National Fire Protection Association M E M O R A N D U M. Technical Committee on Testing and Maintenance of Fire Alarm and Signaling Systems

Transcription

1 National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA Phone: Fax: M E M O R A N D U M TO: FROM: Technical Committee on Testing and Maintenance of Fire Alarm and Signaling Systems Kim Shea DATE: March 1, 2011 SUBJECT: NFPA 72 ROP TC FINAL Ballot Results (A2012) The Final Results of the NFPA 72 (SIG-TMS) ROP Letter Ballot are as follows: 29 Members Eligible to Vote 2 (P. Harrod, R. Sheets) 20 Affirmative on All 7 s (J. Brooks, J. Elvove, H. Hurst, D. Kerr, P. Larrimer, J. Moore, J. Scibetta) (on one or more proposals as noted in the attached report) 0 Abstentions (on one or more proposals as noted in the attached report) There are two criteria necessary to pass ballot [(1) affirmative 2 / 3 vote and (2) simple majority]. (1) The number of affirmative votes needed for the proposal/comment to pass is 18. (29 eligible to vote - 2 not returned - 0 abstentions = = 17.82) (2) In all cases, an affirmative vote of at least a simple majority of the total membership eligible to vote is required. This is the calculation for simple majority: [29 eligible 2 = 14.5 = (15)] Reasons for negative votes, etc. from alternate members are not included unless the ballot from the principal member was not received. According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary 2 / 3 required affirmative votes to pass ballot.

2 a Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : x (Log # CP902 ) Carter, S. Enclosed please find the Minutes from the ROP Meeting that was held January 19-21, 2011 in San Diego, CA and updated Minutes of the PRE-ROP meeting that was held in September. Both of these have been posted to your Document Information Page. Hurst, Jr., H. Manufacturer's Instructions typically include product specifications and the agency listings. Consideration should be given to the addition of this documentation as part of the definition Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 22 : 5 Abstain: 0 : xx Deficiency, 10.19, , and Chapter 15 (New) (Log # 436a ) Brooks, J. I disagree with the new definitions regarding critical and non critical deficiencies. What is critical and non critical really depends upon the emergency that may happen. What may seem to be non critical may become a critical item depending on the location and type of emergency that may occur. Elvove, J. I don't support this change, as although all deficiencies must still be corrected, new text will not require an owner to be notified if non-critical deficiencies are observed. In addition, language in mixes terminology as impairments and deficiencies are two terms that should not be used interchangeably. Finally, I believe an NFPA-wide definition for deficiency is needed, rather than having every project or committee develop their own. Note: whether or not this proposal is ultimately accepted, I believe SIG-TMS should be responsible for Impairments whether included in Section or in a new Chapter 15. Hurst, Jr., H. Disagreement with the definitions proposed for Chapter 3. Larrimer, P. Adding "critical deficiency" adds confusion to Chapter 14. The ITM contractor should not have to try to determine if the deficiency is critical prior to notifying the owner in writing. Previously, all deficiencies that were not corrected were provided to the owner in writing, but this change will only require that "critical" deficiencies be communicated. The existing wording was less confusing for both the owner and the ITM contractor. Deficiencies can be substituted for defects and malfunctions, but all references to "critical" and "non-critical" should be removed. The new definitions are not helpful. Moore, J. There is a need for more comprehensive impairment handling procedures for fire detection and alarm systems. While modern fire alarm systems provide constant feedback concerning faults in the system, that is not a substitute for a comprehensive impairment handling program that deals with the means and methods of limiting the number and duration of impairments, temporary measures that may be instituted when there are system impairments, and procedures for planned impairments to a system required to repair, expand, or otherwise modify the system. The Technical Correlating Committee should provide direction concerning where there comprehensive impairment handling procedures are to be incorporated into the Code.

