Agenda Technical Committee on Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems September 9-11, 2013 Saint Louis, MO

Transcription

1 Agenda Technical Committee on Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems September 9-11, 2013 Saint Louis, MO Item No. Subject Call to Order (8:00 A.M) Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval Meeting Minutes March 2013 [Enclosure] Staff Remarks & Overview of New Process [Staff] Strategy to Improve Correlation [Staff] Assignment of TC Responsibility [Staff] Task Group Reports Review of Public Inputs/Generate First Revisions [Enclosures] Other Business Adjournment

2 National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA Phone: Fax: MEETING MINUTES NFPA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON PROTECTED PREMISES FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS (SIG-PRO) Pre First Draft Meeting, March 18-19, 2013 Crowne Plaza, San Antonio, TX Item No. Subject Call to Order and Welcome (8:00 AM) Chair Merton Bunker called the meeting to order at 8:00 AM Approve Agenda Motion to approve the Agenda, seconded, and approved Approve Meeting Minutes from Richmond, VA, October 2011 Motion to approve the Minutes from , seconded, and approved Guest Speaker Presentations Guests included: Mr. Bob Schifiliti, TCC Chair delivered a presentation to help everyone better understand the changes made to the current edition of the Code. As part of his presentation, Mr. Schifiliti covered the following subjects. o Review of 2013 Code as it stands now. o How is NFPA 72 organized? All circuits and pathways requirements are now under SIG-PRO chapter committee. Condition Signal Response Model. Unwanted alarms.

3 o New Chapter 7 Documentation Relocated documentation text from other chapters to Chapter 7 or put a pointer in Chapter 7 to the documentation in other chapters. Minimum required documentation. o Summary of Changes SIG PRO chapters o Good Code vs. Bad Code Task Group Assignments Chairman Bunker assigned the following task groups to review Chapters 12, 21, and 23 to ensure that all issues are resolved by Public Input. TG on Emergency Plan Terms (Dix [C], Weiss-Ishai, LeBlanc) TG on Wiring, Circuits and Pathways (Capowski [C], Horon, Hayes, VanKeuren, Novak) TG on Zoning & Isolation (Belliveau [C], Willms, Crowley, Shah, Struck, Shudak, Poole [NAS]) TG on Control Functions (Ruchala [C], Doliber, Lickefett, Carter, Weiss-Ishai, Leszczak, Capowski, Burkhart) TG on Editorial Issues / MOS / Definitions (Hammerberg [C], Barrett, Harris) TG on ITM Correlation (Hayes [C], Crowley, Hopple, Willms) ITM not meeting this week TG on ECS Correlation (Ruchala [C], Bisker, Leszczak) TG on FUN Correlation (Novak [C], Kuhta, Humm) TG on Documentation (Horon [C], Olenick, Martorano) Introduction of Members Those present introduced themselves (see attached Attendance Sheet for all attendees, Principles, Alternates, and Guests) NFPA staff remarks & Overview of New Process Lee Richardson (NFPA Staff) provided the review of the new process and dates for the document cycle. Hotel conference room fire alarm system overview and exit requirements for meeting attendees. Upcoming Dates Public Input Closing Date First Draft TC Meeting St. Louis, through (SIG-PRO) First Draft Posted Public Comment Closing Date Second Draft TC Meeting Indianapolis or Omaha, through (SIG-PRO)

4 Second Draft Posted NITMAM Closing Date NITMAM / CAM Posting Date NFPA Annual Meeting Chicago, through Issue of Documents with CAM Committee members have requested / suggested Web-based training and Examples of the process moving forward Strategy to Improve Correlation Lee Richardson (NFPA Staff) provided the review of proposed strategies to improve correlation, as well as an overview of what correlation is Task Group Work Task groups continued work on assignments for presentation to the Committee members Guest Speaker Presentation ( ) Guests included: Mr. Al Ramirez, Underwrites Laboratories, Inc. o Mr. Ramirez reviewed Circuit Integrity Cable (UL) listing issues and answered questions regarding the listing of HFIT cables Task Group Reports Task group reports. Task Group chairs or other representatives present provided overview of issues discussed and proposed actions. TG on Editorial Issues / MOS / Definitions Hammerberg TG on Emergency Plan Terms Weiss-Ishai TG on Wiring, Circuits and Pathways Capowski TG on Zoning & Isolation Belliveau Presentation by SIG ECS SIG PRO Committee members observed presentation by the SIG ECS Committee titled: Ethernet and Networks for Fire Alarm and Emergency Communication Systems.

5 Task Group Reports Continued Task group reports continued. Task Group chairs or other representatives present provided overview of issues discussed and proposed actions. TG on Control Functions Ruchala, Weiss-Ishai, Doliber, Lickefett TG on ECS Correlation Ruchala TG on ITM Correlation ITM not meeting this week TG on FUN Correlation Humm TG on Documentation Horon Other Business No Other Business was documented at this time. No New Business was documented at this time. Train available from St. Louis airport to downtown St. Louis; train transportation is an economical option to taxi transportation Adjournment Chairman Bunker fielded a motion to adjourn, it was so moved, seconded, voted on and approved. The meeting was adjourned. The meeting spanned two (2) days, and Respectfully submitted, Leonard Belliveau, Jr. NFPA 72, SIG-PRO Secretary

6 Attendance list for SIG-PRO prefirst Draft Meeting, San Antonio, TX, March 18-19, 2013: Principal Members in Attendance: Merton W. Bunker, Jr. Leonard Belliveau, Jr. Scott Barrett Anthony Capowski Keith Dix Thomas Hammerberg Scott Harris Mark Hayes Daniel Horon Vic Humm Jebediah Novak John Olenick Kurt Ruchala Lawrence Shudak Donald Struck Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Carl Willms Diane Doliber (voting alternate) US Department of State Hughes Associates, Inc. Commercial Wireless Systems International Tyco/SymplexGrinnell West Metro Fire Department Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc. AFA Protective Systems, Inc. Aon Corporation CADgraphics, Incorporated Vic Humm & Associates International Brotherhood of Electrical Central Station Alarm Association FIREPRO Incorporated Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Siemens Fire Safety San Francisco Fire Department Fire Safety Consultants, Inc. Consultant Alternates in Attendance: Richard Carter (alt. to D. Struck) Andre Lickefett (alt. to S. Martorano) Jefferey VanKeuren (alt. to T. Hammerberg) Siemens Industry, Inc. National Fire Sprinkler Association Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc. Lee Richardson GUEST: Al Ramirez NFPA Staff Liaison UL LLC.

7 NFPA 72 SIG-PRO PIs (Bold PI numbers indicate PI sent to more than one TC) *Revise includes delete PI TC Proposed 2013 Section *Type of Change Related PI Notes 284 PRO revise 177 PRO revise 65, 81, PRO PRO new 365 PRO new 195 PRO revise 266 PRO revise Emulated 514 PRO revise 533 PRO revise 535 PRO revise 196 PRO revise 270 PRO new 542 PRO revise 197 PRO revise Any effect on annex 271 PRO revise PRO revise 641 PRO revise 369 PRO new 295 PRO 12.4 revise Emulated Check emulation See submitted PI pdf 297 PRO 12.4 revise Emulated Check emulation See submitted PI pdf 592 PRO revise 63 PRO (4) new 598 PRO revise 198 PRO revise 272 PRO revise 270

8 199 PRO revise 322 PRO revise 200 PRO revise 277 PRO revise 571 PRO new 201 PRO 12.7 revise 566 PRO 21.1 revise See enclosed figure 278 PRO revise PRO revised 81 PRO revised 180 PRO new PRO revise 194 PRO new 221 PRO new 53 PRO revised 245 PRO revise 194, PRO revise 193, 221, PRO revise 193, 221, 245, PRO revise PRO revise 65, 193, 251, 259, PRO revise 250, 259, PRO revise 259 PRO revise 250, PRO revise 273, PRO revised 263 PRO revise PRO revise 260, 262, 263

9 274 PRO revise PRO revise 568 PRO new Confirm placement 282 PRO revise PRO revise 81, 250, PRO new Question section number and placement 269 PRO new Emulated 379 PRO new 378 PRO revise 373 PRO revise 359 PRO revise 367 PRO revise 368 PRO revise 624 PRO revise 71 PRO revised 72 Emulated 231 PRO revise PRO revise 65, 81, 177, PRO new 279 PRO 23.6 revise PRO revise 584 PRO revise PRO new PRO new PRO new 356 PRO new 286 PRO new 270, PRO new 588 PRO new 584 A PRO new 270, PRO new 288 PRO new PRO new 361 PRO new 10 PRO 23.8 new 11 Held ROC

10 98 PRO A Emulated Modify and relocate to Modify and relocate A to A See submitted PI pdf 215 PRO revise 605 PRO A Revise new 89 PRO revised 381 PRO revise 382 PRO revise 572 PRO revise 576, PRO revise PRO revise PRO revise Emulated 594 PRO revise 178 PRO A revise 81, PRO A.12.3 revise 204 PRO A revise 205 PRO A revise 206 PRO A revise 293 PRO A revise 207 PRO A revise 208 PRO A revise 289 PRO A revise 209 PRO A revise 290 PRO A (1) new 270 See attached figures 291 PRO A (4) new PRO A (5) new 270 See attached figure 298 PRO A new Emulated Check emulation See submitted PI pdf 296 PRO A A new Emulated See submitted PI pdf 202 PRO A.12.7 new 570 PRO A revise See enclosed figure 261 PRO A revise PRO A revise Emulated 262 PRO A revise PRO A revise Emulated 275 PRO A revise 280 PRO A revise

11 374 PRO A revise Error message in change field 375 PRO A revise 28 PRO A.23.6 From TIA 13-4 This TIA deleted A.23.6 of the 2010 edition. Thus, it is no longer in the 2013 edition. The TC needs to affirm the TIA or take other action on the deleted material that is deemed appropriate. 210 PRO A revise 362 PRO A revise 363 PRO A new 364 PRO A new 11 PRO A new 10 Held ROC

12 Public Input No. 284-NFPA [ Section No ] * Emergency Control Functions. Building, fire, and emergency control elements or systems that are initiated by the fire alarm or emergency communications system signaling system and either increase the level of life safety for occupants or control the spread of the harmful effects of fire or other dangerous products. (SIG-PRO) The Technical Committee on Carbon Monoxide Detection (NFPA 720) is submitting this public input to make the definition of Emergency Control Functions more generic and to allow other documents, including NFPA 720, to extract this definition. Submitter Full Name: Art Black Organization: Carmel Fire Protection Submittal Date: Wed May 15 09:08:24 EDT 2013 I, Art Black, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Art Black, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

13 Public Input No. 177-NFPA [ Section No ] * Dedicated Function Fire Alarm Control Unit. A protected premises fire alarm control unit which is intended to provide operation of a specifically of specifically identified emergency control function (s). (SIG-PRO) Problem: There is a conflict between this section and section The dedicated function FA control unit is limited to one emergency control FUNCTION, while the dedicated function FA control system could perform emergency control FUNCTIONS. Solution: The proposed change makes these two sections consistent with each other and allowes for a dedicated function FA control unit to serve more than one emergency control function, such as a sprinkler waterflow and supervisory control unit could also serve as the control unit for Elevator reacll detectors. Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 65-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 81-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 380-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship discuss same issues discuss same issues Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Fire Protection Engineer, P.E. Submittal Date: Sun Apr 28 17:29:14 EDT 2013 I, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

14 Public Input No. 507-NFPA [ New Section after ] SLC-CN. A circuit path network between interconnected control units SLC-RC. A circuit path between control units and remote controllers. Remote controllers shall include annunciators and graphical workstations where alarm reset, silence, and other system functions can be initiated SLC-AD. A circuit path between a control unit SLC termination point and addressable devices connected to the specific SLC controller SLC-RA. A circuit path between control equipment and annunciators, printers, or graphical computer displays that do not have control capability SLC-OP. A circuit path between the protected premises and the supervisory station SLC-GW. A circuit path between the protected premises fire alarm and signaling system and other building management systems SLC-HB A combination of more than one of the SLC designations. This is the work of the SIG-PRO Committee Task Group assigned to review this section and provide updated language for consideration. Members of the Task Group include L. Belliveau, L. Shudak, D. Struck and C. Willms. See Public Input No Due to the variety of possible types of signaling line circuits it is important to be able to differentiate various levels of function, design, and survivability for the individual circuits. For example, for a given fire alarm system design, the functionality and reliability of the circuit path network between interconnected control units (i.e., SLC-CN) could be specified as a Class X while the circuit path between a control unit SLC termination point and addressable devices connected to the specific SLC controller (i.e., SLC-AD) could be specified as a Class A. With the same system, the circuit path between the protected premises and the supervisory station (i.e., SLC-OP) could be specified as a Class C and the circuit path between the protected premises fire alarm and signaling system and other building management systems (i.e., SLC-GW) could specified as a Class E depending on the applicable code requirements for the installation and the designer s fire protection goals for the system. Designers, AHJs, technicians, and electricians need a defined way to differentiate between the circuits and their performance it is in a clear concise and consistent manor. The assignment of SLC designations within the code would meet this objective. Submitter Full Name: Leonard Belliveau Organization: Hughes Associates, Inc. Affilliation: SIG-PRO Committee Secretary and Committee Task Group Chair Submittal Date: Mon May 20 10:16:00 EDT 2013 submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

15 Public Input No. 508-NFPA [ New Section after ] Carbon Monoxide Detectors and Carbon Monoxide Detection Systems Carbon monoxide alarm signal fire alarm system processing and occupant response documentation, such as the building's response plan, evacuation plan, fire safety plan, or similar documentation, shall be provided in accordance with Exception and Reference to documentation for the processing of carbon monoxide alarm signals is made in section and the Exception to This is important becasue the code permits carbon monoxide alarm signals to be supervisory signals. In addition, the code requires processing and occupant response to be in accordance with these documents. This new section adds the requirement to have this documentation submitted and a record of it in Chapter 7, similar to other required documentation. Submitter Full Name: Leonard Belliveau Organization: Hughes Associates, Inc. Affilliation: SIG-PRO Committee Secretary Submittal Date: Mon May 20 10:26:53 EDT 2013 I, Leonard Belliveau, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Leonard Belliveau, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

16 Public Input No. 365-NFPA [ New Section after ] Performance-based design documentation for signaling line circuit zoning shall be in accordance with Section and (SIG-PRO). This is the work of the SIG-PRO Committee Task Group assigned to review this section and provide updated language for consideration. Members of the Task Group include L. Belliveau, L. Shudak, D. Struck and C. Willms. Related to Public Input 357. Submitter Full Name: Leonard Belliveau Organization: Hughes Associates, Inc. Affilliation: SIG-PRO Committee Secretary and Committee Task Group Chair Submittal Date: Fri May 17 16:24:35 EDT 2013 I, Leonard Belliveau, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Leonard Belliveau, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

17 Public Input No. 195-NFPA [ Section No ] The designation of the pathways shall be permitted to also include the performance of the pathway (interconnection) to survivability from attack by fire. This public input has been created by the SIG-PRO Task Group on Wiring Systems. Members are: A.J. Capowski (Chair), Dan Horon, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, Jebediah Novak, Mark Hayes, Vic Humm and Jeff Van Keuren. The purpose of this public input is to eliminate the redundancy between sections and Submitter Full Name: Anthony Capowski Organization: Tyco/SimplexGrinnell Submittal Date: Mon May 06 11:58:54 EDT 2013 I, Anthony Capow ski, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Anthony Capow ski, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

18 Public Input No. 266-NFPA [ Section No ] All non-power-limited and power-limited signaling system circuits entering a building shall be provided with transient protection that extend beyond one building and run outdoors either shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of this Code and NFPA 70, the National Electrical Code, Article 760. (SIG-FUN) Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 72_Van_Keuren_2_Rev_1.pdf Cover Sheet This clarifies the requirement and makes it consistent with NFPA Fire Alarm Circuits Extending Beyond One Building. Power-limited fire alarm circuits that extend beyond one building and run outdoors either shall meet the installation requirements of Parts II, III, and IV of Article 800 or shall meet the installation requirements of Part I of Article 300. Nonpower-limited fire alarm circuits that extend beyond one building and run outdoors shall meet the installation requirements of Part I of Article 300 and the applicable sections of Part I of Article 225. Submitter Full Name: Jeffery Van Keuren Organization: UTC Climate Controls & Security Submittal Date: Mon May 13 13:05:17 EDT 2013 I, Jeffery Van Keuren, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Jeffery Van Keuren, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

19

20 Public Input No. 514-NFPA [ Section No ] All non-power-limited and power-limited signaling system circuits entering a building shall be provided with transient protection. (SIG-FUN) Delete in its entirety. This new requirement added in 2013 is incomplete, unclear and potentially dangerous. The NEC recognizes that not all outside circuits require special transient suppression. There are two reasons for this. The first is that not all circuits that enter or exit a building are prone to lightning or other surge events. Therefore, the NEC qualifies which circuits require transient protection. The second reason that not all circuits that enter or exit a building are required to have transient protection is that adding surge suppression can actually attract lightning if not properly installed and may actually defeat protection that is built into the control units. Listing requirements for control panels already require some measure of transient protection for all circuits. Where additional transient protection is installed on both ends of a circuit which extends between two buildings, unless the grounding is to the same point or at the same potential there will be ground loops that will attract surges and damage systems. Additional transient protection beyond that required by the product listing should only be required in areas that are prone to lightning - as already required by the NEC. In addition, the requirement does not specify whether the transient protection should be of the parallel type or the serial type, which affects whether the circuit will continue to operate upon catastrophic failure of the protection device. For example, in most cases a parallel type should be used for initiating device circuits and signaling line circuits. This will permit those circuits to continue to operate if the device has been destroyed by the first strike. This can be important if that same lightning strike actually started a fire which could be detected if the detection or signaling circuit continued to operate. If a serial type had been used, the circuit might no longer be operational and would fail to detect the fire even though the panel would be protected against a second potential strike. There is a lot more thought, planning and design needed to properly specify transient protection. This 2013 requirement goes beyond the minimum requirements of a code or standard such as NFPA 72. NFPA 72 already requires compliance with the appropriate sections of the NEC. Submitter Full Name: Robert Schifiliti Organization: R. P. Schifiliti Associates, I Submittal Date: Mon May 20 10:52:40 EDT 2013 I, Robert Schifiliti, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Robert Schifiliti, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

21 Public Input No. 533-NFPA [ Section No ] * Class A. A pathway shall be designated as Class A when it performs as follows: (1) It includes a redundant path. (2) Operational capability continues past a single open, and the single open fault shall result in the annunciation of a trouble signal. (3) Conditions that affect the intended operation of the path are annunciated as a trouble signal. (4) Operational capability is maintained during the application of a single ground fault. (5) A single ground condition shall result in the annunciation of a trouble signal. Exception : Requirements in (4) and (5) shall not apply to nonconductive pathways (e.g., wireless or fiber) and requirement (5) shall not apply to galvanically isolated conductors connected to Listed equipment that is compliant with IEEE 802 standards. Equipment that is compliant with IEEE 802 standards is galvanically isolated at each connection to prevent propagation of grounds and shorts into equipment or onto other cables. There is no operational impairment from a single ground on these isolated circuits. The consequence of two grounds is also mitigated by the isolation, as a short is isolated to an individual cable segment, and if that happens, a trouble is annunciated when an IEEE 802 compliant path loses communication. IEEE 802 requirements are not tested by IEEE, and should be Listed to ensure they provide the required isolation. Submitter Full Name: Daniel Horon Organization: Cadgraphics, Incorporated Submittal Date: Mon May 20 12:22:04 EDT 2013 I, Daniel Horon, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Daniel Horon, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

22 Public Input No. 535-NFPA [ Section No ] * Class B. A pathway shall be designated as Class B when it performs as follows: (1) It does is not required to include a redundant path. (2) Operational capability stops is allowed to stop at a single open. (3) Conditions that affect the intended operation of the path are annunciated as a trouble signal. (4) Operational capability is maintained during the application of a single ground fault. (5) A single ground condition shall result in the annunciation of a trouble signal. Exception : Requirements in (4) and (5) shall not apply to nonconductive pathways (e.g., wireless or fiber) and requirement (5) shall not apply to galvanically isolated conductors connected to Listed equipment that is compliant with IEEE 802 standards. Equipment that is compliant with IEEE 802 standards is galvanically isolated at each connection to prevent propagation of grounds and shorts into equipment or onto other cables. There is no operational impairment from a single ground on these isolated circuits. The consequence of two grounds is also mitigated by the isolation, as a short is isolated to an individual cable segment, and if that happens, a trouble is annunciated when an IEEE 802 compliant path loses communication. IEEE 802 requirements are not tested by IEEE, and should be Listed to ensure they provide the required isolation. Submitter Full Name: Daniel Horon Organization: Cadgraphics, Incorporated Submittal Date: Mon May 20 12:29:28 EDT 2013 I, Daniel Horon, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Daniel Horon, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

23 Public Input No. 196-NFPA [ Section No ] * Class C. A pathway shall be designated as Class C when it performs as follows: (1) It includes one or more pathways where operational capability is verified via endto-end communication, but the integrity of individual paths is not monitored. (2) A loss of end-to-end communication is annunciated as a trouble signal. This public input has been created by the SIG-PRO Task Group on Wiring Systems. Members are: A.J. Capowski (Chair), Dan Horon, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, Jebediah Novak, Mark Hayes, Vic Humm and Jeff Van Keuren. The purpose of this public input is to clarify section and make it consistent with the other paragraphs in this section. Submitter Full Name: Anthony Capowski Organization: Tyco/SimplexGrinnell Submittal Date: Mon May 06 12:04:30 EDT 2013 I, Anthony Capow ski, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Anthony Capow ski, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

