements of the code. Compliance with the requirements of the code cannot rely on the combination of the following fire warning equipment: (1) Single-station alarms (existing construction only), (2) Multiple-station alarms, and (3) Household fire alarm system (includes a security/fire system with smoke detectors). It is encouraged that the highest level of protection be used where possible. For example, if multiple-station alarms are added to an occupancy with compliant single-station alarms, the multiple-station alarms should be installed to replace all of the single-station alarms. Similarly, if a monitored household fire alarm system is added to a house that has compliant multiple-station alarms, monitored smoke detectors should be installed to replace the multiple-station alarms or be installed to provide the same required coverage.” Renumber existing sections 11.3.2 through 11.3.6 as required.SUBSTANTIATION: This comment addresses an omission in the proposed 2002 draft and has been expanded to clarify the intent.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-


72-374c-(11-5) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms and Household Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463RECOMMENDATION: In 11.5, change “11.5.6” to “11.5.12”. SUBSTANTIATION: This correctly addresses the applicable sections.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-


72-374d-(11-6.6(1)) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms and Household Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463RECOMMENDATION: Change 11.6.6 (1), change “monthly” to “weekly”. SUBSTANTIATION: This change was made to be consistant with testing requirements.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-


72-375-(A-1-5.1.3) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-487RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Action on this Proposal be reconsidered and that this material be rewritten to comply with the Manual of Style. Explanatory material must be located in the annex. Because NFPA technical committes do not evaluate specific products or services from specific vendors, NFPA documents can not really require the use of specific products or services within the requirements of the code. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.

COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 72-44(Log #71).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-375a-(A-1-5.1.3) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-62aRECOMMENDATION: In section A-1-5.1.3, add a paragraph after the list to read as follows: “The list of examples of qualified personnel is for informational purposes only and does not include all available services or programs. Information concerning programs referenced above has been provided by outside sources and has not been independently verified, endorsed or certified by the NFPA or any of its technical committees.” SUBSTANTIATION:The committee has added additional explanatory information regarding the origin of the examples.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-


72-376-(A-1-5.8.1) : Reject SUBMITTER: William A. Webb, Performance Technology Consulting, Ltd.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-118RECOMMENDATION: Add as follows: Normally closed fire detection devices of listed flow cycling assemblies which are provided as the means to activate the flow cycling valve and which cause an alarm during a single open or a single ground fault condition are permitted and are not intended to be connected to the fire alarm system. SUBSTANTIATION: The suggested wording is consistent with the Committee’s reason for rejecting my proposal. Placing an explanation in the appendix will clarify that the detection system which is part of the flow cycling assembly is not considered part of the fire alarm system. This clarification is needed to eliminate confusion in the field. Some authorities have interpreted the existing standard to imply that these detectors be connected to the fire alarm system.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: These types of devices are not under the purview of NFPA-72 and are not part of the fire alarm system.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-(Log #277)

Committee: SIG-FUN72-377-(A-1-5.8.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: William A. Webb, Performance Technology Consulting, Ltd.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-119RECOMMENDATION: Add as follows: Normally closed fire detection devices of listed flow cycling assemblies which are provided as the means to activate the flow cycling valve and which cause an alarm during a single open or a single ground fault condition are permitted and are not intended to be connected to the fire alarm system.

410

NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPASUBSTANTIATION: The suggested wording is consistent with the Committee’s reason for rejecting my proposal. Placing an explanation in the appendix will clarify that the detection system which is part of the flow cycling assembly is not considered part of the fire alarm system. This clarification is needed to eliminate confusion in the field. Some authorities have interpreted the existing standard to imply that these detectors be connected to the fire alarm system.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on Comment 72-376(Log #276).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman

————————————————-(Log #CC1)

Committee: SIG-PRO72-378-(A-3-9 (New) [2002 ed A.6.8.3(k)]) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-496aRECOMMENDATION: Revise the text of A.6.8.3(k) so that it is shown as being underlined. SUBSTANTIATION: There was an error in processing of the ROP.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28 NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman

————————————————-(Log #305)

Committee: SIG-NAS72-379-(A-4-1 [2002 Ed. A.7.1]) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Robert P. Schifiliti, R.P. Schifiliti Assoc., Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-505aRECOMMENDATION: Revise A.7.1 to read as follows: End of the last sentence reads: “...to provide the performance recommended above, approved alternative approaches or methods or are permitted to be used.” Delete the word “or” so it reads: “...to provide the performance recommended above, approved alternative approaches or methods are permitted to be used.” SUBSTANTIATION: Typo error introduced that was not in the 1999 edition.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle In addition to the recommendation, remove the word “above”COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee removed the word “above” and to conform to the Manual of Style.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-(Log #306)