3 Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 26 : 1 Abstain: 0 : Condition, Response, and Signal (Log # 498f ) Hurst, Jr., H. Disagreement with the definitions being proposed Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 26 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 2 Chapter 4 (Log # 117f ) Brooks, J. I disagree with all the new requirements being added for record keeping. The substantiation given does not justify the increase in the amount of documentation that will be required. This proposal imposes a new cost for even the simplest fire alarm system for a small building with little benefit to the owner Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 26 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 2 Chapter 8 (Log # 333f ) Brooks, J. I disagree with all the new requirements being added for record keeping. The substantiation given does not justify the increase in the amount of documentation that will be required for even the simplest fire alarm system Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : xx (New) (Log # 325 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : xx (New) (Log # 326 )

4 Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : (Log # 327 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : (Log # 483 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : (Log # 516 ) 72-86a Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : (Log # CP901 ) Carter, S. The "Inspection Personnel" definition seems vague in that id does not specify what kind of competence the person should have. Consider clarifying by answering the question; "What should the person be trained and experienced in?" Scibetta, J. The wording for Inspection and Testing Personnel should be altered should read: "Inspection personnel shall be performed by personnel who have demonstrated competence through knowledge, training and experience acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction or meet the requirement of " Additionally should read: " Testing personnel shall have knowledge, training and experience of the testing requirements for fire alarm and signaling equipment of this code acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction or meet the requirement of " Currently, the wording does not require inspectors to demonstrate competence through knowledge nor requires testing personnel to demonstrate competence through training. Knowledge, training and experience are important in the fulfillment of both tasks Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : and (Log # 541 )

5 Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : xx (New) (Log # 485 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Chapter 13, 14, and 15 (Log # 482 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Chapter 14 (Log # 25 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 26 : 1 Abstain: 0 : (New) (Log # 543 ) Hurst, Jr., H. The proposed annex information is redundant and runs on and on. Elvove, J. The proposal provides a needed discussion regarding the purpose of inspection, testing and maintenance and its limitations, but it still needs some cleaning up during ROC. First, the annex to should include examples of related installation standards (e.g., ASME A17.1, NFPA 90A, NFPA 92, etc.). Second, the paragraph number pertaining to periodic testing needs to be changed to Third, language in Annex A and A pertaining to (emergency control) functions and their respective interfaces needs to be revised as the terms apply to end to end testing and other interfaced systems to be consistent with actions taken by SIG-PRO to better define these terms (See ROP-43) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : (New) (Log # 87 )

6 Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : (Log # 429 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : (Log # 323 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : and A (New) (Log # 271 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table (Log # 135 ) Carter, S. Several items should also require the "Verify Location and Condition" method for consistency. For item 20 and 21, move the method currently written for 20(a.) and 21(a.). Additional methods should be considered for 20 (b.) (c.) (d.) and 21 (b.) (c.) (d.). Elvove, J. This table has been revised to add visual inspections methods, but methods haven't been provided for every component (i.e., I don't believe defaulting to item 1 is appropriate for all subsequent items). If there is no text at this time, it might be better to use reserved as a place holder. But the table needs to include inspection methods for supervisory signal and waterflow devices, items 11(i) & (j), so to differentiate between an NFPA 72 inspection and an NFPA 25 inspection. I also recommend deleting item 14, interface equipment, since that equipment may not be part of the fire alarm systems (e.g., a fire pump controller or a separate clean agent fire suppression system panel), and thus not be within the scope of a typical NFPA 72 inspection.

7 Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table , Item 15 (Log # 442 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table , Item 15 (Log # 443 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table , Table , and Table (Log # 566a ) Carter, S. Area of Refuge Two-Way Communication Equipment does not appear to be incorporated into as specified by the committee statement. Elvove, J. Ensure that as part of this Accept in Principle, that proposed revisions to Tables and Tables are incorporated into the respective tables that were revised by ROP-180 and ROP-187b. Reeser, M. Second sentence needs to read Systems with 5 or more stations shall be operated... to pick up those systems which only have 5 stations Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : (Log # 46 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : (Log # 47 )

8 Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : (Log # 27 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table and Table (Log # 542 ) Elvove, J. See my comment on ROP 187b (CP-900) a Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 25 : 2 Abstain: 0 : (14)(j) (Log # 583 ) Hurst, Jr., H. All that should be required is for water flow to activate the switch. If a full trip activates the switch then the alarm bypass valve is not required for switch activation. The switch may be activated through different means required within NFPA 25. Larrimer, P. The water flow switch is a switch just like every other switch. The Code should be consistent. It should read "The switch shall be operated and receipt of the signal shall be verified." The verbiage that is to be deleted should be replaced with NFPA 25 material and placed in the annex to inform the tester/owner of the proper way to test the water flow switch to comply with both NFPA 25 and NFPA 72. NFPA 25 Reads (and this should go in the annex): Testing waterflow alarm devices on wet pipe systems shall be accomplished by opening the inspector s test connection. Elvove, J. Text should be revised to simply refer to NFPA 25 for waterflow device testing as NFPA 72 shouldn't dictate how to conduct a test when that test is governed under another standard. In this case, the requirement for testing waterflow devices is covered by NFPA 25. The result of having this requirement is the potential for conducting four water flow tests when only two may be needed, if when testing waterflow devices per NFPA 25, the alarm signal is verified at that time b Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table , Table (Log # CP900 )