24 Public Input No. 266-NFPA [ Section No ] All non-power-limited and power-limited signaling system circuits entering a building shall be provided with transient protection that extend beyond one building and run outdoors either shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of this Code and NFPA 70, the National Electrical Code, Article 760. (SIG-FUN) Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 72_Van_Keuren_2_Rev_1.pdf Cover Sheet This clarifies the requirement and makes it consistent with NFPA Fire Alarm Circuits Extending Beyond One Building. Power-limited fire alarm circuits that extend beyond one building and run outdoors either shall meet the installation requirements of Parts II, III, and IV of Article 800 or shall meet the installation requirements of Part I of Article 300. Nonpower-limited fire alarm circuits that extend beyond one building and run outdoors shall meet the installation requirements of Part I of Article 300 and the applicable sections of Part I of Article 225. Submitter Full Name: Jeffery Van Keuren Organization: UTC Climate Controls & Security Submittal Date: Mon May 13 13:05:17 EDT 2013 I, Jeffery Van Keuren, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Jeffery Van Keuren, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

25

26 Public Input No. 514-NFPA [ Section No ] All non-power-limited and power-limited signaling system circuits entering a building shall be provided with transient protection. (SIG-FUN) Delete in its entirety. This new requirement added in 2013 is incomplete, unclear and potentially dangerous. The NEC recognizes that not all outside circuits require special transient suppression. There are two reasons for this. The first is that not all circuits that enter or exit a building are prone to lightning or other surge events. Therefore, the NEC qualifies which circuits require transient protection. The second reason that not all circuits that enter or exit a building are required to have transient protection is that adding surge suppression can actually attract lightning if not properly installed and may actually defeat protection that is built into the control units. Listing requirements for control panels already require some measure of transient protection for all circuits. Where additional transient protection is installed on both ends of a circuit which extends between two buildings, unless the grounding is to the same point or at the same potential there will be ground loops that will attract surges and damage systems. Additional transient protection beyond that required by the product listing should only be required in areas that are prone to lightning - as already required by the NEC. In addition, the requirement does not specify whether the transient protection should be of the parallel type or the serial type, which affects whether the circuit will continue to operate upon catastrophic failure of the protection device. For example, in most cases a parallel type should be used for initiating device circuits and signaling line circuits. This will permit those circuits to continue to operate if the device has been destroyed by the first strike. This can be important if that same lightning strike actually started a fire which could be detected if the detection or signaling circuit continued to operate. If a serial type had been used, the circuit might no longer be operational and would fail to detect the fire even though the panel would be protected against a second potential strike. There is a lot more thought, planning and design needed to properly specify transient protection. This 2013 requirement goes beyond the minimum requirements of a code or standard such as NFPA 72. NFPA 72 already requires compliance with the appropriate sections of the NEC. Submitter Full Name: Robert Schifiliti Organization: R. P. Schifiliti Associates, I Submittal Date: Mon May 20 10:52:40 EDT 2013 I, Robert Schifiliti, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Robert Schifiliti, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

27 Public Input No. 533-NFPA [ Section No ] * Class A. A pathway shall be designated as Class A when it performs as follows: (1) It includes a redundant path. (2) Operational capability continues past a single open, and the single open fault shall result in the annunciation of a trouble signal. (3) Conditions that affect the intended operation of the path are annunciated as a trouble signal. (4) Operational capability is maintained during the application of a single ground fault. (5) A single ground condition shall result in the annunciation of a trouble signal. Exception : Requirements in (4) and (5) shall not apply to nonconductive pathways (e.g., wireless or fiber) and requirement (5) shall not apply to galvanically isolated conductors connected to Listed equipment that is compliant with IEEE 802 standards. Equipment that is compliant with IEEE 802 standards is galvanically isolated at each connection to prevent propagation of grounds and shorts into equipment or onto other cables. There is no operational impairment from a single ground on these isolated circuits. The consequence of two grounds is also mitigated by the isolation, as a short is isolated to an individual cable segment, and if that happens, a trouble is annunciated when an IEEE 802 compliant path loses communication. IEEE 802 requirements are not tested by IEEE, and should be Listed to ensure they provide the required isolation. Submitter Full Name: Daniel Horon Organization: Cadgraphics, Incorporated Submittal Date: Mon May 20 12:22:04 EDT 2013 I, Daniel Horon, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Daniel Horon, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

28 Public Input No. 535-NFPA [ Section No ] * Class B. A pathway shall be designated as Class B when it performs as follows: (1) It does is not required to include a redundant path. (2) Operational capability stops is allowed to stop at a single open. (3) Conditions that affect the intended operation of the path are annunciated as a trouble signal. (4) Operational capability is maintained during the application of a single ground fault. (5) A single ground condition shall result in the annunciation of a trouble signal. Exception : Requirements in (4) and (5) shall not apply to nonconductive pathways (e.g., wireless or fiber) and requirement (5) shall not apply to galvanically isolated conductors connected to Listed equipment that is compliant with IEEE 802 standards. Equipment that is compliant with IEEE 802 standards is galvanically isolated at each connection to prevent propagation of grounds and shorts into equipment or onto other cables. There is no operational impairment from a single ground on these isolated circuits. The consequence of two grounds is also mitigated by the isolation, as a short is isolated to an individual cable segment, and if that happens, a trouble is annunciated when an IEEE 802 compliant path loses communication. IEEE 802 requirements are not tested by IEEE, and should be Listed to ensure they provide the required isolation. Submitter Full Name: Daniel Horon Organization: Cadgraphics, Incorporated Submittal Date: Mon May 20 12:29:28 EDT 2013 I, Daniel Horon, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Daniel Horon, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

29 Public Input No. 196-NFPA [ Section No ] * Class C. A pathway shall be designated as Class C when it performs as follows: (1) It includes one or more pathways where operational capability is verified via endto-end communication, but the integrity of individual paths is not monitored. (2) A loss of end-to-end communication is annunciated as a trouble signal. This public input has been created by the SIG-PRO Task Group on Wiring Systems. Members are: A.J. Capowski (Chair), Dan Horon, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, Jebediah Novak, Mark Hayes, Vic Humm and Jeff Van Keuren. The purpose of this public input is to clarify section and make it consistent with the other paragraphs in this section. Submitter Full Name: Anthony Capowski Organization: Tyco/SimplexGrinnell Submittal Date: Mon May 06 12:04:30 EDT 2013 I, Anthony Capow ski, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Anthony Capow ski, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

30 Public Input No. 270-NFPA [ New Section after ] Class N Class N. A pathway shall be designated as Class N when it performs as follows: (1)* It includes two or more pathways where operational capability of the primary pathway and a redundant pathway to each device shall be verified through end-toend communication. Exception: When only one device is served, only one pathway shall be required. (2) A loss of intended communications between endpoints shall be annunciated as a trouble signal. (3) A single open, ground, short or a combination of faults on one pathway shall not impact any other pathway. (4)* Conditions that affect the operation of the primary pathway(s) and redundant pathway(s) shall be annunciated as a trouble signal when the system s minimal operational requirements cannot be met. (5)* Primary and redundant pathways shall not be permitted to share traffic over the same physical segment. Questions concerning the acceptability of using Ethernet and other non-fire or non-mns networks for fire alarm and signaling systems applications are being raised more and more. Because of these questions and the rapidly changing technology, the Task Group on Networks in FA/ECS was formed by the Correlating Committee to address the risk analysis, design, application, installation, and performance of networks and networking equipment used in fire alarm systems, fire EVACS and mass notification systems. This proposal and Annex material is a result of that effort. Some of the concerns that were raised during related discussions for the 2013 edition included: ground detection, system management, availability, and software control. These issues were discussed and the results are provided in the Task Group s proposal. The task group reviewed the new Shared Pathway Designations added to Chapter 12 in The proposal addresses the type of network acceptable, reliability required, listings required and use of the network to connect devices or appliances or interfaced systems. The proposal is the recommendation by a unanimous vote of the Correlating Committee Task Group members that was comprised of TC members from Chapters 10, 14, 23, 24 and 26 as well as individuals outside of the committees. Wayne Moore A.J. Capowski Joe L. Collins Dan Horon Vic Humm Michael Pallett Charles Pugh Robert Schifiliti Aviv Siegel submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/3

31 Larry Shudak Bob Elliott Paul Crowley Jeff Silveira Jeff Knight Andrew Berezowski Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 271-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 272-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 277-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 278-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 279-NFPA [Section No [Excluding any Sub-Sections]] Public Input No. 285-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Input No. 286-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Input No. 287-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Input No. 288-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Input No. 290-NFPA [New Section after A ] Public Input No. 291-NFPA [New Section after A ] Public Input No. 292-NFPA [New Section after A ] Relationship Class N Network Submission Class N Network Submission Class N Network Submission Class N Network Submission Class N Network Submission Class N Network Submission Class N Network Submission Class N Network Submission Class N Network Submission Class N Network Submission Class N Network Submission Class N Network Submission Submitter Full Name: Michael Pallett Organization: Telecor Inc. Submittal Date: Mon May 13 15:18:20 EDT 2013 I, Michael Pallett, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Michael Pallett, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 2/3

32 Public Input No. 542-NFPA [ Section No ] * Class X. A pathway shall be designated as Class X when it performs as follows: (1) It includes a redundant path. (2) Operational capability continues past a single open, and the single open fault shall result in the annunciation of a trouble signal. (3) Operational capability continues past a single short-circuit, and the single shortcircuit fault shall result in the annunciation of a trouble signal. (4) Operational capability continues past a combination open fault and ground fault. (5) Conditions that affect the intended operation of the path are annunciated as a trouble signal. (6) Operational capability is maintained during the application of a single ground fault. (7) A single ground condition shall result in the annunciation of a trouble signal. Exception : Requirements in (3), (4), (6), and (7) shall not apply to nonconductive pathways (e.g., wireless or fiber) and requirement (7) shall not apply to galvanically isolated conductors connected to Listed equipment that is compliant with IEEE 802 standards.. Equipment that is compliant with IEEE 802 standards is galvanically isolated at each connection to prevent propagation of grounds and shorts into equipment or onto other cables. There is no operational impairment from a single ground on these isolated circuits. The consequence of two grounds is also mitigated by the isolation, as a short is isolated to an individual cable segment, and if that happens, a trouble is annunciated when an IEEE 802 compliant path loses communication. IEEE 802 requirements are not tested by IEEE, and should be Listed to ensure they provide the required isolation. Submitter Full Name: Daniel Horon Organization: Cadgraphics, Incorporated Submittal Date: Mon May 20 12:37:51 EDT 2013 I, Daniel Horon, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Daniel Horon, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

33 Public Input No. 197-NFPA [ Section No ] * Class A and Class X circuits using physical conductors (e.g., metallic, optical fiber) shall be installed such that the outgoing and return conductors, exiting from and returning to the control unit, respectively, are routed separately. The outgoing and return (redundant) circuit conductors shall be permitted in the same cable assembly (i.e., multi-conductor cable), enclosure, or raceway only under the following conditions: (1) For a distance not to exceed 10 ft (3.0 m) where the outgoing and return conductors enter or exit the initiating device, notification appliance, or control unit enclosures (2) For single raceway drops to individual devices or appliances (3) For single raceway drops to multiple devices or appliances installed within a single room not exceeding 1000 ft 2 (93 m 2 ) in area This public input has been created by the SIG-PRO Task Group on Wiring Systems. Members are: A.J. Capowski (Chair), Dan Horon, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, Jebediah Novak, Mark Hayes, Vic Humm and Jeff Van Keuren. The purpose of this public input is to clean up the wording of to more accurately reflect the intent of the section. Submitter Full Name: Anthony Capowski Organization: Tyco/SimplexGrinnell Submittal Date: Mon May 06 12:06:00 EDT 2013 I, Anthony Capow ski, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Anthony Capow ski, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

34 Public Input No. 271-NFPA [ Section No ] * Class A, N and Class X circuits using physical conductors (e.g., metallic, optical fiber) shall be installed such that the primary and redundant, or outgoing and return conductors, exiting from and returning to the control unit, respectively, are routed separately. The outgoing and return (or redundant) circuit conductors shall be permitted in the same cable assembly (i.e., multi-conductor cable), enclosure, or raceway only under the following conditions: (1) For a distance not to exceed 10 ft (3.0 m) where the outgoing and return conductors enter or exit the initiating device, notification appliance, or control unit enclosures (2) For single raceway drops to individual devices or appliances (3) For single raceway drops to multiple devices or appliances installed within a single room not exceeding 1000 ft2 (93 m2) in area Questions concerning the acceptability of using Ethernet and other non-fire or non-mns networks for fire alarm and signaling systems applications are being raised more and more. Because of these questions and the rapidly changing technology, the Task Group on Networks in FA/ECS was formed by the Correlating Committee to address the risk analysis, design, application, installation, and performance of networks and networking equipment used in fire alarm systems, fire EVACS and mass notification systems. This proposal and Annex material is a result of that effort. Some of the concerns that were raised during related discussions for the 2013 edition included: ground detection, system management, availability, and software control. These issues were discussed and the results are provided in the Task Group s proposal. The task group reviewed the new Shared Pathway Designations added to Chapter 12 in The proposal addresses the type of network acceptable, reliability required, listings required and use of the network to connect devices or appliances or interfaced systems. The proposal is the recommendation by a unanimous vote of the Correlating Committee Task Group members that was comprised of TC members from Chapters 10, 14, 23, 24 and 26 as well as individuals outside of the committees. Wayne Moore A.J. Capowski Joe L. Collins Dan Horon Vic Humm Michael Pallett Charles Pugh Robert Schifiliti Aviv Siegel Larry Shudak Bob Elliott Paul Crowley Jeff Silveira Jeff Knight submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

35 Andrew Berezowski Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 270-NFPA [New Section after ] Relationship Class N Network Submission Submitter Full Name: Michael Pallett Organization: Telecor Inc. Submittal Date: Mon May 13 15:25:23 EDT 2013 I, Michael Pallett, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Michael Pallett, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 2/2

36 Public Input No. 366-NFPA [ Section No ] * Class A and Class X circuits using physical conductors (e.g., metallic, optical fiber) shall be installed such that the outgoing and return conductors, exiting from and returning to the control unit, respectively, are routed separately. The outgoing and return (redundant) circuit conductors shall be permitted in the same cable assembly (i.e., multi-conductor cable), enclosure, or raceway only under the following conditions: (1) For a distance not to exceed 10 ft (3.0 m) where the outgoing and return conductors enter or exit the initiating device, notification appliance, or control unit enclosures (2) For single raceway drops to individual devices or appliances (3) For single raceway drops to multiple devices or (excluding devices used to interface to emergency control functions) or appliances installed within a single room not exceeding 1000 ft 2 (93 m 2 ) in area Caution should be exercised when applying the third exception / allowance identified to separation of Class A and X feed and return conductors, i.e., Where looped conduit / raceway systems are provided, single conduit / raceway drops to multiple devices or appliances installed within a single room not exceeding 1,000 ft2 in area are permitted. As written this exception would permit an entire room of emergency control function interface devices controlled by the fire alarm system to be installed on a circuite where the feed and return legs are installed in the same raceway for rooms less than 1,000 ft2 in area. Where a circuit enters a room that contains emergency control function interface devices (i.e., control modules / relays connected to and programmed to shutdown HVAC units and other fire and life safety control functions), loss of both legs of this circuit could disable important fire and life safety control functions that might be essential for prevention of circulation of smoke or some other required operation, such as elevator recall functions. Submitter Full Name: Leonard Belliveau Organization: Hughes Associates, Inc. Affilliation: SIG-PRO Committee Secretary Submittal Date: Fri May 17 16:31:05 EDT 2013 I, Leonard Belliveau, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

37 Public Input No. 641-NFPA [ Section No ] * Class A and Class X circuits using physical conductors (e.g., metallic, optical fiber) shall be installed such that the outgoing and return conductors, exiting from and returning to the control unit, respectively, are routed separately. The outgoing and return (redundant) circuit conductors shall be permitted in the same cable assembly (i.e., multi-conductor cable), enclosure, or raceway only under the following conditions: (1) For a distance not to exceed 10 ft (3.0 m) where the outgoing and return conductors enter or exit the initiating device, notification appliance, or control unit enclosures (2) For single raceway drops to individual devices or appliances (3) For single raceway drops to multiple devices or appliances installed within a single room not exceeding 1000 ft 2 (93 m 2 ) in area Deleting "raceway" in exceptions 2 and 3 makes the exceptions apply also to cables and enclosures. As written those two exceptions only apply to wiring in raceways, not to cables. Submitter Full Name: Robert Schifiliti Organization: R. P. Schifiliti Associates, I Submittal Date: Mon May 20 17:19:08 EDT 2013 I, Robert Schifiliti, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Robert Schifiliti, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

38 Public Input No. 369-NFPA [ New Section after ] Section (3) shall not be permitted to apply to circuits that are connected to emergency control function interface devices. Caution should be exercised when applying the third exception / allowance identified to separation of Class A and X feed and return conductors, i.e., Where looped conduit / raceway systems are provided, single conduit / raceway drops to multiple devices or appliances installed within a single room not exceeding 1,000 ft2 in area are permitted. As written this exception would permit an entire room of emergency control function interface devices controlled by the fire alarm system to be installed on a circuite where the feed and return legs are installed in the same raceway for rooms less than 1,000 ft2 in area. Where a circuit enters a room that contains emergency control function interface devices (i.e., control modules / relays connected to and programmed to shutdown HVAC units and other fire and life safety control functions), loss of both legs of this circuit could disable important fire and life safety control functions that might be essential for prevention of circulation of smoke or some other required operation, such as elevator recall functions. Submitter Full Name: Leonard Belliveau Organization: Hughes Associates, Inc. Affilliation: SIG-PRO Committee Secretary Submittal Date: Fri May 17 16:37:50 EDT 2013 I, Leonard Belliveau, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Leonard Belliveau, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

39 Public Input No. 295-NFPA [ Section No ] 12.4 Pathway Survivability. All pathways shall comply with NFPA 70, National Electrical Code Pathway Survivability Level 0. Level 0 pathways shall not be required to have any provisions for pathway survivability Pathway Survivability Level 1. Pathway survivability Level 1 shall consist of pathways in buildings that are fully protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprink ler Systems, with any interconnecting conductors, cables, or other physical pathways installed in metal raceways. Not used Pathway Survivability Level 2. Pathway survivability Level 2 shall consist of one or more of the following: (1) 2-hour fire-rated circuit integrity (CI) cable (2) 2-hour fire-rated cable system [electrical circuit protective system(s)] (3) 2-hour fire-rated enclosure or protected area 2-hour performance (1) Performance alternatives approved by the authority having jurisdiction (2) Any interconnecting conductors, cables, or other physical pathways installed in metal raceways in buildings that are fully protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems Pathway Survivability Level 3. Pathway survivability Level 3 shall consist of pathways in buildings that are fully protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, and one or more of the following: (1) 2-hour fire-rated circuit integrity (CI) cable (2) 2-hour fire-rated cable system [electrical circuit protective system(s)] (3) 2-hour fire-rated enclosure or protected area 2-hour performance (1) Performance alternatives approved by the authority having jurisdiction Additional Proposed Changes submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

40 File Name Description Approved Pathway_Levels_TG_12.4.pdf Cover Sheet This public input has been created with input from the SIG-PRO Task Group on Wiring Systems. Members are: A.J. Capowski (Chair), Dan Horon, Sagiv- Weiss-Ishai, Jebediah Novak, Mark Hayes, Vic Humm and Jeff Van Keuren. The purpose of this public input is to eliminate the perceived hierarchy that was inadvertently created when the SIG-PRO committee first created pathway survivability levels for the 2010 edition of NFPA 72. As it was never the intent to create a hierarchy, the provisions from pathway survivability levels 1 and 2 are being consolidated.. As such, all options that previously existing in paragraph of the 2007 edition of NFPA 72 are now listed as pathway survivability level 2 with one change. The change now permits any performance alternative as approved by the AHJ, instead of only those that mandate a 2 hour performance. This is because it is possible to construct buildings that are not rated for 2 hours that employ relocation or partial evacuation. Hence, the two proposed new annex notes. Note: Though pathway survivability level 1 has been eliminated, the task group felt it would be better to maintain pathway survivability level 2, rather than consolidate all requirements under pathway survivability level 1. But this is something the correlating committee can weigh in on. Submitter Full Name: Joshua Elvove Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Thu May 16 08:10:22 EDT 2013 I, Joshua Elvove, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Joshua Elvove, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 2/2

41 NFPA Public Input Form NOTE: All Public Input must be received by 5:00 pm EST/EDST on the published Public Input Closing Date. For further information on the standards-making process, please contact the Codes and Standards Administration at or visit For technical assistance, please call NFPA at FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Log #: Date Rec d: Date 5/15/22013 Name Joshua W. Elvove (on behalf of SIG-PRO TG) Tel. No. Company NA j Street Address Please indicate organization represented (if any) 1. (a) Title of NFPA Standard (b) Section/Paragraph 12.4 NA 72, Fire Alarm & Signaling Code NFPA No. & Year Public Input Recommends (check one): new text revised text deleted text 3. Proposed Text of Public Input (include proposed new or revised wording, or identification of wording to be deleted): [Note: Proposed text should be in legislative format; i.e., use underscore to denote wording to be inserted (inserted wording) and strikethrough to denote wording to be deleted (deleted wording).] Revise Section 12.4 as follows 12.4 Pathway Survivability. All pathways shall comply with the NFPA 70, National Electrical Code Pathway Survivability Level 0. Level 0 pathways shall not be required to have any provisions for pathway survivability Not used Pathway Survivability Level 1. Pathway survivability Level 1 shall consist of pathways in buildings that are fully protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, with any interconnecting conductors, cables, or other physical pathways installed in metal raceways Pathway Survivability Level 2. Pathway survivability Level 2 shall consist of one or more of the following: (1) 2-hour fire-rated circuit integrity (CI) cable (2) 2-hour fire-rated cable system [electrical circuit protective system(s)] (3) 2-hour fire-rated enclosure or protected area (4)* 2-hour pperformance alternatives approved by the authority having jurisdiction (5) Any interconnecting conductors, cables, or other physical pathways installed in metal raceways in buildings that are fully protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems Pathway Survivability Level 3. Pathway survivability Level 3 shall consist of in buildings that are fully protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, and one or more of the following: (1) 2-hour fire-rated circuit integrity (CI) cable (2) 2-hour fire-rated cable system [electrical circuit protective system(s)] (3) 2-hour fire-rated enclosure or protected area (4)* 2-hour pperformance alternatives approved by the authority having jurisdiction Add the following new annex material: A (4) A performance based alternative is needed because it is possible to construct a non-sprinklered, Type V(000) building that employs relocation or partial evacuation (e.g., a single story ambulatory health care occupancy) that wouldn t warrant either a 2 hour fire resistance rated enclosure or 2 hour cable A (4) A performance based alternative is needed because it is possible to construct a sprinklered single story Type V(111) or multi-story Type II(111) building that employs relocation or partial evacuation (e.g., a health care occupancy) that wouldn t warrant either a 2 hour fire resistance rated enclosure or 2 hour cable (i.e., a 1 hr enclosure would suffice) 4. : (Note: State the problem that would be resolved by your recommendation; give the specific reason for your Public Input, including copies of tests, research papers, fire experience, etc. If more than 200 words, it may be abstracted for publication.)