Committee: SIG-NAS72-380-(A-4-2.5 [2002 Ed. A.7.3.6]) : Accept in Principle TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the word “may” in two places in the committee action on Comment 72-380 be changed to “can” to comply with the NFPA Manual of Style.SUBMITTER: Robert P. Schifiliti, R.P. Schifiliti Assoc., Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-505aRECOMMENDATION: Add new paragraph at the end of A.7.3.6 as follows: It should be noted that monitoring the integrity of the installation conductors and their connection to an appliance does not guarantee that the integrity of the appliance or that it is operational. Appliances may be damaged and become inoperable or a circuit may be overloaded resulting in failure when the appliances are called upon to work. Presently, only testing can establish the integrity of an appliance. SUBSTANTIATION: Correctly differentiates between circuit/connection integrity and appliance integrity. Many people incorrectly assume that the lack of a trouble signal or fault indication on a circuit means that the system is fully operational. The more information and education that we can provide to users of the code, the better.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Add new paragraph at the end of A.7.3.6 as follows: “It should be noted that monitoring the integrity of the installation conductors and their connection to an appliance does not guarantee the integrity of the appliance or that it is operational. Appliances may be damaged and become inoperable or a circuit may be overloaded resulting in failure when the appliances are called upon to work. Presently, only testing can establish the integrity of an appliance.”COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee removed the word “that” from the first sentence of the comment.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


72-381-(A-4-3.1.5 [2002 Ed. A.7.4.1.4]) : Accept SUBMITTER: Robert P. Schifiliti, R.P. Schifiliti Assoc., Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-505aRECOMMENDATION: Revise A.7.4.1.4 as follows: In the second sentence, the lone letter “s” should be the lower case Greek letter (sigma). SUBSTANTIATION: Corrects incorrect text processing.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


72-381a-(A-4-4.4 [2002 Ed. A.7.5.4]) : Accept TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the word “may” in three places in the committee action on Comment 72-381a be changed to “can” to comply with the NFPA Manual of Style.SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Notification Appliances for Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304RECOMMENDATION: Add the following Annex material for Section 7.5.4. A.7.5.4 Where low ceiling heights or other conditions do not permit mounting at a minimum of 2.0 m (80 in.) visible appliances may be mounted at a lower height. However, lowering the mounting height reduces the area of coverage for that strobe. The performance based methods of 7.5.4.3 may be used to determine the area of coverage. Strobe light mounting height should not be lowered below the plane of normal human viewing (approximately 1.5 meters, 5 ft.) except where ceiling heights limit the mounting position. The mounting height requirement of 2.0 - 2.4 m (80 - 96 in.) does not address the possibility of conditions where ceiling heights that are less than 2.0 m (80 in.). The range that is permitted (2.0 - 2.4 m) ensures that strobes are not mounted too high, which would result in lower levels of illumination on surrounding walls and on the floor. The lower limit of the range ensures that a minimum percentage of the surrounding surfaces is illuminated and that the top of the illuminated pattern is at or above the plane of normal human viewing (approximately 1.5 meters, 5 ft.). Wall mounting of strobe lights which are only listed for wall mounting may result in little or no illumination above the plane of the strobe light. In the case of lower ceiling heights and mounting close to the ceiling, the level of illumination on the floor and surrounding walls is not reduced but the walls have a near 100% illuminated or “painted” area because the strobe is close to the ceiling. That is, there is little or no wall surface above the plane of the strobe that is not illuminated when the strobe is mounted close to the ceiling. Thus, when a strobe is mounted lower than the minimum (2.0 m, 80 in.) but still close to the ceiling, the only loss of signal is the smaller pattern produced on the horizontal plane (floor). In the case where the only change is a lower mounting height due to a lower ceiling height, the room size covered by a strobe of a given value should be reduced by twice the difference between the minimum mounting height of 2.0 m (80 in.) and the actual, lower mounting height. For example, if a 15 cd eff. strobe that normally covers a 6.1 m (20 ft) square space is being used and the height of the space is 1.6 m (63 in.) and the strobe is mounted at 1.5 m (59 in.) , the strobe can only cover a 5.1 m (17 ft) square space: 6.0 -2 x (2.0 - 1.5) = 5.1 m (17 ft). The room size reduction assumes that the horizontal pattern on each side of the strobe is reduced by the same amount that the strobe height is reduced. SUBSTANTIATION: The committee did not want to add the text of Comment 72-292 to the body of the Code. The committee chose different language to be placed in the Annex to address the possibility of lower mounting heights.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-(Log #CC307)