9 8 Carter, S. For a few items where initial/reacceptance is required but partial is not required, the label "N/A" should be added for consistency (ex. Item 4 (c.) (d.) (e.) (f.)) For item 12(d)(3) the periodic frequency should be decided to remove the????? label. For item 12(5) it appears a requirement is repeated. I suggest that items 17(c) and 19 separate the initial/reacceptance methods from the partial methods to be consistent with the manner in which this is done in 17(a) and (b). For item 22(c)(1) and 22(c)(2) the method incorrectly references 8(a) and 8(b) respectively. Elvove, J. The proposal provides a much needed overhaul and consolidation of the testing frequency and methods table, but as one would expect with a major revision, it will need some additional cleaning up during ROC. For example, item 4 could use clarifying information that indicates that ECS equipment includes area of refuge two way communication systems (see ROP-183). Under item 10(e), new text from ROP & 189 appears twice. Under item 12(e)(3), no test frequency has been provided. Under item 19, a reference to ASME A17.1 needs to be added since not all installation standards are NFPA standards. In this same section, language needs to be revised and clarified to distinguish between emergency control function operation and activation during acceptance, reacceptance and periodic testing, and also be consistent with terminology developed by SIG-PRO in ROP-43. Hurst, Jr., H. The revised wording of Table (b) is applicable to an onboard DACT. Testing of telephone line seizure and telephone line fault conditions of stand alone DACT will probably not involve the fire alarm control panel. Verification of trouble signals and resetting will occur on the DACT and not at the fire alarm control panel. No test method listed in Table (f). Table uses the term manufacturer in several paragraphs and specifies a specific manufacturer in others. In some paragraphs, it is unclear what specific manufacturer is implied Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item12(e) (Log # 258 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item12(e) (Log # 273 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item 13(b) (Log # 237 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item 14(d)(1) (Log # 251 )

10 Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item 14(d)(3) (Log # 142 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item 14(d)(5) (Log # 252 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item 14(g) (Log # 290 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item 14(g)(1) (Log # 427 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item 14(g)(1) (Log # 253 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item 14(g)(2) (Log # 254 )

11 Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item 14(g)(2) (Log # 275 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 25 : 2 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item 14(g)(2) (Log # 291 ) Elvove, J. This proposal should have been accepted as it correctly attempts to clarify that the testing of CO detectors, as it applies to NFPA 72, is limited to the smoke sensing element, and defers the non-fire CO testing requirements to NFPA 720. Larrimer, P. I believe that the proposal clarifies that a "combination" smoke/co alarm is only required to be tested for smoke by the changes proposed. Unlike the item in 14(h) which is a CO detector for fire, the item in 14(g)(2) is governed by both NFPA 72 for smoke/fire and NFPA 720 for CO and the proposal is trying to clarify this. Some might think that the CO part must be tested under NFPA 72, which is not the intent of the code Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item 14(g)(5) (Log # 255 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item 14(g)(6) (Log # 256 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item 14(h) (Log # 257 )

12 Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 26 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item 15 (Log # 276 ) Scibetta, J. Sound level meters should still be used during periodic testing. While I agree with the proponent's statement that testing audibles during periodic testing should not include ensuring compliance with any particular design, the alarm technician should still ensure that audible signals are clearly heard above the average ambient sound level for a given mode. Such verification assures the building owner that audibles can still be heard, without providing commentary on whether design changes have had an impact. Recommend re-wording of Table Item 15 (a) (2) to read as follows: "Periodic testing shall verify the operation of the notification appliances. Sound pressure levels for signals shall be measured with a sound level meter meeting ANSI S1.4a, Specifications for Sound Level Meters, Type 2 requirements. The sound level meter shall be set in accordance with ANSI S3.41, American National Standard Audible Evacuation Signal, using the time-weighted characteristic F (FAST). Sound pressure levels shall be measured to ensure that audible signals are clearly heard above the average ambient sound level for the given mode(s) outlined in Chapter 18." Additionally, Table (b) (2) should read as follows: "Periodic testing shall verify the operation of the notification appliances. Sound pressure levels for signals shall be measured with a sound level meter meeting ANSI S1.4a, Specifications for Sound Level Meters, Type 2 requirements. The sound level meter shall be set in accordance with ANSI S3.41, American National Standard Audible Evacuation Signal, using the time-weighted characteristic F (FAST). Sound pressure levels shall be measured to ensure that audible signals are clearly heard above the average ambient sound level for the given mode(s) outlined in Chapter 18. Audible information shall be verified to be distinguishable and understandable." Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item 15 (Log # 507 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item 15(i) (Log # 139 ) Larrimer, P. The committee states: "The substantiation asserts that sensitivity testing of system smoke detectors will result in "substantial life safety benefits" but does not provide data to quantify this." This is in fact the reason that sensitivity testing should be eliminated since sensitivity testing has not been justified for system detectors nor for smoke alarms Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item 17(f) (Log # 277 )