42 This public input has been created with input from the SIG-PRO Task Group on Wiring Systems. Members are: A.J. Capowski (Chair), Dan Horon, Sagiv- Weiss-Ishai, Jebediah Novak, Mark Hayes, Vic Humm and Jeff Van Keuren. The purpose of this public input is to eliminate the perceived hierarchy that was inadvertently created when the SIG-PRO committee first created pathway survivability levels for the 2010 edition of NFPA 72. As it was never the intent to create a hierarchy, the provisions from pathway survivability levels 1 and 2 are being consolidated.. As such, all options that previously existing in paragraph of the 2007 edition of NFPA 72 are now listed as pathway survivability level 2 with one change. The change now permits any performance alternative as approved by the AHJ, instead of only those that mandate a 2 hour performance. This is because it is possible to construct buildings that are not rated for 2 hours that employ relocation or partial evacuation. Hence, the two proposed new annex notes. Note: Though pathway survivability level 1 has been eliminated, the task group felt it would be better to maintain pathway survivability level 2, rather than consolidate all requirements under pathway survivability level 1. But this is something the correlating committee can weigh in on. 5. (a) I am the author of the text or other material (such as illustrations, graphs) proposed in the Public Input. (b) Some or all of the text or other material proposed in this Public Input was not authored by me. Its source is as follows: (please identify which material and provide complete information on its source) I hereby grant and assign to the NFPA all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Text and the Statement of Problem and Substantiation). I understand that I acquire no rights in any publication of NFPA in which this Public Input in this or another similar or analogous form is used. Except to the extent that I do not have authority to make an assignment in materials that I have identified in (b) above, I hereby warrant that I am the author of this Public Input and that I have full power and authority to enter into this assignment. Signature (Required) PLEASE USE SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH PUBLIC INPUT To: Secretary, Standards Council National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park Quincy, MA OR Fax to: (617) OR to: proposals_comments@nfpa.org 5/15/2013

43 Public Input No. 297-NFPA [ Section No ] 12.4 Pathway Survivability. All pathways shall comply with NFPA 70, National Electrical Code Pathway Survivability Level 0. Level 0 pathways shall not be required to have any provisions for pathway survivability * Pathway Survivability Level 1. Pathway survivability Level 1 shall consist of pathways in buildings that are fully protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprink ler Systems, with any interconnecting conductors, cables, or other physical pathways installed in metal raceways that utilize equipment, sytems or construction that provide a level of survivability * Pathway Survivability Level 2. Pathway survivability Level 2 shall consist of one or more of the following: (1) 2-hour fire-rated circuit integrity (CI) cable (2) 2-hour fire-rated cable system [electrical circuit protective system(s)] (3) 2-hour fire-rated enclosure or protected area (4) 2-hour performance alternatives approved by the authority having jurisdiction Pathway Survivability Level 3. Pathway survivability Level 3 shall consist of pathways in buildings that are fully protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprink ler Systems, and one or more of the following: (1) 2-hour fire-rated circuit integrity (CI) cable (2) 2-hour fire-rated cable system [electrical circuit protective system(s)] (3) 2-hour fire-rated enclosure or protected area (4) 2-hour performance alternatives approved by the authority having jurisdiction pathways that utilize redundant equipment, systems or construction that provide a level of survivability higher than that of Pathway Survivability Level 1. submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/3

44 Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved Pathway_Levels_je_121.4.pdf Cover Sheet When this committee developed pathway survivability levels, it was not meant to be hierarchical. For proof (or a reminder), see page in the 2009 ROC in response to Comment , log 382. However, because of the numbering scheme used (levels 0 through 4) and an incorrect perception to a number of code users that all the 2 hr options in pathway level 2 are superior to the sprinkler option provided in pathway level 1, some chapters are excluding the latter as an equivalent option. The requirement for pathway levels are borne out of the section pertaining to circuits surviving an attack by fire which was previously contained in Chapter 6 of the 2007 edition of NFPA 72. In that edition, the four current pathway level 2 options and the pathway level 1 sprinkler option were all deemed equivalent. From the 2007 edition of NFPA 72: Where the separation of emergency voice/alarm control equipment locations results in the portions of the system controlled by one location being dependent upon the control equipment in other locations, the circuits between the dependent controls shall be protected against attack by fire using one of the following methods: (1) A 2-hour fire rated circuit integrity (CI) cable (2) A 2-hour fire rated cable system (electrical circuit protective system) (3) Routing the cable through a 2-hour rated enclosure (4) Performance alternatives approved by the authority having jurisdiction (5) Buildings fully protected by an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, and with the interconnecting wiring or cables between the emergency voice/alarm communication control equipment locations installed in metal raceways and in accordance Article 760 of NFPA 70 The code needs to remove the hierarchical implication between pathway levels 1 and 2 once and for all by combining the two pathway levels. But it needs to go further and stop listing specific methods for meeting pathway survivability requirements and instead, use performance based language. If examples are needed, place them in the annex as I ve proposed. Note: this public input is independent of the public input I submitted as part of a SIG-PRO task group. It s different as it proposed to move all examples to the annex. Though I think this public input is viable on its own, I have no issue with the SIG-PRO task group s PI should that be preferred by the TC. Submitter Full Name: Joshua Elvove Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Thu May 16 08:30:40 EDT 2013 I, Joshua Elvove, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Joshua Elvove, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 2/3

45 NFPA Public Input Form NOTE: All Public Input must be received by 5:00 pm EST/EDST on the published Public Input Closing Date. For further information on the standards-making process, please contact the Codes and Standards Administration at or visit For technical assistance, please call NFPA at FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Log #: Date Rec d: Date 5/15/2013 Name Joshua W. Elvove Tel. No. Company NA Street Address Please indicate organization represented (if any) 1. (a) Title of NFPA Standard (b) Section/Paragraph 12.4 NA 72, Fire Alarm & Signaling Code NFPA No. & Year Public Input Recommends (check one): new text revised text deleted text 3. Proposed Text of Public Input (include proposed new or revised wording, or identification of wording to be deleted): [Note: Proposed text should be in legislative format; i.e., use underscore to denote wording to be inserted (inserted wording) and strikethrough to denote wording to be deleted (deleted wording).] Revise Section 12.4 as follows 12.4 Pathway Survivability. All pathways shall comply with the NFPA 70, National Electrical Code Pathway Survivability Level 0. Level 0 pathways shall not be required to have any provisions for pathway survivability * Pathway Survivability Level 1. Pathway survivability Level 1 shall consist of pathways that utilize equipment, systems or construction that provide a level of survivability in buildings that are fully protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, with any interconnecting conductors, cables, or other physical pathways installed in metal raceways * Pathway Survivability Level 2. Pathway survivability Level 2 shall consist of one or more of the following: (1) 2-hour fire-rated circuit integrity (CI) cable (2) 2-hour fire-rated cable system [electrical circuit protective system(s)] (3) 2-hour fire-rated enclosure or protected area (4) 2-hour performance alternatives approved by the authority having jurisdiction Pathway Survivability Level 3. Pathway survivability Level 3 shall consist of pathways that utilize redundant equipment, systems or construction that provide a level of survivability higher than that of Pathway Survivability Level 1. in buildings that are fully protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, and one or more of the following: (1) 2-hour fire-rated circuit integrity (CI) cable (2) 2-hour fire-rated cable system [electrical circuit protective system(s)] (3) 2-hour fire-rated enclosure or protected area (4) 2-hour performance alternatives approved by the authority having jurisdiction Add the following new annex material: A Examples of pathway survivability level 1 could be: (1) 2-hour fire-rated circuit integrity (CI) cable (2) 2-hour fire-rated cable system [electrical circuit protective system(s)] (3) A fire resistance rated enclosure or protected area (4) Performance alternatives approved by the authority having jurisdiction (5) Any interconnecting conductors, cables, or other physical pathways installed in metal raceways in buildings that are fully protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems. In a one hour fire resistance rated building, it isn t necessary to construct a 2 hour fire resistance rated enclosure or develop an alternative approach to meet a 2 hour performance. A Examples of pathway survivability level 2 could be: (1) 2-hour fire-rated circuit integrity (CI) cable or 2-hour fire-rated cable system [electrical circuit protective system(s)] in buildings that are fully protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler

46 Systems. (2) Installing any interconnecting conductors, cables, or other physical pathways installed in metal raceways in a 2-hour fire-rated enclosure and protected area in buildings that are fully protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems. (3) Performance alternatives that provide redundant protection as approved by the authority having jurisdiction 4. : (Note: State the problem that would be resolved by your recommendation; give the specific reason for your Public Input, including copies of tests, research papers, fire experience, etc. If more than 200 words, it may be abstracted for publication.) When this committee developed pathway survivability levels, it was not meant to be hierarchical. For proof (or a reminder), see page in the 2009 ROC in response to Comment , log 382. However, because of the numbering scheme used (levels 0 through 4) and an incorrect perception to a number of code users that all the 2 hr options in pathway level 2 are superior to the sprinkler option provided in pathway level 1, some chapters are excluding the latter as an equivalent option. The requirement for pathway levels are borne out of the section pertaining to circuits surviving an attack by fire which was previously contained in Chapter 6 of the 2007 edition of NFPA 72. In that edition, the four current pathway level 2 options and the pathway level 1 sprinkler option were all deemed equivalent. From the 2007 edition of NFPA 72: Where the separation of emergency voice/alarm control equipment locations results in the portions of the system controlled by one location being dependent upon the control equipment in other locations, the circuits between the dependent controls shall be protected against attack by fire using one of the following methods: (1) A 2-hour fire rated circuit integrity (CI) cable (2) A 2-hour fire rated cable system (electrical circuit protective system) (3) Routing the cable through a 2-hour rated enclosure (4) Performance alternatives approved by the authority having jurisdiction (5) Buildings fully protected by an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, and with the interconnecting wiring or cables between the emergency voice/alarm communication control equipment locations installed in metal raceways and in accordance Article 760 of NFPA 70 The code needs to remove the hierarchical implication between pathway levels 1 and 2 once and for all by combining the two pathway levels. But it needs to go further and stop listing specific methods for meeting pathway survivability requirements and instead, use performance based language. If examples are needed, place them in the annex as I ve proposed. Note: this public input is independent of the public input I submitted as part of a SIG-PRO task group. It s different as it proposed to move all examples to the annex. Though I think this public input is viable on its own, I have no issue with the SIG-PRO task group s PI should that be preferred by the TC. 5. (a) I am the author of the text or other material (such as illustrations, graphs) proposed in the Public Input. (b) Some or all of the text or other material proposed in this Public Input was not authored by me. Its source is as follows: (please identify which material and provide complete information on its source) I hereby grant and assign to the NFPA all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Text and the Statement of Problem and Substantiation). I understand that I acquire no rights in any publication of NFPA in which this Public Input in this or another similar or analogous form is used. Except to the extent that I do not have authority to make an assignment in materials that I have identified in (b) above, I hereby warrant that I am the author of this Public Input and that I have full power and authority to enter into this assignment. Signature (Required) PLEASE USE SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH PUBLIC INPUT To: Secretary, Standards Council National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park Quincy, MA OR Fax to: (617) OR to: proposals_comments@nfpa.org 5/15/2013

47 Public Input No. 592-NFPA [ Section No ] Pathway Survivability Level 2. Pathway survivability Level 2 shall consist of one or more of the following: (1) 2-hour fire-rated circuit integrity (CI) resistive cable (2) 2-hour fire-rated cable system [electrical circuit protective system(s)] (3) 2-hour fire-rated enclosure or protected area (4) 2-hour performance alternatives approved by the authority having jurisdiction There is no longer any listed 2-hour fire-rated cirucit integrity (CI) cable available in the market place. Therefore, this reference to CI is no longer applicable. However, there is a listed 2-hour fire-resistive cable in the market place and therefore should be applicable.. Submitter Full Name: David Frable Organization: US General Services Administration Affilliation: US General Services Administration Submittal Date: Mon May 20 16:22:34 EDT 2013 I, David Frable, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am David Frable, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

48 6/5/13 TerraView Public Input No. 63-NFPA [ Section No ] Pathway Survivability Level 2. Pathway survivability Level 2 shall consist of one or more of the following: (1) 2-hour fire-rated circuit integrity (CI) cable (2) 2-hour fire-rated cable system [electrical circuit protective system(s)] (3) 2-hour fire-rated enclosure or protected area (4) Class A or Class X circuit in a fully protected building by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the installation of Sprink ler systems, where the outgoing and return (redundant) circuit conductors are installed in separate metal raceways. (5) 2-hour performance alternatives approved by the authority having jurisdiction Problem: 1.In existing buildings, were the FA system is being upgraded to meet current codes, and level 2 Survivability is required, it is very difficult (not feasible) to provide 2-HR fire rated enclosures (option 3 in NFPA Sections and ) for horizontal conductors runs, such as from the Fire Command Center to the Riser, or to firefighter s phone jacks located in elevator lobbies, etc. 2.Also when 2-HR rated CI cables or systems are not available or are very costly, options (1) and (2) in NFPA Sections and become not feasible as well 3.The two conditions above, if existing, leave only option (4) in NFPA Sections and as the only option for complying with Level 2 or 3 survivability requirements. However, this is a performance based option with no clear direction for a specific proposal that would be acceptable to the AHJ (A certain proposal may be acceptable to some AHJs but not for others) Proposed Solution: From the reasons above and from real life experience in San Francisco, existing High-Rise buildings having partial evacuation or relocation of occupants upon fire alarm emergencies, which are going through a Fire Alarm system upgrade to current codes, the SFFD (AHJ in SF) allows the proposed proposal/ PI for this section as a feasible solution: Providing Class A or Class X circuits in a fully sprinklered building per NFPA 13, where the outgoing and return conductors are installed in separate metal raceways. This solution provides a redundant path and mechanical protection for the system conductors and is considered as an acceptable alternative to level 2 or 3 survivability levels. Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Fire Protection Engineer, P.E., Code enforcer Submittal Date: Thu Mar 21 21:30:10 EDT 2013 submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

49 Public Input No. 598-NFPA [ Section No ] Pathway Survivability Level 3. Pathway survivability Level 3 shall consist of pathways in buildings that are fully protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprink ler Systems, and one or more of the following: (1) 2-hour fire-rated circuit integrity (CI) resistive cable (2) 2-hour fire-rated cable system [electrical circuit protective system(s)] (3) 2-hour fire-rated enclosure or protected area (4) 2-hour performance alternatives approved by the authority having jurisdiction There is no longer any listed 2-hour fire-rated circuit integrity (CI) cable available in th emarket place. Therefore, the refernece to CI cable is no longer applicable. However, there is a listed 2-hour fireresistive cable avilable in the market place and therefore should be recognized. Submitter Full Name: David Frable Organization: US General Services Administration Affilliation: US General Services Administration Submittal Date: Mon May 20 16:31:37 EDT 2013 I, David Frable, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am David Frable, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

50 Public Input No. 198-NFPA [ Section No ] Unless otherwise permitted or required by through , all means of interconnecting equipment, devices, and appliances and wiring connections shall be monitored for the integrity of the interconnecting conductors or equivalent path so that the occurrence of a single open or a single ground-fault condition in the installation conductors or other signaling channels is automatically indicated within 200 seconds. Exception: where it is permitted in other parts of this code to use Class C, Class D or Class E circuits. This public input has been created by the SIG-PRO Task Group on Wiring Systems. Members are: A.J. Capowski (Chair), Dan Horon, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, Jebediah Novak, Mark Hayes, Vic Humm and Jeff Van Keuren. The purpose of this public input is to clean up the wording of and to reflect that monitoring for integrity is in accordance with the class designations of the circuits. For example, a Class D circuit does not have to monitor for integrity Submitter Full Name: Anthony Capowski Organization: Tyco/SimplexGrinnell Submittal Date: Mon May 06 12:09:26 EDT 2013 I, Anthony Capow ski, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Anthony Capow ski, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

51 Public Input No. 272-NFPA [ Section No ] Unless otherwise permitted or required by through and through , all means of interconnecting equipment, devices, and appliances and wiring connections shall be monitored for the integrity of the interconnecting conductors or equivalent path so that the occurrence of a single open or a single ground-fault condition in the installation conductors or other signaling channels is automatically indicated within 200 seconds. Questions concerning the acceptability of using Ethernet and other non-fire or non-mns networks for fire alarm and signaling systems applications are being raised more and more. Because of these questions and the rapidly changing technology, the Task Group on Networks in FA/ECS was formed by the Correlating Committee to address the risk analysis, design, application, installation, and performance of networks and networking equipment used in fire alarm systems, fire EVACS and mass notification systems. This proposal and Annex material is a result of that effort. Some of the concerns that were raised during related discussions for the 2013 edition included: ground detection, system management, availability, and software control. These issues were discussed and the results are provided in the Task Group s proposal. The task group reviewed the new Shared Pathway Designations added to Chapter 12 in The proposal addresses the type of network acceptable, reliability required, listings required and use of the network to connect devices or appliances or interfaced systems. The proposal is the recommendation by a unanimous vote of the Correlating Committee Task Group members that was comprised of TC members from Chapters 10, 14, 23, 24 and 26 as well as individuals outside of the committees. Wayne Moore A.J. Capowski Joe L. Collins Dan Horon Vic Humm Michael Pallett Charles Pugh Robert Schifiliti Aviv Siegel Larry Shudak Bob Elliott Paul Crowley Jeff Silveira Jeff Knight Andrew Berezowski Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 270-NFPA [New Section after ] Relationship Class N Network Submission submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

52 Submitter Full Name: Michael Pallett Organization: Telecor Inc. Submittal Date: Mon May 13 15:48:53 EDT 2013 I, Michael Pallett, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Michael Pallett, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 2/2

53 Public Input No. 199-NFPA [ Section No ] Unless otherwise permitted or required by through , all means of interconnecting equipment, devices, and appliances and wiring connections shall be monitored for the integrity of the interconnecting conductors or equivalent path so that the restoration to normal of a single open or a single ground-fault condition in the installation conductors or other signaling channels is automatically indicated within 200 seconds. (SIG-FUN) Exception: where it is permitted in other parts of this code to use Class C, Class D, or Class E circuits. This public input has been created by the SIG-PRO Task Group on Wiring Systems. Members are: A.J. Capowski (Chair), Dan Horon, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, Jebediah Novak, Mark Hayes, Vic Humm and Jeff Van Keuren. The purpose of this public input is to clean up the wording of and to reflect that monitoring for integrity is in accordance with the class designations of the circuits. For example, a Class D circuit does not have to monitor for integrity. Submitter Full Name: Anthony Capowski Organization: Tyco/SimplexGrinnell Submittal Date: Mon May 06 12:10:23 EDT 2013 I, Anthony Capow ski, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Anthony Capow ski, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

54 Public Input No. 322-NFPA [ Section No ] Monitoring for integrity shall not be required for central for supervising station circuits serving notification appliances within a central supervising station. There is no reason that this monitoring for integrity requirement should not apply to any form of supervising station location (central, proprietary or remote). Submitter Full Name: Warren Olsen Organization: Fire Safety Consultants, Inc. Affilliation: Illinois Fire Inspectors Association Submittal Date: Thu May 16 16:30:05 EDT 2013 I, Warren Olsen, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Warren Olsen, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