Committee: SIG-NAS72-381b-(A-4-4.4.1.4 [2002 Ed. A.7.5.4.1.6]) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Notification Appliances for Fire Alarm Systems, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-505aRECOMMENDATION: Add new Annex A.7.5.4.1.6 to read as follows: “ This Section is also intended to permit ceiling mounted strobes to be suspended below the ceiling provided the strobe height is not below the viewing plane for any ceiling height.” SUBSTANTIATION: To clarify that this section applies for ceiling heights other than 30ft. COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

411


Committee: SIG-NAS72-382-(Table A-4-9) : Hold SUBMITTER: Jack Poole, Poole Consulting Services, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-361RECOMMENDATION: Delete or modify the symbols in the table since they do not match the standard symbols in NFPA 170. SUBSTANTIATION: Be consistent with NFPA 170.COMMITTEE ACTION:HoldCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee recommends holding the comment for further study. The committee is forming a task group to work with the Technical Correlating Committee task group on standard fire alarm system interfaces and to work with the NFPA 170 committee to resolve conflicts and investigate the efficacy of any proposed symbol set. The committee chose to leave the symbol set from Proposal 72-361 in the annex at this time.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-


72-383-(A-6) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-514aRECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the proposed text on this Proposal be revised for organization, clarity and to fully comply with Manual of Style. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept Revise the appendix material associated with Chapter 6 [2002 edition Chapter 9] to comply with the NFPA Manual of Style and to correlate with the new numbering presented in the recommendation of CC4. Revise Figure A-6-16.4.1(b) to show “30 ohms max” rather that “30 ohms.”COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction from the Technical Correlating Committee and has directed that the appendix material be revised to comply with the Manual of Style and to correlate with the reorganization of the chapter as presented in the recommendation of 72-321a (Log #CC4). The revision to Figure A-6-16.4.1(b) is editorial and was a previous oversight.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:10VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 9 NOT RETURNED: 1 Fisher

————————————————-(Log #275)

Committee: SIG-TMS72-384-(A-8 [2002 Ed. A.11.10.3]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Daniel T. Gottuk, Hughes Associates, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-520RECOMMENDATION: Delete section A.11.10.3 A.11.10.3 It is recommended that the installation date be permanently marked on each alarm and documented. SUBSTANTIATION: Section 11.11.1 (11) requires that smoke alarms have the manufacture date clearly marked on the unit. This date serves as the benchmark for the 10 year replacement. Recommending that the installation date be marked on the unit will lead to more confusion on the appropriate replacement date. Therefore, section A.11.10.3 should be deleted.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The proposed recommendation deals with an issue that is outside the committee scope.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour

————————————————-


72-384a-(A-8 [2002 Ed. A.11.10.3]) : Accept SUBMITTER: Daniel T. Gottuk, Hughes Associates, Inc.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-520RECOMMENDATION: Delete section A.11.10.3 A.11.10.3 It is recommended that the installation date be permanently marked on each alarm and documented. SUBSTANTIATION: Section 11.11.1 (11) requires that smoke alarms have the manufacture date clearly marked on the unit. This date serves as the benchmark for the 10 year replacement. Recommending that the installation

date be marked on the unit will lead to more confusion on the appropriate replacement date. Therefore, section A.11.10.3 should be deleted.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to 72- (Log #274a).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave

————————————————-


72-385-(Annex B) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnellCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-523aRECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: Change from Accept to Accept in Principle and include all corrections in the errata I have provided. The errata makes corrections to many Sections and Tables incorrectly printed in the 1999 edition of Appendix B. Proposal 72-523a should match the items in the errata, but it doesn’t. Several of the items in the committee proposal will conflict with the fixes in the errata. The following items need to be corrected in the proposal to align with the errata for consistency: B.3.3.4 states [(Existing Equation B.3.3.4 (13) (no change)] which is wrong. Use the equation from errata item 3. In Figures B.3.3.4.4, B.3.3.8, and B.3.3.8.3.4 make the following changes: Step 1. Add a degree symbol preceding K in the equation. *This is not in the errata. Step 3a. Add a degree symbol preceding K in the equation. Errata items 4 and 5. Step 5. Revise the instructions to read as printed in errata item 6. Step 5. Revise the equation to read as printed in errata item 7. Step 6. Revise the instructions to read as printed in errata item 8. Step 8. Revise the instructions to read as printed in errata item 10. Step 9. Revise the instructions to read as printed in errata item 12. Step 10. Revise the instructions to read as printed in errata item 14 Step 11. Revise the instructions to read as printed in errata item 15. Step 12. Revise the instructions to read as printed in errata item 16. Step 13. Revise the instructions to read as printed in errata item 17. Step 14. Revise the instructions to read as printed in errata item 18. B.3.3.6.6.3 - replace “1 minute” with “5.25 minutes”. See errata item 21. B.3.3.9.2 - replace the ROP text with the text in errata item 22. B.5.2.4 - revise the first equation to the one shown in errata item 23. B.5.2.4 - revise the third equation to the one shown in errata item 25. B.5.2.4 - revise the fourth equation to the one shown in errata item 26. B.5.3.3 - under the text “To solve for d’,” revise the equation to the one shown in errata item 27. Not all of the errata items were missed in the committee proposal. The above list is the items that retain the 1999 text and equations, which need to be changed during the ROC meeting.SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. NOTE: Supporting Material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle The committee accepts the editorial corrections except to delete the references to the “degree symbol” with the K(Kelvin) temperature scale.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The proper notation for temperature in Kelvin excludes the degree symbol. The errata issued by NFPA reflects this convention.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-(Log #112)

Committee: SIG-IDS72-386-(B-2-3.1.2.2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-525RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed in the voting. The Technical Correlating Committee advises that the information recommended by the submitter is clearly within the scope of Appendix B. Reference is made for information to B-2.2.1. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept Accept the recommendation of Proposal 72-525.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the recommendation of the Technical Correlating Committee to reconsider the comments expressed in voting and now accepts Proposal 72-525.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-

412


Committee: SIG-IDS72-387-(B-2-3.1.2.3) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-526RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed in the voting. The Technical Correlating Committee advises that the information recommended by the submitter is clearly within the scope of Appendix B. Reference is made for information to B-2.2.1. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept Accept the recommendation of Proposal 72-526.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the recommdation of the Technical Correlating Committee to reconsider the comments expressed in voting and now accepts Proposal 72-526.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-388-(B-2-3.2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-527RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed in the voting. The Technical Correlating Committee advises that the information recommended by the submitter is clearly within the scope of Appendix B. Reference is made for information to B-2.2.1. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept Revise the recommendation of Proposal 72-527 adding new text to read as follows: There are numerous analysis techniques available to identify fire scenarios. These can typically fall into one of two categories:probabilistic or deterministic. Probabilistic approaches typically relate to the statistical likelihood that ignition will occur, and the resultant outcome if a fire does occur. Probabilistic approaches could use the following as sources of data:— Fire statistics (ignition, first items ignited, etc.)— Past history— Hazard/Failure Analysis— Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA)— Event trees— Fault trees— HAZOP studies— Cause-Consequence Analysis Deterministic approaches use analysis or engineering judgment that is based on chemistry, physics, or correlations based on experimental data. The selection of the design fire scenario and the supporting analysis techniques should be appropriate to the premise or processes. Inappropriate scenario selection or analysis can result in conservative designs that are not economical or designs with unacceptably high risks.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the recommendation of the Technical Correlating Committee to reconsider the comments expressed in voting and now accepts in principal the Proposal 72-527. The revised text is more concise and includes all of the significant points of the submitter. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-


72-389-(B-2-3.3.1) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-530RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed in the voting. The Technical Correlating Committee advises that the information recommended by the submitter is clearly within the scope of Appendix B. Reference is made for information to B-2.2.1. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept Accept the recommendation of Proposal 72-530.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the recommdation of the Technical Correlating Committee to reconsider the comments expressed in voting and now accepts Proposal 72-530.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette

————————————————-

Documents

72-ROC-2002- National Fire Alarm Code®...Robert W. Elliott, FM Global, MA [I] Richard D. Greene, Nampa Fire Department, ID [E] Kevin Greenwood, Fike Corporation, MO [M] Rep. Fire