13 Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 26 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item 18(b) (Log # 161 ) Hurst, Jr., H. vote for proposal Committee statement referencing proposal Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 26 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item 18(b) (Log # 444 ) Hurst, Jr., H. The proposed wording of this proposal regarding the fire alarm control panel is only applicable to an onboard DACT configuration. The wording does not support testing of a stand alone DACT. The fire alarm control panel will not necessarily be involved in the testing of a stand alone DACT Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 26 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item 18(f) (New) (Log # 438 ) Hurst, Jr., H. No basis was provided for the 5 minute failure verification Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 26 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item 18(f) (New) (Log # 439 ) Hurst, Jr., H. No basis was provided for the 5 minute failure verification Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 26 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item19(g) (New) (Log # 440 )

14 13 Hurst, Jr., H. No basis was provided for the 5 minute failure verification Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item 21(b), Table Item 17(b)(2) and A (Log # 278 ) Hurst, Jr., H. 21(b)(3) Change "be done to" to "meet" Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 26 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item 23 (Log # 131 ) Hurst, Jr., H. Currently only three control relays are required for fire alarm/elevator interface (primary recall, secondary recall, and shunt trip). Other elevator functions do not require alarm activation for testing Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item 23 and A (Log # 274 ) Elvove, J. See my comment on ROP-187b (CP-900) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item 26(2) (Log # 136 )

15 Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : and (Log # 44 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : and (Log # 45 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item 24(h) (Log # 441 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Table Item 1 and 2 (Log # 426 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 24 : 3 Abstain: 0 : (Log # 8 ) Elvove, J. Once again, the contradiction on sensitivity testing requirements for smoke alarms has been correctly pointed out, and again, the committee maintains the double standard. Either remove the requirement for sensitivity testing smoke alarms (since they will eventually be replaced in 10 years anyway), or shoot the moon and require that all smoke alarms, regardless of location be sensitivity tested, if there's technical substantiation for sensitivity testing smoke alarms. Don't base the requirement on whether or not it's enforceable. Kerr, J. If sensitivity testing is not required in multi-family dwellings, detectors should be replaced after 10 years regardless of manufactures instructions. I agree with the submitter that detectors tend to fail more sensitively and thus create a society that ignores alarms and increase false alarms. False alarms cost tax payers millions of dollars each year in responses buy Fire Departments. Fire Fighters and the public are involved in accidents with injuries and loss of life from fire fighters responding to false alarms.

16 15 Larrimer, P. NFPA 72, requires sensitivity testing of smoke alarms one year after installation, the 3rd year after installation, and the 8th year after installation at a minimum if all previous sensitivity tests pass. It seems pretty clear that replacing a relatively cheap device would be less expensive than the sensitivity testing and documentation required by Eliminating sensitivity testing for smoke alarms is a good first step. The committee should state why sensitivity testing is necessary for a smoke alarm as I don't believe that any technical justification for such testing that has ever been provided. See also my comment on (Log #139). The committee states: "The substantiation asserts that sensitivity testing of system smoke detectors will result in "substantial life safety benefits" but does not provide data to quantify this." This is in fact the reason that sensitivity testing should be eliminated since sensitivity testing has not been justified for system detectors nor for smoke alarms b Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 25 : 2 Abstain: 0 : , Table (Log # CP905 ) Elvove, J. See my comment on ROP-220. Larrimer, P. See my negative comment on (Log #8). Sensitivity testing for smoke alarms been never been justified regardless of the location/occupancy in which they are installed. It is not clear that technical justification has ever been provided to the committee to require sensitivity testing for system detectors. If that justification exists, it has yet to be presented to the committee to my knowledge and it doesn't seem to be readily available for review Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : (Log # 43 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : (Log # 141 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 26 : 1 Abstain: 0 : and A (New) (Log # 289 )