55 Public Input No. 200-NFPA [ Section No ] 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, that comply with the pathway requirements of Chapter 26 and are electrically isolated from the fire alarm system (or circuits) by a transmitter(s), provided that a single ground-fault condition does not affect the required operation of the fire alarm system and/or signaling system. This public input has been created by the SIG-PRO Task Group on Wiring Systems. Members are: A.J. Capowski (Chair), Dan Horon, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, Jebediah Novak, Mark Hayes, Vic Humm and Jeff Van Keuren. The purpose of this public input is to clean up the wording of to clarify meaning and eliminate redundant requirements Submitter Full Name: Anthony Capowski Organization: Tyco/SimplexGrinnell Submittal Date: Mon May 06 12:15:36 EDT 2013 I, Anthony Capow ski, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Anthony Capow ski, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

56 Public Input No. 277-NFPA [ Section No ] Where two or more systems are interconnected, the systems shall be connected using Class A, B, N, or X circuits as described in Section Questions concerning the acceptability of using Ethernet and other non-fire or non-mns networks for fire alarm and signaling systems applications are being raised more and more. Because of these questions and the rapidly changing technology, the Task Group on Networks in FA/ECS was formed by the Correlating Committee to address the risk analysis, design, application, installation, and performance of networks and networking equipment used in fire alarm systems, fire EVACS and mass notification systems. This proposal and Annex material is a result of that effort. Some of the concerns that were raised during related discussions for the 2013 edition included: ground detection, system management, availability, and software control. These issues were discussed and the results are provided in the Task Group s proposal. The task group reviewed the new Shared Pathway Designations added to Chapter 12 in The proposal addresses the type of network acceptable, reliability required, listings required and use of the network to connect devices or appliances or interfaced systems. The proposal is the recommendation by a unanimous vote of the Correlating Committee Task Group members that was comprised of TC members from Chapters 10, 14, 23, 24 and 26 as well as individuals outside of the committees. Wayne Moore A.J. Capowski Joe L. Collins Dan Horon Vic Humm Michael Pallett Charles Pugh Robert Schifiliti Aviv Siegel Larry Shudak Bob Elliott Paul Crowley Jeff Silveira Jeff Knight Andrew Berezowski Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 270-NFPA [New Section after ] Relationship Class N Network Submission Submitter Full Name: Michael Pallett Organization: Telecor Inc. submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

57 Public Input No. 571-NFPA [ New Section after ] Where fire alarm control units are interconnected by an auxiliary alarm, supervisory, or trouble relay that uses clip-on or slide-on type terminals, the circuit shall be configured to provide supervision of the terminals so that their detachment from the auxiliary relay will result in a trouble indication at the master fire alarm control unit. Several fire alarm panel manufacturers utilize "slip-on" or "clip-on" terminal strips for ease of maintenance. When this type terminal strip is used on output contacts for circuits supervised by another panel, the terminal strip can be removed without generating a signal. If the terminal strip is removed to facilitate service, it could be accidentally left off and prevent the transmission of signals. Submitter Full Name: Herbert Hurst Organization: Savannah River Nuclear Solutio Submittal Date: Mon May 20 15:21:37 EDT 2013 I, Herbert Hurst, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Herbert Hurst, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

58 Public Input No. 201-NFPA [ Section No ] 12.7 Nomenclature. To identify the properties of the system(s) interconnections and survivability requirements, the following identification nomenclature shall be used: (1) System(s) interconnections (2) Survivability levels (not required if Level 0) (3) Shared pathway levels (not required if Level 0) This public input has been created by the SIG-PRO Task Group on Wiring Systems. Members are: A.J. Capowski (Chair), Dan Horon, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, Jebediah Novak, Mark Hayes, Vic Humm and Jeff Van Keuren. The purpose of this public input is to clean up the wording of 12.7 and add an Annex paragraph. Submitter Full Name: Anthony Capowski Organization: Tyco/SimplexGrinnell Submittal Date: Mon May 06 12:17:55 EDT 2013 I, Anthony Capow ski, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Anthony Capow ski, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

59 Public Input No. 566-NFPA [ Section No ] 21.1* Application. The provisions of Chapter 21 shall cover the minimum requirements and methods for emergency control function interfaces to fire alarm systems and emergency communications systems in accordance with this chapter. NEW A Fire alarm systems, signaling systems and emergency communications systems are often part of some larger, integrated system serving a building or area. Figure X shows examples of different individual systems that might be part of an integrated system. A fire alarm system might simply monitor the status of one of the other individual systems. A fire alarm system might also provide some form of output to control some other individual system, such as a smoke control system or an elevator controller. In some cases, the fire alarm system shares information and control in two directions with some other individual system. NFPA 72 covers only the fire alarm or signaling system in the circuits powered by it not any part of the other individual systems. See NFPA 4, Standard for Integrated Fire Protection and Life Safety System Testing, for additional information on integrated systems. [INSERT FIGURE FROM FILE Integrated Systems rev 5.png note: TERRA WOULD NOT ALLOW ME TO UPLOAD A FILE. I WILL IT TO STAFF] The requirements of Chapters 7, 10, 17, 18, 23, 24, and 26 shall also apply, unless they are in conflict with this chapter The requirements of Chapter 14 shall apply The requirements of this chapter shall not apply to Chapter 29 unless otherwise noted. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved Integrated_Systems_rev_5.png Integrated Systems rev 5 New Annex text introduces the concepts of individual systems and integrated systems. The proposed figure is a revision of one that has made it through the first draft of NFPA 4. Although NFPA 4 is not yet been approved as a standard it is in cycle one year ahead of NFPA 72. It will be voted on before NFPA 72 technical committees second draft meetings. It is easier to put in the reference now and make adjustments later than it would be to do the opposite. Submitter Full Name: Robert Schifiliti Organization: R. P. Schifiliti Associates, I Submittal Date: Mon May 20 15:02:41 EDT 2013 submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

60

61 Public Input No. 278-NFPA [ Section No ] The installation wiring between the fire alarm control unit and the emergency control function interface device shall be Class A, Class B, Class N, Class D, or Class X in accordance with Chapter 12. Questions concerning the acceptability of using Ethernet and other non-fire or non-mns networks for fire alarm and signaling systems applications are being raised more and more. Because of these questions and the rapidly changing technology, the Task Group on Networks in FA/ECS was formed by the Correlating Committee to address the risk analysis, design, application, installation, and performance of networks and networking equipment used in fire alarm systems, fire EVACS and mass notification systems. This proposal and Annex material is a result of that effort. Some of the concerns that were raised during related discussions for the 2013 edition included: ground detection, system management, availability, and software control. These issues were discussed and the results are provided in the Task Group s proposal. The task group reviewed the new Shared Pathway Designations added to Chapter 12 in The proposal addresses the type of network acceptable, reliability required, listings required and use of the network to connect devices or appliances or interfaced systems. The proposal is the recommendation by a unanimous vote of the Correlating Committee Task Group members that was comprised of TC members from Chapters 10, 14, 23, 24 and 26 as well as individuals outside of the committees. Wayne Moore A.J. Capowski Joe L. Collins Dan Horon Vic Humm Michael Pallett Charles Pugh Robert Schifiliti Aviv Siegel Larry Shudak Bob Elliott Paul Crowley Jeff Silveira Jeff Knight Andrew Berezowski Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 270-NFPA [New Section after ] Relationship Class N Network Submission Submitter Full Name: Michael Pallett Organization: Telecor Inc. submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

62 Public Input No. 65-NFPA [ Section No ] All initiating devices used to initiate fire fighters service recall Fire Alarm Initiating Devices used to initiate Elevator Phase I Emergency Recall, shall be connected to the to required building fire alarm system systems. Problems: 1) Inconsistency of Terms between NFPA 72 and the National Elevator Code ASME A17.1. The terms used in ASME A17.1 are: "Fire Alarm Initiating Devices (FAID)" and "Phase I Emergency Recall" 2) Some buildings are provided with Non-Required/Voluntary Building Fire Alarm systems (Such as low-rise office buildings, assembly buildings, such as churches with less than 300 occupants, etc.) - Currently this section does not differentiate between Required and NON-Required/Voluntary Building Fire Alarm systems 3) This section requires to connect the FAIDs for Phase I emergency recall to the building fire alarm system, but there is no annex material clarifying what to do if the building FA system is not capable of expansion, or is not capable of Connecting to the required Phase I emergency recall FAIDs. Proposed solution: 1) Use the same terms in NFPA 72 related to Elevators Operation, as used in the national elevator code, ASME A17.1 2) Add an annex to section clarifying: If a non-required/voluntary building FA system is provided, the required FAIDs used to initiate Elevator Phase I Emergency Recall shall be permitted to be connected to a separate dedicated function FA Control Unit dedicated for elevator Recall and Supervisory and labeled as such. The reason is - If the FA system is not required in the first place and is provided on a voluntary basis, it could be theoretically allowed to be removed and the Elevator recall devices would be only required to be connected to a dedicated Elevator Recall and supervisory control unit. Therefore there should not be a requirement to connect the recall devices to a nonrequired/voluntary FA system 3) The annex material for this section should clarify that if the existing Required FA system is not capable of supporting the required recall devices, this devices may be connected to another control unit (sub-panel, slave unit, etc.) which will be tied-into the main control unit in a way that there is ONE building FA system. If an additional sub-panel/slave unit, etc. could not be connected to the main panel, this may trigger the upgrade or replacement of the existing building FA control unit. Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 81-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 177-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 250-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 380-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Same concepts used in these secions discuss same issues submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

63 Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Submittal Date: Sun Mar 24 02:14:57 EDT 2013 I, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 2/2

64 Public Input No. 81-NFPA [ Section No ] * In facilities without a building fire alarm system, initiating devices used to initiate fire fighters' service recall or in facilities provided with a non-required building fire alarm system, Fire Alarm Initiating Devices used to initiate Elevator Phase I Emergency Recall shall be connected to a dedicated function fire alarm control unit that shall be designated as elevator recall control and supervisory control unit, permanently identified on the dedicated function fire alarm control unit and on the record drawings. A dedicated function fire alarm control unit shall be permitted to serve more than one dedicated function. Problems: 1. Inconsistency of terms between NFPA 72 and the National Elevator Code ASME A17.1. The Terms used in ASME A17.1 are: "Fire Alarm Initiating Devices (FAID)" and "Phase I Emergency Recall" 2. Some buildings are provided with non-required/voluntary building FA systems (See my PI for the previous section on this issue) 3. In many buildings without a building fire alarm system, there is an existing Sprinkler Waterflow and Supervisory system installed (dedicated FA control unit for sprinkler system monitoring). The requirement to provide a dedicated function FA control unit for each Fire safety function such as Elevator Recall, Sprinkler system monitoring, etc. would potentially create a situation where a few dedicated FA control units may be required to be installed in a facility where a single control unit (existing or new) may be capable of providing all these functions. Proposed solutions: 1. Use the same terms in NFPA 72 related to elevator operation, as used in ASME A Where a facility is provided with a non-required/voluntary building FA system, the FAIDs used to initiate Elevator Phase I Emergency Recall should not be required to be tied-into this system, and should be permitted to be connected to a separate dedicated function FA control unit. The reason is that if the existing non-required FA system is not capable of expansion or is not capable of supporting the new FAIDs and control devices associated with the Elevator Phase I emergency recall, it may trigger a FA system upgrade or replacement in order to comply with the requirement indicated in section ("shall be connected to the building fire alarm system"). However, since if the FA system is a non-required/voluntary building FA system and theoretically may be permitted to be removed, only a dedicated function FA control unit will be required per section , for the Elevator Recall associated devices. (See my PI to the previous section ) 3. In many facilities without a building FA system, there are existing Sprinkler Waterflow and Supervisory systems (or Sprinkler monitoring systems). The intent of my proposed PI to this section is to allow the connection of the new required FAIDs and control devices associated with Elevator Recall, to the existing FA control unit, if it is capable of expansion, or to allow for a single FA control unit (existing or new) to serve more than one dedicated function. This will prevent the requirement of installing multiple dedicated FA control units in a single facility where only a single FA control unit (existing or new) is capable of supporting all these functions. An additional benefit of permitting the submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

65 connection of FAIDs and control devices used for Elevator recall to an existing Sprinkler Waterflow and supervisory control unit, is that in that case, these devices will be supervised by an off-premise supervising station which is required for sprinkler monitoring system, but is not required for a dedicated function Elevator Recall control and supervisory control unit. 4. If the proposal for item 3 above, that a dedicated function FA control unit will be permitted to serve more than one function will be acceptable to the TC, it shall be required to permanently designate and label this control unit on the record drawings and on the control unit itself with all the specific functions it serves, such as: "Sprinkler Waterflow AND Elevator Recall Control and Supervisory Control Unit" Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 65-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 177-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 178-NFPA [Section No. A ] Public Input No. 180-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Input No. 283-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 380-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Same concepts used in these secions discuss same issues better clarify the intent of PI 81 Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, P.E., Fire Protection Engineer Submittal Date: Thu Mar 28 10:49:47 EDT 2013 I, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 2/2

66 Public Input No. 180-NFPA [ New Section after ] TITLE OF NEW CONTENT: New proposed Section : In facilities provided with a non-required building fire alarm system, Fire Alarm Initiating Devices used to initiate Elevator Phase I emergency recall shall be permitted to be connected to a separate dedicated function fire alarm control unit that shall be designated as "elevator recall control and supervisory control unit," permanently identified on the dedicated function fire alarm control unit and on the record drawings. This proposed new section may better clarify my proposed PI for section Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Relationship Public Input No. 81-NFPA [Section No ] better clarify the intent of PI 81 Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Fire Protection Engineer, P.E. Submittal Date: Sun Apr 28 18:20:55 EDT 2013 I, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

67 Public Input No. 193-NFPA [ Section No ] Unless otherwise required by the authority having jurisdiction, only the elevator lobby, elevator top of hoistway, and elevator machine room smoke, elevator control room, and elevator control space smoke detectors, or other automatic fire detection as permitted by , shall be used to recall elevators for fire fighters service. Exception : A waterflow switch shall be permitted to initiate elevator recall upon activation of a sprinkler installed at the bottom of the elevator hoistway (the elevator pit), provided the waterflow switch and pit sprinkler are installed on a separately valved sprinkler line dedicated solely for protecting the elevator pit, and the waterflow switch is provided without time-delay capability perform elevator phase I emergency recall. For fire service access elevators described in section 21.5, activation of any alarm initiating device connected to the building fire alarm system, shall also initiate elevator phase 1 emergency recall. Problem: 1) Inconsistency of terms between NFPA 72 and the elevator code ASME A17.1 2) The exception for having the elevator recall upon waterflow switch activation of a pit sprinkler is not necessary and adds unnecessary equipment and costs. Solution and substantiation: 1) Use the same ASME A17.1 terms in NFPA 72 for consistency - The term in ASME A17.1 for automatic elevator recall is "elevator phase 1 emergency recall" 2) The requirements for elevator recall are originated in the elevator code ASME A17.1. Currently the elevator code requires to provide phase 1 emergency recall if sprinklers are installed in the hoistway. (The elevator pit is considered a part of the elevator hoistway per ASME A17.1 definition of an elevator hoistway). Since sprinklers may be installed at the top of the hoistway OR in the elevator pit (bottom of the hoistway) it is required by the elevator code to provide the phase 1 emergency recall function before or upon the elevator hoistway sprinkler activate. From this requirement it is clear that if sprinklers are not installed inside the elevator hoistway, the phase 1 emergency recall function will not be required. Since NFPA 13 is the governing code for sprinkler installation - it will determine when and where sprinklers will be required to be installed inside the elevator hoistway. Per NFPA Section the only requirements for sprinklers to be installed inside elevator hoistways are at the top of freight elevator hoistways (traction or hydraulic type) and at the elevator pit of hydraulic elevators (since hydraulic elevators use combustible fluids - Class IIIB fluids per NFPA 30). There is no issue with the required sprinkler at the top of the hoistway of a freight elevator (smoke and heat detectors must be installed at the top of the hoistway and shunt trip function will be required). However, the issue with the pit sprinklers required for hydraulic elevators only (within 24 inches of the elevator pit) is that there is no known cases or data of hydraulic fluids fire in elevator pits (this is based on a research I have conducted with both the elevator and sprinkler industry - No one could provided me with a single data of single case of hydraulic fluid fire in an elevator pit). Based on this research, I have submitted a public input to the NFPA 13 TC asking to remove the requirement for pit sprinklers from NFPA 13. submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

68 To complete the cycle, and in order not to add unnecessary protection, equipment, costs to an elevator system, to protect against a risk that does not exist, I suggest to remove the specific requirement/exception from NFPA 72 for sprinkler waterflow switch activation of elevator phase 1 emergency recall. Also, if this would still be required for some reason, this current NFPA 72 section still allows the AHJ to require Phase 1 emergency recall upon other devices which include a sprinkler waterflow switch. 3) Be consistent with IBC requirements for phase 1 emergency recall for fire service access elevators - This is from IBC 2012: Phase I Emergency recall operation. Actuation of any building fire alarm-initiating device shall initiate Phase I emergency recall operation on all fire service access elevators in accordance with the requirements in ASME A17.1/CSA B44. All other elevators shall remain in normal service unless Phase I emergency recall operation is manually initiated by a separate, required three-position, key-operated "Fire Recall switch or automatically initiated by the associated elevator lobby, hoistway or elevator machine room smoke detectors. In addition, if the building also contains occupant evacuation elevators in accordance with Section 3008, an independent, three-position, key-operated "Fire Recall switch conforming to the applicable requirements in ASME A17.1/CSA B44 shall be provided at the designated level for each fire service access elevator. Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 221-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Input No. 247-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 248-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 249-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 250-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship FAIDs in elevator hoistway Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Fire Protection Engineer, P.E. Submittal Date: Sat May 04 19:27:35 EDT 2013 I, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 2/2

69 Public Input No. 194-NFPA [ New Section after ] Elevator Recall for firefighters' service Fire Alarm Intitiating Device (s) used to initiate elevator phase 1 emergency reacll, shall be installed inside the elevator's hoistway where the hoisting machine/ motor is located inside the elevator's hoistway. Problem: Currently, NFPA 72 does not permit the installation of smoke detectors at top of unsprinklered elevator hoistway. Since many machine-room-less elevators are currently being installed, there is an introduction of combustible materials/components inside the elevator hoistway. These materials/ components may be the suspension means such as steel coated belts, etc. or the hoisting machine itself (elevator motor ). The potential risk is where these combustible materials/components generate smoke inside the hoistway, this smoke may harm building occupants inside the elevator car. Solution and substantiation: NFPA addresses this issue regarding MRLs having combustible or limited combustible suspension means (steel coated belts) - There is an exception in NFPA Section for the required sprinkler at the top of the elevator hoistway which requires a smoke detector at the top of the hoistway in lieu of the sprinkler to generate elevator phase 1 emergency recall. However, some (about 50% of the MRLs do not use combustible or limited-combustible suspension means and instead they are using steel ropes which are not considered as combustible materials. For those MRLs, NFPA 13 does not require sprinkler protection at the top of the hoistway (unless if they are Freight elevators) and therefore a smoke detector is not permitted to be installed at the top of these MRLs hoistway based on NFPA 72 for unsprinklered hoistway. However, since the hoisting machine or Elevator motor of these MRLs could be considered as a combustible component which potentially could generate smoke inside the hoistway (upon electrical short, overheating, etc.) this PI suggests the installation of fire alarm initiating device (FAID) at the top of the hoistway in a close proximity to the hoisting machine to generate an early elevator phase 1 emergency recall, and provide extra safety for occupants using the elevator under these emergency conditions. Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 245-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Require FAID inside elevator hoistway Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Fire protection engineer, P.E. Submittal Date: Sat May 04 20:15:40 EDT 2013 submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

70 Public Input No. 221-NFPA [ New Section after ] Fire alarm initiating device (s) inside elevator's hoistway Fire alarm initiating device (s) required to be installed inside elevator's hoistway by other sections of this code or by other codes and standards, shall be required to be accessible for repair, service, testing and maintenance from outside the elevator's hoistway. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved Service_Outside_hoistway.pdf Elevator_Hoistway_FAID.pdf California Elevator Safety Order - Title 8 Requirement for accessing FAID(s) from outside the hoistway This PDF file shows a UL listed access door for FAIDs in elevator hoistway and an installation detail for this door and associated FAIDs Problem: Fire Alarm Initiating Devices (FAIDs) such as smoke detectors (for recall) and heat detectors (for shunt-trip) are required to be installed inside elevator hoistways, where sprinklers are installed in those hoistways (per NFPA 13 and per ASME A17.1). The requirments for the hoistways' FAIDs come from NFPA 72, from the elevator code - ASME A17.1, and from other building and fire codes and standards. However, currently, there is no indication or requirment in the elevator code ASME A17.1 or in other building and fire codes that these FAIDs must be accessible (for service, repair, testing, etc.) from outside the hoistway. Since there is no such requirement, FAIDs are currently being installed inside elevator hoistways and the only way to access them is to be inside the elevator hoistway (riding on top of the elvator car, work in the elevator pit, etc.). The Elevator hoistway is an extremely dangerous inviroment which requires only certified and well trained elevator mechanics to be in it. Fire Alarm system installers and service personnel should not be required to perform any work inside elevator hoistways on FAIDs. It is extremely dangerous to be inside an elevator hoistway. Also, a great deal of coordination with elevator personnel (and cost) is required anytime FAIDs are installed or serviced inside elevator hoistways. Certified elevator mechanics are required to be present together with the FA installing or service personnel to operate the elevator, take the elevator out of service, etc. any time hoistways' FAIDs are being installed, serviced or repaired. Solution and Substantiation: In California, the Elevator Safety Order has a requirement that all Hoistays' FAIDs must be accessible from outside the hoistway due to the above reasons. (See attached PDF file with CA Elevator Safety Order section) However, this requirment only applies in the State of California but it is not a national code requirment. Since NFPA 72 is a national FA code which lists the installation requirments for FAIDs - I suggest to include the California requirment in NFPA 72 and make it a national requirment for elevator hoistways FAIDs. This will significatlly reduce the life-safety risk for FA installers and service personnel, and cost to owners due to the great deal of required coordination An Annex material may explain how to install these FAIDs (See attached PDF file)- Typically they are installed on a UL listed access door which is 90 minutes fire rated (since most elevator hoistways submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

71 are required to have 2-hour fire rating). The FAID is installed on the access door itself and when there is a need for repair, testing or service, this access door is opened from outside the hoistway by a FA service personnel without the need to be inside the hoistway and without the need of coordination with a certified elevator mechanic. Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 193-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 247-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 248-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship FAIDs in elevator hoistway Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Fire Protection Engineer, P.E. Submittal Date: Tue May 07 18:52:12 EDT 2013 I, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 2/2

72 CHAPTER 4. DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL SAFETY Subchapter 6. Elevator Safety Orders GROUP 4. CONVEYANCE INSTALLATIONS FOR WHICH THE INSTALLATION CONTRACT WAS SIGNED ON OR AFTER MAY 1, 2008 ARTICLE 41. CONVEYANCES COVERED BY ASME A Return to index New query General Requirements. (a) Conveyances shall comply with the following general requirements: (1) Hoistway door unlocking devices described in ASME A , section , are prohibited on all conveyances; (2) Emergency doors in blind hoistways as described in ASME A , section , and access panels as described in ASME A , section , are prohibited; (3) All electrical equipment and wiring shall comply with CCR, Title 24, Part 3, California Electrical Code in effect at the time of installation; (A) The light switch shall be located inside the machine room on the strike side of the machine room door; (B) The light switch shall be located adjacent to the elevator pit access door within 18 inches to 36 inches above the access landing when access to the elevator pit is through the lowest landing door; (C) Fire detecting systems for hoistways and the necessary wiring may be installed in hoistways, provided that the system is arranged to be serviced and repaired from outside the hoistway;

73 1.

74 6/5/13 TerraView Public Input No. 53-NFPA [ Section No ] Smoke detectors shall not be installed in unsprinklered elevator hoistways unless they are installed to activate the elevator hoistway smoke relief equipment or to protect elevator control spaces or elevator machinery spaces as required in (2) and (2). For correlation with the requirements in A17.1. Because of new technology, elevator machinery and elevator control spaces can now be located in elevator hoistways and as such, smoke detectors, or other automatic fire detection as permitted by would be required in the hoistway. Submitter Full Name: Bruce Fraser Organization: Fraser Fire Protection Service Submittal Date: Thu Mar 07 10:38:32 EST 2013 I, Bruce Fraser, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Bruce Fraser, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

75 Public Input No. 245-NFPA [ Section No ] Smoke detectors shall not be installed in unsprinklered elevator hoistways unless they are installed to activate the elevator hoistway smoke relief equipment, or unless they are installed to initiate Elevator Phase I emergency recall where the elevator hoisting machine/motor is located inside the elevator hoistway. Problem: Where sprinkler are omitted or exempt from top of elevator hoistways by NFPA 13 or by other building codes, smoke detectors are required in lieu of the sprinklers to initiate elevator phase 1 emergency recall. This section creates a conflict with NFPA 13 and other building codes where the smoke detector is required in ansprinklered hoistway and it is not used to activate smoke relief equipment. Solution and Substantiation: Anytime where combustible equipment or components exist inside the elevator hoistway such as coated steel belts (suspention means) or hoisting machines (MRL elevators), the smoke detector at the top of the hoistway will generate early Phase 1 recall upon smoke detection in the hoistway, even when sprinklers are exempt from those hoistways (to avoid the shunt trip function) Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 194-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Input No. 248-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Require FAID inside elevator hoistway Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Fire Protection Engineer, P.E. Submittal Date: Sat May 11 13:15:14 EDT 2013 I, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

76 Public Input No. 247-NFPA [ Section No ] * When sprinklers are installed in elevator pits, automatic fire detection shall be installed to initiate elevator recall in accordance with (c) of ANSI/ASME A.17.1/CSA B44, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, and the following shall apply: (1) Where sprinklers are located above the lowest level of recall, the fire detection device shall be located at the top of the hoistway. (2) Where sprinklers are located in the bottom of the hoistway (the pit), fire detection device(s) shall be installed in the pit in accordance with Chapter 17. (3) Outputs to the elevator controller(s) shall comply with Problem: The requirement for FAID to initiate elevator phase 1 emergency recall, where sprinklers are installed inside elevator hoistways, is listed in ASME A17.1. Per NFPA 13, this requirement only applies to hydraulic elevators, where pit sprinklers are required. However as I stated in previous PIs, and per research I have conducted, there are no data or known combustible hydraulic fluids fires in elevator pits. Therefore, this section in NFPA 72 is redundant to ASME A17.1 requirement and potentially create a great deal of cost to install pit FAIDs, especially if they will be required to be access for repair, testing and maintenance from outside the elevator pit. Solution and Substantiation: Based on my previous PI's 193, 194, 221, and proposals to NFPA 13 and ASME a17.1, this section in NFPA 72 is not required, and it is already redundant to the requirement listed in ASME A17.1. Therfore, removing this section, will not change any pervious ASME A17.1 and NFPA 13 requirements. Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 193-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 221-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Input No. 248-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Fire Protection Engineer, P.E. Submittal Date: Sat May 11 13:47:44 EDT 2013 submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

77 Public Input No. 248-NFPA [ Section No ] * Smoke detectors shall not be installed in elevator pits to initiate elevator recall unless the smoke detector is listed for the environment. Problem: Same as the previous section. Smoke detectors should not be installed in elevator pits Solution and substantiation: See PIs 193, 221 and 247 Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 193-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 221-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Input No. 245-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 247-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Fire Protection Engineer, P.E. Submittal Date: Sat May 11 14:03:06 EDT 2013 I, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

78 Public Input No. 249-NFPA [ Section No ] * If ambient conditions prohibit installation of automatic smoke detection used to initiate elevator phase 1 emergency recall, other automatic fire detection shall alarm initiating devices shall be permitted. Problem specify the use of these devices and be consistent with the terms used in ASME A17.1 Solution clarify this section and be consistent with ASME A17.1 and previous PIs Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 193-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Fire Protection Engineer, P.E. Submittal Date: Sat May 11 14:07:13 EDT 2013 I, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

79 Public Input No. 250-NFPA [ Section No ] When actuated, any detector that any fire alarm initiating device that has initiated fire fighters recall elevator phase 1 emergency recall, shall also be annunciated at the building fire alarm control unit, or other or the fire alarm control unit as described in , and at required associated remote annunciators. Problem: To be consistent with the terms of ASME A17.1 and previous PIs (for example: waterflow switch could also initiate phase 1 recall and it is not detector) Solution: Be consistent with ASME A17.1 and previous PIs Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 65-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 193-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 251-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 259-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 283-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Fire Protection Engineer, P.E. Submittal Date: Sun May 12 14:48:55 EDT 2013 I, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

80 Public Input No. 251-NFPA [ Section No ] Actuation of an elevator phase 1 emergency recall, from the elevator hoistway lobby, elevator hoistway, elevator machine room, elevator machinery space, elevator control space, or elevator control room smoke detectors, or other automatic fire detection as permitted by fire alarm initiating device, shall cause separate and distinct visible annunciation at the building fire alarm control unit, or the fire alarm control unit described in , and at required annunciators to alert fire fighters and other emergency personnel that the elevators are no longer safe to use at associated remote annunciator(s). Problem: 1) Inconsistency of terms between NFPA 72 and ASME A17.1 2) Elevator lobbies should also be announced separately (per floor, and per separate elevator group/ bank) on the FACU and required annunciators 3) Per the elevator code, ASME A17.1 the elevator may be safe to use for firefighter even if the devices described in this section were activated (if they were not the initiating devices to initiate phase 1 emergency recall) Solution and substantiation: 1) Consistency of terms between NFPA 72 and ASME A Use the term Fire Alarm Initiating Device (FAID) instead of detectors - for initiating devices used to initiate elevator phase 1 emergency recall - FAID is term used in ASME A17.1 ( for example, a waterflow switch may be used to initiate elevator phase 1 emergency recall and it is included under the definition of FAID) 2) It is important to have separate signals at the FACU and annunciators associated with separate FAIDs. For example, many "old" existing elevators having primary floor elevator recall capability only, have all their lobby detectors connected to a single zone on the FACU. Upon activation of any of these smoke detectors, the elevator will recall to the primary floor. However, a distinct indication on what floor the fire was originated will not be available. Also, if a specific building/facility has different type elevators and/or multiple banks/ groups of elevators with multiple machine rooms/control rooms/etc., it is important to receive a distinct separate signal from each elevator bank/group and from each machine room/control room, etc. on a floor by floor basis in order to help responding firefighters to quickly identify the location of the fire. 3) The Elevator Code ASME A17.1 distinguishes between fires originated in the elevator machine room/ control room, etc. OR the elevator hoistway and fires originated in other locations in the building. The ASME A17.1 assumption is that it is extremely unlikely to have two separate fires starting simultaneously in two different locations in the building. Therefore, ASME A17.1 only requires the visual signals (firefighter's helmet) to illuminate intermittently, ONLY when the FAID which initiated phase 1 emergency recall was the FIRST INITIATING device to recall the elevators. If the fire started somewhere else in the building (not in the hoistway and not in the machine room/control rooms, etc.) the elevator may still be safe to use by responding firefighters and therefore the elevator car visual signal (firefighter helmet) shall not illuminate intermittently by ASME A17.1. The purpose of illuminating the elevator car visual warning intermittently, is to alert responding firefighters that the elevator is not safe to use (since the fire originated in the hoistway or in the submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

81 machine room/control room, etc.) - The instruction inside the elevator car regarding the visual warning light for firefighters (firefighter helmet), indicate: "when flashing exit the elevator" However, when the fire originated somewhere else in the building and the first FAID to recall the elevator was a lobby detector, the car visual warning will light SOLID (and will not flash intermittently) since the elevator may be safe to use by firefighters. Even, if the smoke migrated from the floor of origin, and activate the hoistway or the machine room/control room, etc. FAIDs as the SECOND device, the Visual warning shall remain SOLID and not flashing intermittently. The significance of not flashing the visual warning when the fire was not originated by the Hoistway or machine room/control room FAIDs is extremely important in high-rise buildings when firefighters relay on the elevators to perform their firefighting and rescue operation. Therefore, my proposal is that NFPA 72 will be limited to providing the signals from the elevator associated FAIDs to the elevator controller, and the elevator controller, based on ASME A17.1 requirements and based on the specific elevator capabilities, logic, etc. will determine WHEN and HOW to provide the in-car visual warning (SOLID OR Flashing firefighter's helmet light). There is a big confusion between fire alarm designers/installers and elevator personnel regarding this issues - it should be very clear in NFPA 72 that the Fire Alarm system only provides FAIDs inputs to the elevator controller and DOES NOT control the visual warning feature and any other elevator feature. Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 250-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 259-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 283-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Fire Protection Engineer, P.E. Submittal Date: Sun May 12 14:55:29 EDT 2013 I, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 2/2

82 Public Input No. 179-NFPA [ Section No ] Where approved by the authority having jurisdiction, the detectors used to initiate elevator recall shall be permitted to initiate a supervisory signal in lieu of an alarm signal. Problem: This section is confusing to AHJs and may create inconsistencies between different AHJs and even within the same jurisdiction. The intent of allowing supervisory signals in lieu of alarm signals is not clear (If the intent is to minimize nuisance alarms caused by smoking, this section should be deleted since smoking is currently not allowed in most buildings). Also, a possible situation will be that the elevator will recall but the alarm signal will not sound which may be confusing to building occupants. Lastly, if the intent to allow for supervisory signals instead of alarm signals is due to nuisance alarms this means that the FA system is not designed or installed properly or it has a malfunction. The supervisory signal allowance will not resolve the system problem. Solution and substantiation 1) Deleting this section will create more consistency between different AHJs and between buildings having elevators and will prevent unnecessary confusion to building occupants and firefighters (firefighters will respond to some buildings having alarm signals but will not respond to other buildings having supervisory) 2) In buildings or facilities without a building FA system, the FAIDs used to initiate elevator phase 1 emergency recall are required to be connected to a dedicated function FACU for elevator recall and supervisory. This dedicated function control unit may be a local unit (it is not required to be supervised off premise by a supervising station) - In this case only, when the dedicated FACU for elevator recall does not generate alarm signals in the building and does not call the fire department via a supervising station, there will not be a big difference if the FAIDs used to initiate elevator phase 1 emergency recall will report alarm OR supervisory signal on the dedicated function FACU for elevator recall and supervisory. Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Fire Protection Engineer, P.E. Submittal Date: Sun Apr 28 18:12:50 EDT 2013 I, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

83 Public Input No. 259-NFPA [ Section No ] Where lobby detectors are used for other than initiating elevator recall, the signal initiated by the detector shall also initiate an alarm signal. Problem: Same problem as the previous section - This may create inconsistencies between AHJs and between systems. Solution and substantiation: 1) ALL Elevator Lobby FAIDs used to initiate elevator phase 1 emergency recall should generate alarm signals upon activation and should not be permitted to generate supervisory signals regardless if they serve other functions such as the releasing of elevator lobby door hold-open devices. Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 250-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 251-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Fire Protection Engineer, P.E. Submittal Date: Sun May 12 23:44:05 EDT 2013 I, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

84 Public Input No. 260-NFPA [ Section No [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ] Separate outputs from the building fire alarm systems to the control unit, or the fire alarm control unit described in , to the elevator controller(s) shall be provided to implement elevator Phase I Emergency Recall Operation in accordance with Section 2.27 of ANSI accordance with ANSI /ASME A17.1/CSA B44, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, as required as described in through Problem: 1) Be consistent with section to include the dedicated FACU for elevator recall 2) Do not include specific section from the Elevator Code since this section may be changed and since different jurisdictions enforce different editions of ASME A17.1 Solution: 1)Include the dedicated function FACU for elevator recall 2) Delete the specific section in ASME A17.1 Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 273-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 274-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Fire Protection engineer, P.E.; Submittal Date: Sun May 12 23:53:54 EDT 2013 I, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

85 6/5/13 TerraView Public Input No. 54-NFPA [ Section No ] Designated Level Recall. For each elevator or group of elevators, an output shall be provided to signal elevator recall to the designated level in response to the following: (1) Activation of smoke detectors, or other automatic fire detection as permitted by , located at any elevator lobby served by the elevator(s) other than the lobby at the designated level (2) Activation of smoke detectors, or other automatic fire detection as permitted by , located at any elevator machine room, elevator machinery space, elevator control space, or elevator control room serving the elevator(s), except where such rooms or spaces are located at the designated level (3) Activation of smoke detectors, or other automatic fire detection as permitted by , located in the elevator hoistway serving the elevator where sprinklers are or elevator control spaces or elevator machinery spaces are located in the hoistway, unless otherwise specified in (3) For correlation with the requirements in A17.1. Because of new technology, elevator machinery and elevator control spaces can now be located in elevator hoistways and as such, smoke detectors, or other automatic fire detection as permitted by would be required in the hoistway. Submitter Full Name: Bruce Fraser Organization: Fraser Fire Protection Service Submittal Date: Thu Mar 07 10:46:13 EST 2013 I, Bruce Fraser, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Bruce Fraser, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

86 Public Input No. 263-NFPA [ Section No ] Designated Level Recall. For each elevator or group of elevators, an capable of designated level recall function in accordance with ASME A17.1, an output shall be provided to signal elevator recall to the designated level in response to the following: (1) Activation of smoke detectors, or other automatic fire detection as of fire alarm initiating device(s) as permitted by , located at any elevator lobby served by the elevator(s) other than the lobby at the designated level (2) Activation of smoke detectors, or other automatic fire detection as of fire alarm initiating device(s) as permitted by , located at any elevator machine room, elevator machinery space, elevator control space, or elevator control room serving the elevator(s), except where such rooms or spaces are located at the designated level Activation of smoke detectors, or other automatic fire detection as (3), unless otherwise required by the authority having jurisdication. (4) Activation of fire alarm initiating device(s) as permitted by , located in the elevator hoistway serving the elevator where sprinklers are located in the hoistway, unless otherwise specified in by the authority having jurisdication and in (3) Problem: 1) Some elevators are not capable of recall at all and therefore NFPA 72 should not require recall for these elevators. 2) In some buildings the machine room or control room, etc. is on the same level of the designated level but is far away and the best recall floor is the designated level Solution: Clarify that specific elevators must comply with the elevator code and may not be required to have recall. Specify that the AHJ has the final say on which floor the elevator recall, depends on the specific conditions of the elevator and the building it serves Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 273-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Fire Protection engineer, P.E. Submittal Date: Mon May 13 00:41:45 EDT 2013 submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

87 Public Input No. 273-NFPA [ Section No ] Alternate Level Recall. For each elevator or group of elevators, an output capable of Alternate Level Recall function in accordance with ASME A17.1, an output shall be provided to signal elevator recall to the alternate level in response to the following: (1) Activation of smoke detectors, or automatic fire detection as of fire alarm initiating device (s) as permitted by , located at the designated level lobby served by the elevator(s) (2) Activation of smoke detectors, or other automatic fire detection fire alarm initiating device (s) as permitted by , located in the elevator machine room, elevator machinery space, elevator control space, or elevator control room serving the elevator(s) if such rooms or spaces are located at the designated level, unless otherwise required by the authority having jurisdictaion. (3) * Activation of the initiating devices identified in (3) if they are installed at or below the lowest level of recall in the elevator hoistway and the alternate level is located above the designated level, unless otherwise required by the authority having jurisdictaion. Problem: 1) Some elevators are not capable of recall function at all and some elevators are only capable of Designated level recall (with no alternate recall function), therefore, NFPA 72 should not require recall for these elevators. 2) The elevator machine room/control room, etc. could be located anywhere in the building and therefore the determination of the fire recall levels should be decided by the AHJ per the specific building and elevator configuration Solution: 1)Clarify that specific elevators must comply with ASME A17.1 and may not be required to have alternate level recall 2) Clarify that recall levels should be decided by the AHJ Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 260-NFPA [Section No [Excluding any Sub- Sections]] Public Input No. 262-NFPA [Section No. A ] Public Input No. 263-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Fire Protection Engineer, P.E. submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

88 Public Input No. 274-NFPA [ Section No ] * Visual Warning. For each elevator or group of elevators, an output(s) shall be provided for the elevator visual warning signal in response to the following: (1) Activation of the elevator machine room, elevator machinery space, elevator control space, or elevator control room initiating devices identified in (2) or (2) (2) Activation of the elevator hoistway initiating devices identified in (3) or (3) Problem: This is a big problem related to the Elevator Visual Warning (firefighter helmet inside the elevator car) - The FA system should only provides FAIDs outputs to the elevator controller, and the elevator controller is responsible for activating the Visual Warning (if existing) either SOLID or Flashing upon specific FAIDs output signals. It should not be the intent (or interpretation) of NFPA 72 to require visual warning (for firefighters) if many elevators are not capable of this feature at all. Solution: The requirements for FAIDs outputs to the elevator controller (s) are listed in the Elevator Code ASME A17.1 and Section of NFPA 72. It should be clear that the FA system does not and should not generate "Elevator Visual Warning" - Many Elevators do not have this feature at all, and some of the newer elevators have only the "SOLID" light function while the newest elevators have SOLID and FLASHING features. Only the Elevator Code ASME A17.1 shall define the specific requirments of the elevator visual warning upon the specific elevators' types and the specific FAIDS output signals to the elevator controller Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 260-NFPA [Section No [Excluding any Sub- Sections]] Relationship Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Fire Protection Engineer, P.E. Submittal Date: Mon May 13 16:47:42 EDT 2013 I, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

89 Public Input No. 281-NFPA [ Section No ] * Where heat detectors are used to shut down elevator power prior to sprinkler operation, the detector shall upon or prior to the application of water from sprinklers located in the elevator machine room, control room, control space or in the elevator hoistway, in accordance with ASME A17.1, the heat detectors shall have both a lower temperature rating and a higher sensitivity as compared to the sprinkler sprinklers. Problem: In consistency with the Elevator code ASME a17.1 Solution: Make NFPA 72 requirements for shunt trip consistent with the Elevator code Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Fire Protection Engineer, P.E. Submittal Date: Wed May 15 01:33:48 EDT 2013 I, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

90 Public Input No. 568-NFPA [ New Section after 21.4 ] Elevator Power Shut Down Elevator power shut down shall not be permitted to be provided for elevators not having phase 1 emergency recall capabilities or when phase 1 emergency recall function is not provided. Problem: Many small or special use hydraulic elevators such as private residence elevators, limited use limited application elevators, etc. having sprinkers in their machine rooms are required to have power shunt trip upon or prior to the sprinkler activation per ASME A17.1. However, these elevators are exept from Fire Emergency Recall requirments, either the controller is not capable of recall function, recall key switch, etc, or if the controller is capable, but the function is not provided. Having shunt trip without reacll should be prohibited since there is a potential of trapping occupants inside these elevators Solution: Shunt trip function should only be provided when Phase 1 Recall function is provided. The Automatic phase 1 recall will recall the elevator safely and open the elevator doors before shunt trip may occur Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Fire Protection Engineer, P.E. Submittal Date: Mon May 20 15:07:52 EDT 2013 I, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