17 16 Larrimer, P. There is no valid reason to treat single station alarms differently based on where the single station alarms are located. Requirements should be device specific and not based upon the occupancy in which they are located. The VA (and other jurisdictions) have the exact same devices used in the exact same types of structures (with different occupancy classifications) with the same enforcement personnel, but NFPA 72 Chapter 14 provides different testing criteria without substantiating why the criteria is different. This proposal should have been accepted. I believe that the requirement to replace smoke alarms every 10 years came from the household chapter based on the components of the smoke alarm. See NFPA , parage and the Handbook Page 318. Either the devices should be replaced based on the component degradation argument or the requirement to replace them should be removed for all smoke alarm regardless of the location in which they are installed Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : (Log # 42 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : (Log # 41 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : (New) (Log # 195 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : (New) (Log # 196 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 26 : 1 Abstain: 0 : (Log # 9 )

18 17 Scibetta, J. The committee response to this proposal should have been "Reject" due to the fact that Committee Proposal a was accepted, which calls for the elimination of the list in Proposal called for an addition to that list. Seeing that the committee has proposed to eliminate the list, this proposal should have been rejected. The Committee action on Committee Proposal a meets the intent of this proposal Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : (Log # 88 ) a Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 26 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 2 Figure through Figure (e) (Log # CP904 ) Scibetta, J. This proposal does not fully meet the intent of Proposal since there is no allowance for a Date/Time column on the Supplemental pages of the Inspection and Testing form, namely the Initiating Device Supplemental form and the Notification Appliance Supplemental form. There is ample room for re-sizing to allow for a "Date/Time" column on those forms. It was mentioned that recording date and time for each device/appliance would create a burden in certain cases. However, it should be noted that states that the inspection record shall include "all applicable information. If the date/time of each device inspection/test is deemed as non-applicable information, it does not have to be provided. Furthermore, each form states at the beginning that it shall be permitted to modify a given form as needed by the service provider to provide a more clear record. If a service provider feels that providing the date and time of each device inspection or test makes the record less clear, they can modify the form to eliminate the Date/Time column. By placing a Date/Time column in the Initiating Device and Notification Appliance Supplemental forms, NFPA will be presenting a model format for inspection and testing data that service providers can use as a springboard for their own version of the form if necessary. Additionally, the Initiating Device Supplemental Form is incorrect. The form has the correct heading but below the heading it reads, "It includes an interconnected systems test record." The body of the form shows the table from the Interconnected Systems Supplemental Form. Instead, the body of the form should have the same format as the the Notification Appliance Supplemental form, except with appropriate table headings (please refer to original forms submitted by Task Group). Furthermore, the Notification Appliance Supplemental Form should not have an address column. These two forms do not reflect the work of the Task Group that was assigned to this proposal and that was reviewed and accepted by the committee. Carter, S. It appears that perhaps an editorial mistake has been made in Figure a such that it is the same as Figure c. It appears that Figure a should include a table for recording initiating device test results and Figure c should be titled "Interconnected Systems". Elvove, J. The ballot includes 12 forms when there should only be 6, because many have been duplicated. Hence, so it's not clear what this proposal is supposed to look like (Figures , a through e; Forms for System ITM, Initiating Devices, Notification Appliances, ECS, MNS) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Figure (Log # 421 )

19 a Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Figure (Log # CP903 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Figure and A (Log # 506 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : , (New) and D (Log # 505a ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 A (2) (Log # 539 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 A (Log # 531 ) Elvove, J. Be sure to link this proposed new annex note to the applicable section of Table as revised by ROP-187b (Log CP900) pertaining to interface equipment. This proposed new annex could also be tied directly to Moore, J. The term "monitor module" is not defined in the Code and should be changed to "signaling line circuit interface," which is specifically defined in the Code.

20 Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 A , A , and A (Log # 18 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Figure A (Log # 420 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 D.3.4 (New) (Log # 546 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 D (Log # 508 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 D (Log # 504 ) Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 Annex G (Log # 489 )

21 Eligible To Vote:29 Affirmative: 27 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 2 H (Log # 24c )