91 Public Input No. 282-NFPA [ Section No ] * If heat detectors are used to shut down elevator power upon or prior to sprinkler operation, the application of water from sprinkler (s) located in the elvator machine room, control room, control space, or in the elvator hoistway, they shall be placed within 24 in. (610 mm) of each sprinkler head and be installed in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 17. Alternatively, engineering methods, such as those specified in Annex B, shall be permitted to be used to select and place heat detectors to ensure response upon or prior to any sprinkler head operation under a variety of fire growth rate scenarios. The heat detectors must be accessible for service, repair, testing and maintenance from outside the elevator hoistway. Problem 1) Inconsistency of terms between NFPA 72 and the elevator code ASME A17.1 2) Accessibility for these FAIDS Solution Make NFPA 72 consistent with elevator code Ensure that any hoistway FAIDs shall be accessible from outside the hoistway since FA service and installation personnel should not be required to perform work inside the elevator hoistway Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 261-NFPA [Section No. A ] Relationship Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Fire Protection Engineer, P.E. Submittal Date: Wed May 15 01:44:47 EDT 2013 I, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

92 Public Input No. 283-NFPA [ Section No ] * Control circuits to shut down elevator power shall be monitored for the presence of operating voltage. Loss of voltage to the control circuit for the disconnecting means shall cause a supervisory signal to be indicated at the building fire alarm control unit and required remote or at the control unit described in section and at all associated remote annunciators. problem/solution: 1 )Indicate building fire alarm control unit or control unit described in section...instead of "control unit" 2) Delete "required" remote annunciators and indicate associated remote annunciators Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 81-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 250-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 251-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Fire Protection Engineer, P.E. Submittal Date: Wed May 15 01:57:12 EDT 2013 I, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

93 Public Input No. 387-NFPA [ New Section after 21.4 ] Elevator Power shut down prohibited locations Means for elevator power shutdown in accordance with ASME A17.1 shall not be installed on elevator systems used for fire service access elevators described in section 21.5 and on elevator systems used for occupant evacuation elevators described in section 21.6 of this code. Problem: Elevator shunt trip shall not be provided for these type elevators per building and fire codes Solution: coordination with NFPA 72 to prohibit shunt trip for these elevators Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Fire Protection Engineer, P.E. Submittal Date: Sun May 19 13:00:19 EDT 2013 I, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

94 Public Input No. 269-NFPA [ New Section after ] The fire alarm control panel shall have a dedicated LED to indicate smoke detector "alarm" condition in Emergency and/or Standby Electrical Power rooms. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved pdf Cover Sheet (1) addresses the need to know the status of main and emergency powr would build key information into that. Should there be smoke in these rooms then the automatic transfer switches, panelboards, control and power wiring may soon be subject to fire damage. This area is the nexus of critical wiring. Sprinkler activation in these rooms puts out the fire but most likely shorts out electrical circuitry. Electrical fires can start in these rooms. The doors to a fire-rated emergency room could be inadvertently left open to fire from outside the room. Unfortunately, storage items can be placed in these rooms. This information is critical to firefighters. Submitter Full Name: DAVID SROKA Organization: Submittal Date: Mon May 13 13:30:34 EDT 2013 I, DAVID SROKA, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am DAVID SROKA, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

95 Public Input No. 379-NFPA [ New Section after ] Fire Service Access Elevator: Emergency Resposne Plan: The building shall have an approved emergency response plan in accordance with the applicable requirements of the authority having jurisdication. The emergency response plan shall incorporate specific procedures for the firefighters using these elevators and specific procedures for the occupants of these buildings. Emergency response plan is required by IBC 2012 for occupant evacuation elevators and it should also be required for fire service access elevators. Coordination with Building and Fire Code and ASME A17.1 is required For example, this is from IBC 2012 Section 3007: Phase I Emergency recall operation. Actuation of any building fire alarm-initiating device shall initiate Phase I emergency recall operation on all fire service access elevators in accordance with the requirements in ASME A17.1/CSA B44. All other elevators shall remain in normal service unless Phase I emergency recall operation is manually initiated by a separate, required three-position, key-operated "Fire Recall switch or automatically initiated by the associated elevator lobby, hoistway or elevator machine room smoke detectors. In addition, if the building also contains occupant evacuation elevators in accordance with Section 3008, an independent, three-position, key-operated "Fire Recall switch conforming to the applicable requirements in ASME A17.1/CSA B44 shall be provided at the designated level for each fire service access elevator Shunt trip. Means for elevator shutdown in accordance with Section shall not be installed on elevator systems used for fire service access elevators Elevator system monitoring. The fire service access elevator shall be continuously monitored at the fire command center by a standard emergency service interface system meeting the requirements of NFPA Electrical power. The following features serving each fire service access elevator shall be supplied by both normal power and Type 60/Class 2/Level 1 standby power: 1. Elevator equipment.2. Elevator hoistway lighting.3. Elevator machine room ventilation and cooling equipment.4. Elevator controller cooling equipment. Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, P.E. Submittal Date: Sat May 18 19:48:49 EDT 2013 submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

96 Sections] ] Public Input No. 378-NFPA [ Section No [Excluding any Sub- Outputs from the fire alarm system to the elevator controller(s) shall be provided to implement elevator occupant evacuation operation in accordance with Section 2.27 of ASME A17.1/CSA B44 (2013), Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, as required in and Problem: Specific section in other code may change (2.27) and specific edition of the elevator code (13) may not be adopted by specific AHJ Solution: Do not indicate specific sections and editions of the elevator code in NFP 72 Also: The building must have a Fire safety and evacuation plan. This is from IBC 2012 Section 3008: The building shall have an approved fire safety and evacuation plan in accordance with the applicable requirements of Section 404 of the International Fire Code. The fire safety and evacuation plan shall incorporate specific procedures for the occupants using evacuation elevators. Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Fire Protection Engineer, P.E. Submittal Date: Sat May 18 19:41:48 EDT 2013 I, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

97 Public Input No. 373-NFPA [ Section No ] * If connected to the fire alarm system serving the protected premises, all detection devices used to cause the operation of HVAC systems, smoke dampers, fire dampers, fan control, smoke doors, and or fire doors shall be monitored for integrity in accordance with and Section Changes based on our TC task group conclusions. Grammatical fixes for the compound sentence, and deletion of reference to Section which is not relevant to the paragraph/requirement. Submitter Full Name: Diane Doliber Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Sat May 18 14:28:53 EDT 2013 I, Diane Doliber, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Diane Doliber, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

98 Public Input No. 359-NFPA [ Section No ] All door and shutter hold-open release and integral door and shutter release and closure devices used for release service shall be monitored for integrity in accordance with Section Exception: Smoke detector and door and shutter hold-open release and integral door and shutter release and closure devices pathways are designed according to Class D of Section The performance of the emergeny control functions shall comply with Section Cross reference links to itself defines no measures for integrity monitoring but references to 12.6 (21.2.8) just as Requirements for integrity monitoring should be referenced to 12.6 directly. Requirements to technical parameters (interconnection, power & voltage limitations and interferences) to be addressed separately linking to Exception: Would allow a total fail safe installation (including smoke detectors) instead of costly integrity monitoring. Submitter Full Name: Andre Lickefett Organization: Minimax GmbH & Co. KG Affilliation: NFSA Submittal Date: Fri May 17 16:08:45 EDT 2013 I, Andre Lickefett, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Andre Lickefett, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

99 Public Input No. 367-NFPA [ Section No ] For all means of egress doors connected in accordance with where secondary power supplies of fire alarm control unit batteries units are used, they shall comply with Term fire alarm control unit batteries misleading (battery as group of devices). It should be made clear here that the second power supply of the FACU is meant. A second power supply could also come from a separate emergency power supply, a fuel cell or other independend sources. Submitter Full Name: Andre Lickefett Organization: Minimax GmbH & Co. KG Affilliation: NFSA Submittal Date: Fri May 17 16:32:57 EDT 2013 I, Andre Lickefett, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Andre Lickefett, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

100 Public Input No. 368-NFPA [ Section No ] * Fire Secondary power supplies of fire alarm control unit batteries units shall not be utilized to maintain means of egress doors in the locked condition unless the fire alarm control unit is arranged with circuitry and sufficient secondary power to ensure the means of egress doors will unlock within 10 minutes of loss of primary power. Term fire alarm control unit batteries misleading (battery as group of devices). It should be made clear here that the second power supply of the FACU is meant. A second power supply could also come from a separate emergency power supply, a fuel cell or other independend sources. Submitter Full Name: Andre Lickefett Organization: Minimax GmbH & Co. KG Affilliation: NFSA Submittal Date: Fri May 17 16:37:45 EDT 2013 I, Andre Lickefett, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Andre Lickefett, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

101 Public Input No. 624-NFPA [ Section No [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ] A record of installed software and firmware version numbers shall be maintained at the location of the fire alarm control unit. prepared and maintained in accordance with Chapter 7 NFPA has decided to place all Documentation requirements into Chapter 7 Submitter Full Name: Scott Jacobs Organization: ISC Electronic Systems, Inc. Submittal Date: Mon May 20 16:54:07 EDT 2013 I, Scott Jacobs, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Scott Jacobs, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

102 Public Input No. 71-NFPA [ Section No ] * Nonrequired (Voluntary) Systems and Components. The features for a nonrequired system shall be established by the system designer Design Professional in Responsible Charge on the basis of the goals and objectives intended by the system owner Nonrequired protected premises systems and components shall meet the requirements of this Code Nonrequired systems and components shall be identified on the record drawings required in (12). Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved NFPA_72_4_Public-Inputs_2013_03_26.pdf Cover Sheet The Design Professional in Responsible Charge is a proposal in Fundamentals, should that proposal be accepted. This section would change in responsibility. Submitter Full Name: VINCE BACLAWSKI Organization: NEMA Submittal Date: Tue Mar 26 13:53:49 EDT 2013 I, VINCE BACLAWSKI, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am VINCE BACLAWSKI, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

103 Sections] ] Public Input No. 231-NFPA [ Section No [Excluding any Sub- The features for a nonrequired system shall be established by the system designer Design Professional in Responsible Charge on the basis of the goals and objectives intended by the system owner. This change will coordinate the language with the new proposed wording, Design Professional in Responsible Charge, proposed for Section Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 228-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Change from system designer to Design Profession in Responsible Charge Submitter Full Name: Thomas Hammerberg Organization: Automatic Fire Alarm Association Affilliation: Automatic Fire Alarm Association Submittal Date: Wed May 08 11:16:29 EDT 2013 I, Thomas Hammerberg, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Thomas Hammerberg, and I agree to be legally bound by the above and the terms and conditions contained therein. I understand and intend that, by checking this box, I am creating an electronic signature that w ill, upon my submission of this form, have the same legal force and effect as a submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

104 Public Input No. 380-NFPA [ Section No ] In facilities without a building fire alarm system, a dedicated function fire (s) fire alarm system shall be permitted and shall not be required to include other functions or features of a building fire alarm system. To allow for more than one function such as a dedicated function fire alarm system could serve both sprinkler system monitoring AND elevator recall Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 65-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 81-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 177-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 178-NFPA [Section No. A ] Relationship Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Fire Protection Engineer, P.E. Submittal Date: Sat May 18 20:04:38 EDT 2013 I, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

105 Public Input No. 506-NFPA [ New Section after ] SLC Designations Where more than one type of signaling line circuit (SLC) exists at a protected premises designers shall be permitted to differentiate between the various circuits functions, designs, survivability and performance When assigning different pathway classes, survivability and performance levels the individual SLCs shall be designated as one of the following: 1. SLC-CN Control network pathways 2. SLC-RC Remote control pathways 3. SLC-AD Addressable device pathways 4. SLC-RA Remote annunciation pathways 5. SLC-OP Off premises supervisory station pathways 6. SLC-GW Gateway pathways 7. SLC-HB Hybrid combination pathways This is the work of the SIG-PRO Committee Task Group assigned to review this section and provide updated language for consideration. Members of the Task Group include L. Belliveau, L. Shudak, D. Struck and C. Willms. Due to the variety of possible types of signaling line circuits it is important to be able to differentiate various levels of function, design, and survivability for the individual circuits. For example, for a given fire alarm system design, the functionality and reliability of the circuit path network between interconnected control units (i.e., SLC-CN) could be specified as a Class X while the circuit path between a control unit SLC termination point and addressable devices connected to the specific SLC controller (i.e., SLC-AD) could be specified as a Class A. With the same system, the circuit path between the protected premises and the supervisory station (i.e., SLC-OP) could be specified as a Class C and the circuit path between the protected premises fire alarm and signaling system and other building management systems (i.e., SLC-GW) could specified as a Class E depending on the applicable code requirements for the installation and the designer s fire protection goals for the system. Designers, AHJs, technicians, and electricians need a defined way to differentiate between the circuits and their performance it is in a clear concise and consistent manor. The assignment of SLC designations within the code would meet this objective. Submitter Full Name: Leonard Belliveau Organization: Hughes Associates, Inc. Affilliation: SIG-PRO Committee Secretary and Committee Task Group Chair submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

106 Submittal Date: Mon May 20 10:11:15 EDT 2013 I, Leonard Belliveau, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Leonard Belliveau, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 2/2

107 Sections] ] Public Input No. 279-NFPA [ Section No [Excluding any Sub- The assignment of class designations to signaling line circuits shall be based on their performance capabilities under abnormal (fault) conditions in accordance with the requirements for Class A, Class B, Class N, or Class X pathways specified in Chapter 12. Questions concerning the acceptability of using Ethernet and other non-fire or non-mns networks for fire alarm and signaling systems applications are being raised more and more. Because of these questions and the rapidly changing technology, the Task Group on Networks in FA/ECS was formed by the Correlating Committee to address the risk analysis, design, application, installation, and performance of networks and networking equipment used in fire alarm systems, fire EVACS and mass notification systems. This proposal and Annex material is a result of that effort. Some of the concerns that were raised during related discussions for the 2013 edition included: ground detection, system management, availability, and software control. These issues were discussed and the results are provided in the Task Group s proposal. The task group reviewed the new Shared Pathway Designations added to Chapter 12 in The proposal addresses the type of network acceptable, reliability required, listings required and use of the network to connect devices or appliances or interfaced systems. The proposal is the recommendation by a unanimous vote of the Correlating Committee Task Group members that was comprised of TC members from Chapters 10, 14, 23, 24 and 26 as well as individuals outside of the committees. Wayne Moore A.J. Capowski Joe L. Collins Dan Horon Vic Humm Michael Pallett Charles Pugh Robert Schifiliti Aviv Siegel Larry Shudak Bob Elliott Paul Crowley Jeff Silveira Jeff Knight Andrew Berezowski Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 270-NFPA [New Section after ] Relationship Class N Network Submission Submitter Full Name: Michael Pallett submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

108 Organization: Telecor Inc. Submittal Date: Tue May 14 17:30:57 EDT 2013 I, Michael Pallett, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Michael Pallett, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 2/2

109 Public Input No. 354-NFPA [ Section No ] * A single fault on a pathway connected to the addressable devices shall not cause the loss of the devices in more than 50 addressable devices one zone. This is the work of the SIG-PRO Committee Task Group assigned to review this section and provide updated language for consideration. Members of the Task Group include L. Belliveau, L. Shudak, D. Struck and C. Willms. Submitter Full Name: Leonard Belliveau Organization: Hughes Associates, Inc. Affilliation: SIG-PRO Committee Secretary and Committee Task Group Chair Submittal Date: Fri May 17 15:57:35 EDT 2013 I, Leonard Belliveau, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Leonard Belliveau, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

110 Public Input No. 584-NFPA [ Section No ] * A single fault on a pathway connected to the addressable devices shall not cause the loss Signaling line circuits used to directly monitor or control addressable initiating devices, addressable notification appliances or addressable control relays shall be designed and installed so that a single fault shall not affect the operation of more than 50 addressable devices. initiating devices or notification appliances in any combination. Exception: This requirement shall not apply to signaling line circuits that are used only to interconnect control units, regardless of the number of initiating devices, notification appliances or control relays that might be connected to those control units. This wording more clearly states the existing 2013 requirements for limiting SLCs to know more than 50 addresses. It extends the requirement to any type of addressable equipment other than control units. The exception makes it clear that control units are not covered by this requirement. Having the text regarding control units in the 2013 Annex does not create an enforceable exception to the 2013 rule. Also see the companion proposal for new that further limits the design and installation of SLCs to a single floor or a single fire area of the building as is currently done for initiating device circuits and notification appliance circuits. Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 588-NFPA [New Section after ] Relationship Submitter Full Name: Robert Schifiliti Organization: R. P. Schifiliti Associates, I Submittal Date: Mon May 20 16:14:26 EDT 2013 I, Robert Schifiliti, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Robert Schifiliti, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

111 Public Input No. 285-NFPA [ New Section after ] A single fault on a Class N pathway connected to the addressable devices shall not cause the loss of more than one addressable device. Questions concerning the acceptability of using Ethernet and other non-fire or non-mns networks for fire alarm and signaling systems applications are being raised more and more. Because of these questions and the rapidly changing technology, the Task Group on Networks in FA/ECS was formed by the Correlating Committee to address the risk analysis, design, application, installation, and performance of networks and networking equipment used in fire alarm systems, fire EVACS and mass notification systems. This proposal and Annex material is a result of that effort. Some of the concerns that were raised during related discussions for the 2013 edition included: ground detection, system management, availability, and software control. These issues were discussed and the results are provided in the Task Group s proposal. The task group reviewed the new Shared Pathway Designations added to Chapter 12 in The proposal addresses the type of network acceptable, reliability required, listings required and use of the network to connect devices or appliances or interfaced systems. The proposal is the recommendation by a unanimous vote of the Correlating Committee Task Group members that was comprised of TC members from Chapters 10, 14, 23, 24 and 26 as well as individuals outside of the committees. Wayne Moore A.J. Capowski Joe L. Collins Dan Horon Vic Humm Michael Pallett Charles Pugh Robert Schifiliti Aviv Siegel Larry Shudak Bob Elliott Paul Crowley Jeff Silveira Jeff Knight Andrew Berezowski Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 270-NFPA [New Section after ] Relationship Class N Network Submission Submitter Full Name: Michael Pallett Organization: Telecor Inc. Submittal Date: Wed May 15 15:31:17 EDT 2013 submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

112 Public Input No. 304-NFPA [ New Section after ] Circuit types Class B circuits must be less than 50 devices Class A circuits must have a minimum of 1 isolator for each 50 devices in a cl;ass b circuit the problem lies with short faults in the initial part of the circuit. the short will cause the devices within the initial 50 not to work, but will not supply power to the second or consecutive set of devices. If T-Tapped they must be T-Tapped at the start of the circuit. If they are T-Tapped anywhere after the 1st device, a short circuit fault in or near that device will take out all t- taps isolation after that point. The only way to insure more than 50 devices will operate as described in this section is to wire the devices Class A or X. Submitter Full Name: Jack McNamara Organization: Bosch Security Systems Submittal Date: Thu May 16 11:51:05 EDT 2013 I, Jack McNamara, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Jack McNamara, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

113 Public Input No. 355-NFPA [ New Section after ] For the purpose of this section, each floor of the building shall be considered as a separate zone. This is the work of the SIG-PRO Committee Task Group assigned to review this section and provide updated language for consideration. Members of the Task Group include L. Belliveau, L. Shudak, D. Struck and C. Willms. Submitter Full Name: Leonard Belliveau Organization: Hughes Associates, Inc. Affilliation: SIG-PRO Committee Secretary and Committee Task Group Chair Submittal Date: Fri May 17 16:02:59 EDT 2013 I, Leonard Belliveau, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Leonard Belliveau, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

114 Public Input No. 356-NFPA [ New Section after ] For the purpose of this section, if a floor of the building is subdivided into multiple zones by fire or smoke barriers and the fire plan for the protected premises allows relocation of occupants from the zone of origin to another zone on the same floor, each zone on the floor shall be considered as a separate zone. This is the work of the SIG-PRO Committee Task Group assigned to review this section and provide updated language for consideration. Members of the Task Group include L. Belliveau, L. Shudak, D. Struck and C. Willms. Submitter Full Name: Leonard Belliveau Organization: Hughes Associates, Inc. Affilliation: SIG-PRO Committee Secretary and Committee Task Group Chair Submittal Date: Fri May 17 16:05:03 EDT 2013 I, Leonard Belliveau, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Leonard Belliveau, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

115 Public Input No. 286-NFPA [ New Section after ] No area or zone shall be serviced solely by a single device when deploying Class N pathways, such that a single device failure would render an area or zone incapable of initiating input signals, or receiving output signals. Exception: When a risk analysis is performed to determine areas where a single device is sufficient and acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction. Questions concerning the acceptability of using Ethernet and other non-fire or non-mns networks for fire alarm and signaling systems applications are being raised more and more. Because of these questions and the rapidly changing technology, the Task Group on Networks in FA/ECS was formed by the Correlating Committee to address the risk analysis, design, application, installation, and performance of networks and networking equipment used in fire alarm systems, fire EVACS and mass notification systems. This proposal and Annex material is a result of that effort. Some of the concerns that were raised during related discussions for the 2013 edition included: ground detection, system management, availability, and software control. These issues were discussed and the results are provided in the Task Group s proposal. The task group reviewed the new Shared Pathway Designations added to Chapter 12 in The proposal addresses the type of network acceptable, reliability required, listings required and use of the network to connect devices or appliances or interfaced systems. The proposal is the recommendation by a unanimous vote of the Correlating Committee Task Group members that was comprised of TC members from Chapters 10, 14, 23, 24 and 26 as well as individuals outside of the committees. Wayne Moore A.J. Capowski Joe L. Collins Dan Horon Vic Humm Michael Pallett Charles Pugh Robert Schifiliti Aviv Siegel Larry Shudak Bob Elliott Paul Crowley Jeff Silveira Jeff Knight Andrew Berezowski Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 270-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Input No. 287-NFPA [New Section after ] Relationship Class N Network Submission Class N Network Submission submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

116 Submitter Full Name: Michael Pallett Organization: Telecor Inc. Submittal Date: Wed May 15 15:36:19 EDT 2013 I, Michael Pallett, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Michael Pallett, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 2/2

117 Public Input No. 357-NFPA [ New Section after ] The loss of more than one zone shall be permitted on a documented performance-based design approach in accordance with This is the work of the SIG-PRO Committee Task Group assigned to review this section and provide updated language for consideration. Members of the Task Group include L. Belliveau, L. Shudak, D. Struck and C. Willms. Submitter Full Name: Leonard Belliveau Organization: Hughes Associates, Inc. Affilliation: SIG-PRO Committee Secretary and Committee Task Group Chair Submittal Date: Fri May 17 16:06:16 EDT 2013 I, Leonard Belliveau, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Leonard Belliveau, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

118 Public Input No. 588-NFPA [ New Section after ] New * Signaling line circuits used to directly monitor or control addressable initiating devices, addressable notification appliances or addressable control relays shall be designed and installed so that a single fault shall not affect the operation of the initiating devices or notification appliances on any other floor or in any other fire zone as defined in the applicable building, fire or life safety codes. Exception: This requirement shall not apply to signaling line circuits that are used only to interconnect control units, regardless of the number of initiating devices, notification appliances or control relays that might be connected to those control units. New A * The limitations imposed by and can be achieved through careful planning, design and installation. One method would be to use multiple signaling line circuits, one for each fire area or floor of the building or for each 50 addresses. Other configurations might use a single signaling line circuit in a Class A configuration with properly located isolation modules. The exception makes it clear that these requirements apply only to signaling line circuits that directly serve addressable initiating devices, notification appliances and control relays. This requirement does not apply to signaling line circuits used to interconnect control panels such as in a campus wide monitoring system. This requirement also would not apply to a riser circuit used only to interconnect sub-control units as a part of a larger system. The existing requirement for a limit of 50 addressable devices was arbitrary. 50 devices might cover an entire four- a five-story building. This new requirement combines with the existing 50 device limit to reduce the likelihood of common mode failures caused by fire in one area affecting the operation and communications to other areas. The proliferation of SLCs that can serve hundreds of initiating devices creates common mode failures that result in large parts of a building being without protection. Circuit choice, layout, design, installation and operation should be such that all the eggs are NOT in a single basket. Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 584-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Submitter Full Name: Robert Schifiliti Organization: R. P. Schifiliti Associates, I Submittal Date: Mon May 20 16:19:11 EDT 2013 I, Robert Schifiliti, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

119 Public Input No. 287-NFPA [ New Section after ] When a device as referenced by is serviced only by a single pathway, it shall terminate that pathway with no capability to connect additional endpoint devices to the pathway. Questions concerning the acceptability of using Ethernet and other non-fire or non-mns networks for fire alarm and signaling systems applications are being raised more and more. Because of these questions and the rapidly changing technology, the Task Group on Networks in FA/ECS was formed by the Correlating Committee to address the risk analysis, design, application, installation, and performance of networks and networking equipment used in fire alarm systems, fire EVACS and mass notification systems. This proposal and Annex material is a result of that effort. Some of the concerns that were raised during related discussions for the 2013 edition included: ground detection, system management, availability, and software control. These issues were discussed and the results are provided in the Task Group s proposal. The task group reviewed the new Shared Pathway Designations added to Chapter 12 in The proposal addresses the type of network acceptable, reliability required, listings required and use of the network to connect devices or appliances or interfaced systems. The proposal is the recommendation by a unanimous vote of the Correlating Committee Task Group members that was comprised of TC members from Chapters 10, 14, 23, 24 and 26 as well as individuals outside of the committees. Wayne Moore A.J. Capowski Joe L. Collins Dan Horon Vic Humm Michael Pallett Charles Pugh Robert Schifiliti Aviv Siegel Larry Shudak Bob Elliott Paul Crowley Jeff Silveira Jeff Knight Andrew Berezowski Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 270-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Input No. 286-NFPA [New Section after ] Relationship Class N Network Submission Class N Network Submission Submitter Full Name: Michael Pallett submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

120 Public Input No. 358-NFPA [ New Section after ] * 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 technical substantiation used in establishing the proposed zone performance. This is the work of the SIG-PRO Committee Task Group assigned to review this section and provide updated language for consideration. Members of the Task Group include L. Belliveau, L. Shudak, D. Struck and C. Willms. Submitter Full Name: Leonard Belliveau Organization: Hughes Associates, Inc. Affilliation: SIG-PRO Committee Secretary and Committee Task Group Chair Submittal Date: Fri May 17 16:07:32 EDT 2013 I, Leonard Belliveau, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Leonard Belliveau, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

121 Public Input No. 288-NFPA [ New Section after ] Class N pathways shall be required to use Shared Pathway Level 3 as specified in Section Questions concerning the acceptability of using Ethernet and other non-fire or non-mns networks for fire alarm and signaling systems applications are being raised more and more. Because of these questions and the rapidly changing technology, the Task Group on Networks in FA/ECS was formed by the Correlating Committee to address the risk analysis, design, application, installation, and performance of networks and networking equipment used in fire alarm systems, fire EVACS and mass notification systems. This proposal and Annex material is a result of that effort. Some of the concerns that were raised during related discussions for the 2013 edition included: ground detection, system management, availability, and software control. These issues were discussed and the results are provided in the Task Group s proposal. The task group reviewed the new Shared Pathway Designations added to Chapter 12 in The proposal addresses the type of network acceptable, reliability required, listings required and use of the network to connect devices or appliances or interfaced systems. The proposal is the recommendation by a unanimous vote of the Correlating Committee Task Group members that was comprised of TC members from Chapters 10, 14, 23, 24 and 26 as well as individuals outside of the committees. Wayne Moore A.J. Capowski Joe L. Collins Dan Horon Vic Humm Michael Pallett Charles Pugh Robert Schifiliti Aviv Siegel Larry Shudak Bob Elliott Paul Crowley Jeff Silveira Jeff Knight Andrew Berezowski Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 270-NFPA [New Section after ] Relationship Class N Network Submission Submitter Full Name: Michael Pallett Organization: Telecor Inc. Submittal Date: Wed May 15 15:43:20 EDT 2013 submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

122 Public Input No. 360-NFPA [ New Section after ] The requirements in shall not apply to the interconnection between enclosures containing control equipment and short-circuit fault isolation modules located within 3 feet of each other where the conductors are installed in metallic raceway or equivalently protected against mechanical injury. This is the work of the SIG-PRO Committee Task Group assigned to review this section and provide updated language for consideration. Members of the Task Group include L. Belliveau, L. Shudak, D. Struck and C. Willms. Submitter Full Name: Leonard Belliveau Organization: Hughes Associates, Inc. Affilliation: SIG-PRO Committee Secretary and Committee Task Group Chair Submittal Date: Fri May 17 16:08:50 EDT 2013 I, Leonard Belliveau, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Leonard Belliveau, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

123 Public Input No. 361-NFPA [ New Section after ] * The requirements in shall not apply to the addressable circuits that interconnect fire alarm control units and / or transponders. This is the work of the SIG-PRO Committee Task Group assigned to review this section and provide updated language for consideration. Members of the Task Group include L. Belliveau, L. Shudak, D. Struck and C. Willms. Submitter Full Name: Leonard Belliveau Organization: Hughes Associates, Inc. Affilliation: SIG-PRO Committee Secretary and Committee Task Group Chair Submittal Date: Fri May 17 16:09:54 EDT 2013 I, Leonard Belliveau, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Leonard Belliveau, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

124 6/5/13 TerraView Public Input No. 10-NFPA [ New Section after 23.8 ] Add a new circuit description type by inserting the following at 23.8 and renumbering appropriately: 23.8 Performance of Communication Interconnect Circuit (CICs) The assignment of class designations to communication interconnect circuits shall be based on their performance capabilities under abnormal (fault) conditions in accordance with the requirements for Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class X pathways specified in Chapter 12 and the requirements of through Communication interconnect circuits can be comprised of segments that are different Class pathways. The pathways class requirements shall be designated as part of the system design Communication interconnect circuits must maintain alarm capability during the application of a single ground fault in addition to the designated pathway class requirements Communication interconnect circuits must report changes in the communication pathway to maintain functionality due to fault conditions on Class A and Class X pathways. NOTE: This proposal appeared as Comment (Log #225) which was held from the A12 ROC on Proposal This proposal should have been accept in principle. It brings up a need to uniquely identify the circuits between two control units. Generally, most people perceive that the SLC only exists between a control unit and the devices (i.e. IDCs, smoke detectors, contact monitors, emergency control function interface device, etc.). This traditional definition has been expanded to describe control unit to control unit communication. Therefore, it is imperative to create a control unit to control unit circuit definition to accommodate for this connection in terms of performance rather than a specific technology as originally proposed. The type of information and usage of circuits from loop devices to control unit is considerably different than between control units. The inclusion and subsequent definition of this new circuit should also replace the communication link that the SIG-ECS committee was forced to create since there was no applicable circuit type to describe the pathway to an MNS in Additionally, several proposals in this cycle propose different restrictions for particular circuit types (see 72-55, , , etc.). Some of these include SLC restrictions and it was evident that the proposal was not meant to include circuits between control units, further showing the need for a new circuit designation. This requested change allows for a comprehensive performance based circuit to support modern communication technologies and not on electrical diagnostics. Submitter Full Name: Doug Woosley Organization: Valcom, Inc. Submittal Date: Fri Dec 14 10:19:29 EST 2012 I, Doug Woosley, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

125 Public Input No. 98-NFPA [ Section No ] * Actuation Time. Actuation of alarm notification appliances or emergency voice communications, emergency control function interface devices, and signal annunciation at the protected premises fire alarm control unit and other designated locations shall occur within 10 seconds after the activation of an initiating device. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved pdf Cover Sheet This public combines two sections with the same function. This is public input initiated by the Correlating Committee of NFPA 72. Submitter Full Name: Art Black Organization: Carmel Fire Protection Submittal Date: Tue Apr 23 10:40:55 EDT 2013 I, Art Black, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Art Black, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

126

127

128 Public Input No. 215-NFPA [ Section No ] Except as permitted in , the fire alarm systems components shall be permitted to share control equipment or shall be able to operate as stand-alone subsystems, but, in any case, they shall be arranged to function as a single system Functions of multiple units of the same manufacturer or of panels of a different manufacturer shall apply only to the fire alarm or evacuation singal Interconnection of Supervisory Alarm or Trobule signals shall have supervised communicating pathways and the method of interconnection shall comply with published instrcuts and listed accessories of each respective panel manufacturer Interconnecting methods that cannot comply with shall have a supervised annunicator neat the control panel that is designated as the primary panel Restting procedures shall be posted on a durable placard beside each respective panel or annunicator Authorities having jurisdiction that includes local, regional, state, or federal shall provide signature concurrance of a resetting or interconnection procedure that does not complywith each respective panel manufacturer on the final set of as-0built record drawings. This is the task grou work of Jebediah Novak and myself, which was assigned by Chairman Bunker to assist a request from Fundamental TC. Submitter Full Name: Vic Humm Organization: Vic Humm & Associates Submittal Date: Tue May 07 14:47:38 EDT 2013 I, Vic Humm, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Vic Humm, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

129 Public Input No. 605-NFPA [ Section No ] If a valve is installed in the connection between a sprinkler system and an initiating device, the valve shall be supervised in accordance with unless the valve is arranged to cause operation of the supervisory signal initiating device when it is in its non-normal position. NEW A some ball valves installed on air pressure lines connected to a pressure switch for dry pipe sprinkler systems or certain types of pre-action sprinkler systems will cause the air pressure that is trapped in the line between the valve and the supervisory signal initiating device to bleed off when the valve is turned to isolate the initiating device. This will cause the initiating device to operate and signal the low air supervisory condition. This arrangement is permitted by other standards and provides a failsafe way to test a low air pressure signal without risking activation of the system. Bleeder valves are commonly used to isolate air pressure supervisory switches. The proposed change and the annex text clarify that they are permitted and that they are fail safe. Submitter Full Name: Robert Schifiliti Organization: R. P. Schifiliti Associates, I Submittal Date: Mon May 20 16:36:34 EDT 2013 I, Robert Schifiliti, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Robert Schifiliti, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

130 Public Input No. 89-NFPA [ Section No ] Where fire pumps are required to be monitored and a building fire alarm system is installed, a pump running signal shall be permitted to be a supervisory or alarm signal be a supervisory signal. This amendment is made to clarify the requirement for monitoring of the fire pump run signal. NFPA 72 has permissive language that does not provide clear direction as to what type of signal is required. The intent of this amendment is to make all of the fire pump signals supervisory. The assumption is that a fire pump run signal will follow a water flow switch signal, and since the water flow switch is required to transmit an alarm signal, the monitoring station will be notified of an alarm. Adding the second alarm from the fire pump can be confusing to responders, and is not necessary to initiate response. Submitter Full Name: Kelly Nicolello Organization: Western Regional Fire Code Dev Submittal Date: Tue Apr 16 16:56:51 EDT 2013 I, Kelly Nicolello, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Kelly Nicolello, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

131 Public Input No. 381-NFPA [ Section No ] Visible signals shall not be required permitted in exit stair enclosures and exit passageways. Problem: Strobes should not be installed in stair and exit passageway enclosures since they may cause interruption to the evacuating occupants Solution : change the phrase "shall not be required" to "shall not be permitted" Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Fire Protection engineer, P.E. Submittal Date: Sat May 18 20:24:29 EDT 2013 I, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

132 7/15/13 TerraView Print Reload Page Close Public Input No. 382-NFPA [ Section No ] Original Hide Markup Visible fire alarm system visible signals shall not be required be permitted in elevator cars. Problem: Fire alarm Strobes should not be installed inside elevator cars - they may harm and confuse the occupants using the elevators. Also, upon elevator phase 1 emergency recall (in newer elevators), a visual warning signal (firefighter helmet inside the car) is illuminating and there is also an audible signal (buzzer) while the elevator is under recall condition Solution: Specify that FA visual signal shall not be permitted in elevator cars Technical Committee Review - Public Input Stage Create a First Revision, Committee Input, or make a Committee Statement affecting this PI Create Immediately create based only on Public Input No. 382-NFPA Add Add this Public Input to cart Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Fire Protection Engineer, P.E. Submittal Date: Sat May 18 20:29:07 EDT 2013 I, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and Substantiation). I understand and intend that I acquire no rights, including rights as a joint author, in any publication of the NFPA in w hich this Public Input in this or another similar or derivative form is used. I hereby w arrant that I am the By checking this box I affirm that I am Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright creating an electronic signature that w ill, upon my submission of this form, have the same legal force and effect as a /TerraView/Content/ ditamap/2/C xml submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

133 Public Input No. 572-NFPA [ Section No ] Power Supplies. A primary battery (dry cell) shall be permitted to be used as the sole power source of a low source for equipment incorporating a low -power radio transmitter where all of the following conditions are met: (1) Each transmitter radio shall serve only one device and shall be individually identified at the receiver/fire alarm system control unit. (2) The battery shall be capable of operating the low-power radio transmitter for and its associated device for not less than 1 year before the battery depletion threshold is reached. (3) A low battery depletion signal shall be transmitted before the battery has been depleted to a level below that required to support alarm transmission after 7 additional days of nonalarm operation device is no longer capable of providing 7 days of normal operation followed by the signaling of a single-off normal event. This signal shall be distinctive from alarm, supervisory, tamper, and trouble signals; shall visibly identify the affected low-power radio transmitter;, and, when silenced, shall automatically re-sound at least once every 4 hours. (4) Catastrophic (open or short) battery failure shall cause a trouble signal identifying the affected low-power radio transmitter at its receiver/fire alarm at the system control unit. When silenced, the trouble signal shall automatically re-sound at least once every 4 hours. (5) Any mode of failure of a primary battery in a low-power radio transmitter shall radio shall not affect any other low-power radio transmitter. Wireless systems are now incorporating two-way communications. Use of the term radio and deletion of the term tramsmitter reflects the two-way aspect of this communcation. Revised the text to use defined terms. The 1-year battery requirement should also aply to the device being served by the radio (e.g. smoke detector). Additional revisions for clarity. Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 576-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 578-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Similar change and substantiation Similar change and substantiation Submitter Full Name: Andrew Berezowski Organization: Honeywell Fire Systems Submittal Date: Mon May 20 15:31:38 EDT 2013 submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

134 Public Input No. 576-NFPA [ Section No ] Alarm Signals * When a wirless inititating device is actuated, each its low-power radio transmitter shall automatically radio shall transmit an alarm signal Each low-power radio transmitter shall radio shall automatically repeat alarm transmission transmissions at intervals not exceeding 60 seconds until the initiating device is returned to its nonalarm condition Fire alarm signals shall have priority over all other signals The maximum allowable response delay from activation of an initiating device to receipt and display by the receiver/fire alarm system control unit shall be 10 seconds * A fire alarm signal from a low-power radio transmitter shall radio shall latch at its receiver/fire alarm control unit until manually reset and shall identify the particular initiating device in alarm. Wireless systems are now incorporating two-way communications. Use of the term radio and deletion of the term transmitter reflects the two-way aspect of this communcation. Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 572-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Similar change and substantiation Submitter Full Name: Andrew Berezowski Organization: Honeywell Fire Systems Submittal Date: Mon May 20 15:44:24 EDT 2013 submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

135 Public Input No. 578-NFPA [ Section No ] Monitoring for Integrity The low-power radio transmitter shall be specifically listed as using a transmission a communication method that is highly resistant to misinterpretation of simultaneous transmissions and to interference (e.g., impulse noise and adjacent channel interference) The occurrence of any single fault that disables transmission disables communication between any low-power radio transmitter and the receiver/fire alarm radio and the system control unit shall cause a latching trouble signal within 200 seconds. Exception : Until the expiration date for this exception of June 30, 2013, the time period for a low-power radio transmitter with only a single, connected alarm-initiating device shall be permitted to be increased to four times the minimum time interval permitted for a 1-second transmission up to the following: (1) 4 hours maximum for a transmitter serving a single initiating device (2) 4 hours maximum for a retransmission device (repeater), where disabling of the repeater or its transmission does not prevent the receipt of signals at the receiver/fire alarm control unit from any initiating device transmitter A single fault on the signaling channel shall not cause an alarm signal. The periodic transmission periodic communication required to comply with from a low-power radio transmitter shall ensure successful alarm transmission capability Removal of a low-power radio transmitter from submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

136 radio from its installed location shall cause immediate transmission of a distinctive supervisory signal that indicates its removal and individually identifies the affected device Reception of any unwanted (interfering) transmission by a retransmission device (repeater) or by the main receiver/ system control unit, for a continuous period of 20 seconds or more, shall cause an audible and visible trouble indication at the main receiver/ system control unit. This indication The indication required by shall identify the specific trouble condition as an interfering signal. Wireless systems are now incorporating two-way communications. Use of the term radio and deletion of the term tramsmitter reflects the two-way aspect of this communcation. The text has been revised for consitency. Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 572-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Similar change and substantiation Submitter Full Name: Andrew Berezowski Organization: Honeywell Fire Systems Submittal Date: Mon May 20 15:52:06 EDT 2013 I, Andrew Berezow ski, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Andrew Berezow ski, and I agree to be legally bound by the above and the terms and conditions contained therein. I understand and intend that, by checking this box, I am creating an electronic signature that w ill, upon my submission of this form, have the same legal force and effect as a submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 2/2

137 Public Input No. 211-NFPA [ Section No ] Removal of a low-power radio transmitter from its installed location shall cause immediate transmission of a distinctive supervisory trouble signal that indicates its removal and individually identifies the affected device. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 72_original.pdf original comment When a wireless device is removed it typically sends a tamper signal to the control panel. Tamper and supervisory are common with suppression terminology. When a wireless device is connected toa sprinkler superviosry switch it indicates a supervisory signal on the control unit. By changing the wording to trouble upon removal it eliminates misinterpretation. Submitter Full Name: SCOTT BARRETT Organization: CWSI Submittal Date: Mon May 06 15:42:05 EDT 2013 I, SCOTT BARRETT, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am SCOTT BARRETT, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

138 Public Input No. 594-NFPA [ Section No ] Wireless Output Signals from Receiver/Control. When the receiver/ system control unit is used to actuate remote appliances devices, such as notification appliances and relays, by wireless means, the remote appliances shall meet the following requirements: (1) Power supplies shall comply with Chapter 10 or the requirements of (2) All monitoring for integrity requirements of Chapter 10, Chapter 12, Chapter 23, or shall apply. (3) The maximum allowable response delay from activation of an initiating device to activation of required alarm functions shall be 10 seconds. (4) Each receiver/ system control unit shall automatically repeat alarm transmission output signals at intervals not exceeding 60 seconds or until confirmation that the output appliance output device has received the alarm signal. (5) The appliances The devices shall continue to operate (latch-in) until manually reset at the receiver/ system control unit. Revised to use defined terminology. Submitter Full Name: Andrew Berezowski Organization: Honeywell Fire Systems Submittal Date: Mon May 20 16:24:14 EDT 2013 I, Andrew Berezow ski, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Andrew Berezow ski, and I agree to be legally bound by the above and the terms and conditions contained therein. I understand and intend that, by checking this box, I am creating an electronic signature that w ill, upon my submission of this form, have the same legal force and effect as a submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

139 Public Input No. 178-NFPA [ Section No. A ] A Dedicated Function Fire Alarm Control Unit. Examples of A dedicataed function fire alarm control unit could serve more than one emergency control function, such as a dedicated function fire alarm control unit include an automatic sprinkler alarm and supervisory control unit or an elevator recall control and supervisory control unit. could serve as a single control unit for sprinkler system monitoring and elevator recall. In that case the control unit should be labeled as: "Sprinkler Waterflow AND Elevator Recall Control and Supervisory Control Unit" To be consistent with PI # 177 and the proposed revised defination for dedicated function FA control unit. Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 81-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 380-NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Submitter Full Name: Sagiv Weiss-Ishai Organization: San Francisco Fire Department, Fire Protection Engineer, P.E. Submittal Date: Sun Apr 28 17:44:24 EDT 2013 I, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

140 Public Input No. 203-NFPA [ Section No. A.12.3 ] A.12.3 The intent of the circuit designations is not to create a hierarchal ranking; rather it is to provide guidance on the levels of performance. The initiating device circuit, signaling line circuit, and notification appliance circuit performance class/style tables from previous editions of the Code have been included as Table A.12.3(a), Table A.12.3(b), and Table A.12.3(c) but have been modified to include the enhanced class references. These tables reflect the classifications as applied to fire alarm systems. Some of the operations are a combination of the requirements of Chapter 12 in conjunction with the requirements of Chapters 10 and 23. Singular ground-fault conditions that do not affect operation of the pathway are not specifically covered in Chapter 12, but are covered by the requirements of other chapters. Users of the Chapter 12 designations should review whether there are other abnormal conditions not specified in Chapter 12 that the pathways need to annunciate and operate through for their application. Table A.12.3(a) Performance of Initiating Device Circuits (IDCs) NFPA Class B A NFPA Class B A Alm Trbl ARC Alm Trbl ARC Abnormal Condition Single open X XR Single ground XR XR Alm: Alarm. Trbl: Trouble. ARC: Alarm receipt capability during abnormal condition. R: Required capability. X: Indication required at protected premises and as required by Chapter 26. Table A.12.3(b) Performance of Signaling Line Circuits (SLCs) NFPA Class B A A Style NFPA Class B A X Alarm Trouble ARC Alarm Trouble ARC Alarm Trouble ARC Abnormal Condition Single open X XR XR Single ground XR XR XR Wire-to-wire short X X XR Wire-to-wire short and open X X X Wire-to-wire short and ground X X X Open and ground X XR XR Loss of carrier (if used)/channel interface X X X ARC: Alarm receipt capability during abnormal condition. R: Required capability. X: Indication required at protected premises and as required by Chapter 26. Table A.12.3(c) Notification Appliance Circuits (NACs) NFPA Class B A NFPA Class B A Trouble Indications at Protective Premise Alarm Capability During Abnormal Condition Trouble Indications at Protective Premise Alarm Capability During Abnormal Condition Abnormal Condition Single open X- XR Single ground XR XR Wire-to-wire short X- X- X: Indication required at protected premises and as required by Chapter 26. R: Required capability. This public input has been created by the SIG-PRO Task Group on Wiring Systems. Members are: A.J. Capowski (Chair), Dan Horon, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, Jebediah Novak, Mark Hayes, Vic Humm and submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

141 Jeff Van Keuren. The purpose of this public input is to improve the Annex material for section It deletes the old style tables and rewrites some of the Annex material to provide better clarity. Submitter Full Name: Anthony Capowski Organization: Tyco/SimplexGrinnell Submittal Date: Mon May 06 12:31:24 EDT 2013 I, Anthony Capow ski, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Anthony Capow ski, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 2/2

142 Public Input No. 204-NFPA [ Section No. A ] A The Class A references for initiating device circuit and notification appliance circuit performance have been changed to eliminate the need for alarm receipt capability during a single ground or annunciation of a single ground fault. The signaling line circuit performance has changed to provide a clear separation between the Class A Style 6 and Class A Style 7 performance. The Class A Style 7 performance is now defined as Class X. Fiber optic or wireless pathways are examples of Class A circuitry not impaired by earth ground connection, and short-circuits, and therefore do not annunciate those conditions as a fault. Users of the code are advised that fire alarm circuits still require alarm receipt capability during a single ground. See Chapter 23. This public input has been created by the SIG-PRO Task Group on Wiring Systems. Members are: A.J. Capowski (Chair), Dan Horon, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, Jebediah Novak, Mark Hayes, Vic Humm and Jeff Van Keuren. The purpose of this public input is to improve the Annex material for section It deletes the old style tables and rewrites some of the Annex material to provide better clarity. Submitter Full Name: Anthony Capowski Organization: Tyco/SimplexGrinnell Submittal Date: Mon May 06 12:33:18 EDT 2013 I, Anthony Capow ski, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and Substantiation). I understand and intend that I acquire no rights, including rights as a joint author, in any publication of the NFPA in w hich this Public Input in this or another similar or derivative form is used. I hereby w arrant that I am the author of this Public Input and that I have full pow er and authority to enter into this copyright assignment. By checking this box I affirm that I am Anthony Capow ski, and I agree to be legally bound by the above and the terms and conditions contained therein. I understand and intend that, by checking this box, I am creating an electronic signature that w ill, upon my submission of this form, have the same legal force and effect as a submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 38/41

143 Public Input No. 205-NFPA [ Section No. A ] A The Class B references for initiating device circuit, signaling line circuit, and notification appliance circuit performance have been changed to eliminate the need for alarm receipt capability during a single ground or annunciation of a single ground fault. Users of the code are advised that fire alarm circuits still require alarm receipt capability during a single ground. (See Chapter 23.) Delete Section This public input has been created by the SIG-PRO Task Group on Wiring Systems. Members are: A.J. Capowski (Chair), Dan Horon, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, Jebediah Novak, Mark Hayes, Vic Humm and Jeff Van Keuren. The purpose of this public input is to improve the Annex material for section It deletes the old style tables and rewrites some of the Annex material to provide better clarity. Submitter Full Name: Anthony Capowski Organization: Tyco/SimplexGrinnell Submittal Date: Mon May 06 12:35:04 EDT 2013 I, Anthony Capow ski, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and Substantiation). I understand and intend that I acquire no rights, including rights as a joint author, in any publication of the NFPA in w hich this Public Input in this or another similar or derivative form is used. I hereby w arrant that I am the author of this Public Input and that I have full pow er and authority to enter into this copyright assignment. By checking this box I affirm that I am Anthony Capow ski, and I agree to be legally bound by the above and the terms and conditions contained therein. I understand and intend that, by checking this box, I am creating an electronic signature that w ill, upon my submission of this form, have the same legal force and effect as a Public Input No. 206-NFPA [ Section No. A ] submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 39/41

144 A The Class C reference is new and is intended to describe technologies that supervise the communication pathway by polling or continuous communication handshaking such as the following: (1) Fire alarm control unit or supervising station connections to a wired LAN, WAN, or Internet (2) Fire alarm control unit or supervising station connections to a wireless LAN, WAN, and Internet (3) Fire alarm control unit or supervising station connections to a wireless (proprietary communications) (4) Fire alarm control unit digital alarm communicator transmitter or supervising station digital alarm communicator receiver connections to the public switched telephone network Individual pathway segments are not required to be monitored. Supervision is accomplished by end to end communications. This public input has been created by the SIG-PRO Task Group on Wiring Systems. Members are: A.J. Capowski (Chair), Dan Horon, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, Jebediah Novak, Mark Hayes, Vic Humm and Jeff Van Keuren. The purpose of this public input is to improve the Annex material for section It deletes the old style tables and rewrites some of the Annex material to provide better clarity. Submitter Full Name: Anthony Capowski Organization: Tyco/SimplexGrinnell Submittal Date: Mon May 06 12:36:24 EDT 2013 I, Anthony Capow ski, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and Substantiation). I understand and intend that I acquire no rights, including rights as a joint author, in any publication of the NFPA in w hich this Public Input in this or another similar or derivative form is used. I hereby w arrant that I am the author of this Public Input and that I have full pow er and authority to enter into this copyright assignment. By checking this box I affirm that I am Anthony Capow ski, and I agree to be legally bound by the above and the terms and conditions contained therein. I understand and intend that, by checking this box, I am creating an electronic signature that w ill, upon my submission of this form, have the same legal force and effect as a submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 40/41

145 Public Input No. 293-NFPA [ Section No. A ] A The Class C reference is new and is intended to describe technologies that supervise the communication pathway by polling or continuous communication handshaking such as the following: (1) Fire alarm control unit or supervising station connections to a wired LAN, WAN, or Internet (2) Fire alarm control unit or supervising station connections to a wireless LAN, WAN, and Internet (3) Fire alarm control unit or supervising station connections to a wireless (proprietary communications) (4) Fire alarm control unit digital alarm communicator transmitter or supervising station digital alarm communicator receiver connections to the public switched telephone network Individual pathway segments are not required to be monitored. Supervision is accomplished by end to end communications. Class C is no longer "new" Submitter Full Name: Michael Pallett Organization: Telecor Inc. Submittal Date: Wed May 15 16:22:30 EDT 2013 I, Michael Pallett, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and Substantiation). I understand and intend that I acquire no rights, including rights as a joint author, in any publication of the NFPA in w hich this Public Input in this or another similar or derivative form is used. I hereby w arrant that I am the author of this Public Input and that I have full pow er and authority to enter into this copyright assignment. By checking this box I affirm that I am Michael Pallett, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms and conditions contained therein. I understand and intend that, by checking this box, I am creating an electronic signature that w ill, upon my submission of this form, have the same legal force and effect as a submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 41/41

146 Public Input No. 207-NFPA [ Section No. A ] A The Class D reference is intended to describe pathways that are not supervised but have a fail-safe operation that performs the intended function when the connection is lost. Examples of such pathways include the following: (1) Power to door holders where interruption of the power results in the door closing (2) Power to locking hardware that release upon an open circuit or fire alarm operation This public input has been created by the SIG-PRO Task Group on Wiring Systems. Members are: A.J. Capowski (Chair), Dan Horon, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, Jebediah Novak, Mark Hayes, Vic Humm and Jeff Van Keuren. The purpose of this public input is to improve the Annex material for section It deletes the old style tables and rewrites some of the Annex material to provide better clarity. Submitter Full Name: Anthony Capowski Organization: Tyco/SimplexGrinnell Submittal Date: Mon May 06 12:40:50 EDT 2013 I, Anthony Capow ski, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Anthony Capow ski, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

147 Public Input No. 208-NFPA [ Section No. A ] A The Class E reference is new and is intended to describe pathways that do not require supervision as described in Section This public input has been created by the SIG-PRO Task Group on Wiring Systems. Members are: A.J. Capowski (Chair), Dan Horon, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, Jebediah Novak, Mark Hayes, Vic Humm and Jeff Van Keuren. The purpose of this public input is to improve the Annex material for section It deletes the old style tables and rewrites some of the Annex material to provide better clarity. Submitter Full Name: Anthony Capowski Organization: Tyco/SimplexGrinnell Submittal Date: Mon May 06 12:42:36 EDT 2013 I, Anthony Capow ski, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Anthony Capow ski, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

148 Public Input No. 289-NFPA [ Section No. A ] A The Class E reference is new and is intended to describe pathways that do not require supervision as described in Section Class E is no longer "new" Submitter Full Name: Michael Pallett Organization: Telecor Inc. Submittal Date: Wed May 15 15:52:06 EDT 2013 I, Michael Pallett, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Michael Pallett, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

149 Public Input No. 209-NFPA [ Section No. A ] A The Class X reference is new and is intended to describe pathways as described as Class A Style 7 of the signaling line circuit performance of Table A.12.3(b). (Also see A.12.3.) Delete section This public input has been created by the SIG-PRO Task Group on Wiring Systems. Members are: A.J. Capowski (Chair), Dan Horon, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, Jebediah Novak, Mark Hayes, Vic Humm and Jeff Van Keuren. The purpose of this public input is to improve the Annex material for section It deletes the old style tables and rewrites some of the Annex material to provide better clarity. Submitter Full Name: Anthony Capowski Organization: Tyco/SimplexGrinnell Submittal Date: Mon May 06 12:44:15 EDT 2013 I, Anthony Capow ski, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Anthony Capow ski, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

150 Public Input No. 290-NFPA [ New Section after A ] Class N Annex Material A (1) Class N consists of pathways between control equipment and devices. The pathways are comprised of metallic conductor communications cable, such as a 100? balanced twisted-pair (e.g., Category 5E) including single pair or multi-pair cable, or other communications media such as optical fiber cable or wireless transmission, or a combination of two or more of these. Pathways consists of uninterrupted communications media between control equipment and an endpoint device, or consists of a network of multiple interconnected communications media pathway segments connecting multiple devices. Media pathway segments are created by the use of transmission equipment such as Ethernet switches, wireless repeaters, or media converters that interrupt an otherwise continuous pathway. It should be noted that the requirements for Class N pathway transmission equipment are not covered by Chapter 12, but by other Chapters in NFPA 72. A network of pathway segments are also described as Primary Pathway Segments, Redundant Pathway Segments, or Non-Designated Pathway Segments. Primary and Redundant Pathways, from control equipment to each device, are independently and continuously verified for their ability to support end to end communications to and from each endpoint device. Each device will be provided a Primary Pathway consisting of one or more pathway segments. For Primary Pathway Segments that services more than one device, additional Redundant Pathway Segments provide alternate verified communication pathways to the devices. Should any Primary Pathway Segment fail, communications is supported by the Redundant Pathway Segments. Should either a Primary or Redundant Pathway Segment fail, trouble will be indicated by virtue of the continuous verification of all Primary and Redundant Pathway Segments. The Redundant Pathway Segments are generally independent and do not normally share media with the Primary Pathways. However, there are exceptions such as different frequencies for wireless, or ring topologies (explained below). There is an opportunity to enhance the robustness of a Class N network by providing physically distinct pathway segments (i.e. an alternate conduit, or cable tray route, or wireless transmission frequency range, or a combination of distinct media). It is also permissible to provide other Non-Designated Pathway Segments. Additional pathway segments, in excess of the minimum requirements of Class N, increase the overall robustness of the network, and are often desirable. However, since these additional pathway segments exceed the minimum equipment standards, there is no intention to create an additional monitoring burden, so verification of these pathways is optional. For Class N, where a conductor-based media is used, it is not the intention to monitor faults on individual conductors, but rather to monitor the operational capability and performance of the pathway as a whole. Unlike Class C, where multiple pathways are not required, for Class N some pathway segments that carry communications for multiple devices (such as Ethernet Uplinks or Backbones) will have Redundant Pathway Segments present. The intention is that any one pathway segment can fail without a loss in operational capability to more than one device. For example, connections to control equipment (Fire Alarm Control Units, ACUs, or ECCU), where any interruption in communications could potentially affect all devices, would have Redundant Pathway Segments. Additionally, Backbone and Uplink pathway segments that supports communications for more than one device, positioned between transmission equipment would also have a Redundant Pathway Segment. But the requirement for Redundant Pathway Segments does not apply to those pathway segments used to service a single device (see Figure A (1)(a)). The term devices is used generically in this section refers to endpoint devices, and includes: submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/3

151 input components such as alarm initiating switches, sensors, output components such as Ethernet speakers ( i.e. IEEE 802.3af PoE speakers), strobes, textual signage, audio amplifiers. Transmission equipment (e.g., Media Converters, Ethernet switches, patch panels, crossconnects) are not considered devices with respect to Class N Pathways. The Audio Amplifier example is included to explain a type of addressable device that may receive a digital audio input from the Class N Pathway, but provide a Notification Appliance Circuit (NAC) output to support Class A, B or X speaker connections. Other similar devices are also possible to provide alternate Class Pathway connections for strobes (NACs) or Initiating Devices (IDCs). From the perspective of the Class N pathway, this is considered an endpoint device. However, since these types of endpoints may support multiple Notification Appliance Devices or Initiating Devices they are subject to the Redundant Pathway Segment requirement and are provided with dual pathway connections. Control equipment connected to a Class N network for communications with devices would generally utilize Redundant Pathway Segments. Control equipment connected to other control equipment on a Class N network would utilize Redundant Pathway Segments if the control equipment was dependent on any of the pathway segments such that a failure of a Primary Pathway Segment in-between control equipment could impair the operation of the control equipment (see Figure A (1)(b)). Another utilization of endpoints is permitted for devices providing two connection ports and supporting dual pathway segment connections. The description of endpoint devices is not intended to exclude devices that support dual pathway connections. Since these pathways are servicing a single device only a single Primary Pathway connection is required. The second pathway connection exceeds minimum equipment standards and is therefore not required to be verified as a Redundant Pathway Segment; it can be considered connected to a Non-Designated Pathway Segment (see Figure A (1)(c)). Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved A_12_3_6-1-a.tif Figure A (1) (a) A_12_3_6-1-b.tif figure A (1)(b) A_12_3_6-1-c.tif figure A (1)(c) Questions concerning the acceptability of using Ethernet and other non-fire or non-mns networks for fire alarm and signaling systems applications are being raised more and more. Because of these questions and the rapidly changing technology, the Task Group on Networks in FA/ECS was formed by the Correlating Committee to address the risk analysis, design, application, installation, and performance of networks and networking equipment used in fire alarm systems, fire EVACS and mass notification systems. This proposal and Annex material is a result of that effort. Some of the concerns that were raised during related discussions for the 2013 edition included: ground detection, system management, availability, and software control. These issues were discussed and the results are provided in the Task Group s proposal. The task group reviewed the new Shared Pathway Designations added to Chapter 12 in The proposal addresses the type of network acceptable, reliability required, listings required and use of the network to connect devices or appliances or interfaced systems. The proposal is the recommendation by a unanimous vote of the Correlating Committee Task Group submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 2/3

152 members that was comprised of TC members from Chapters 10, 14, 23, 24 and 26 as well as individuals outside of the committees. Wayne Moore A.J. Capowski Joe L. Collins Dan Horon Vic Humm Michael Pallett Charles Pugh Robert Schifiliti Aviv Siegel Larry Shudak Bob Elliott Paul Crowley Jeff Silveira Jeff Knight Andrew Berezowski Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 270-NFPA [New Section after ] Relationship Class N Network Submission Submitter Full Name: Michael Pallett Organization: Telecor Inc. Submittal Date: Wed May 15 15:53:15 EDT 2013 I, Michael Pallett, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Michael Pallett, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 3/3

153

154

155

156 Public Input No. 291-NFPA [ New Section after A ] Class N Annex Material A (4) The operational conditions of the pathway include factors such as Latency, Throughput, Response Time, Arrival Rate, Utilization, Bandwidth, and Loss. It is intended that the Life Safety equipment connected to a Class N network actively monitor some or all of the pathway s operational conditions, so that an improperly installed or configured pathway, or a subsequently degraded pathway, or network of pathway segments, is detected by the life safety equipment and reported as a Trouble. This monitoring is intended to be continuous such that a degradation of pathway performance over time is detected and reported. Trouble would be reported when operational conditions of the pathway(s) have deteriorated to the point where the equipment is no longer capable of meeting its minimum required performance requirements, even if some level of communication to endpoint devices is still maintained. Examples of performance requirements include the activation of an alarm within 10 seconds, the reporting of a trouble signal within 200 seconds, synchronization of strobes, and delivering audio messages with required intelligibility. It is worth noting, that it is possible to have a pathway, where end to end communications is operational under system idle conditions, but in the event of an alarm, the increased load on a degraded pathway could cause a partial or complete failure to deliver the required Life Safety signals. This is the situation intended to be actively detected and reported. Questions concerning the acceptability of using Ethernet and other non-fire or non-mns networks for fire alarm and signaling systems applications are being raised more and more. Because of these questions and the rapidly changing technology, the Task Group on Networks in FA/ECS was formed by the Correlating Committee to address the risk analysis, design, application, installation, and performance of networks and networking equipment used in fire alarm systems, fire EVACS and mass notification systems. This proposal and Annex material is a result of that effort. Some of the concerns that were raised during related discussions for the 2013 edition included: ground detection, system management, availability, and software control. These issues were discussed and the results are provided in the Task Group s proposal. The task group reviewed the new Shared Pathway Designations added to Chapter 12 in The proposal addresses the type of network acceptable, reliability required, listings required and use of the network to connect devices or appliances or interfaced systems. The proposal is the recommendation by a unanimous vote of the Correlating Committee Task Group members that was comprised of TC members from Chapters 10, 14, 23, 24 and 26 as well as individuals outside of the committees. Wayne Moore A.J. Capowski Joe L. Collins Dan Horon Vic Humm Michael Pallett Charles Pugh Robert Schifiliti submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

157 Aviv Siegel Larry Shudak Bob Elliott Paul Crowley Jeff Silveira Jeff Knight Andrew Berezowski Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 270-NFPA [New Section after ] Relationship Class N Network Submission Submitter Full Name: Michael Pallett Organization: Telecor Inc. Submittal Date: Wed May 15 16:09:47 EDT 2013 I, Michael Pallett, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Michael Pallett, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 2/2

158 Public Input No. 292-NFPA [ New Section after A ] A (5) Devices with dual path connections are permitted to be connected so as to create a daisy chain of devices on a ring. In this circumstance they cannot be considered endpoint devices because each pathway segment supports multiple devices; therefore verified Redundant Pathway Segments would be necessary. This can be accomplished with a ring topology, as long as each segment of the ring is verified as functional, and the failure of any one segment does not result in the loss of functionality of more than one device. In this circumstance the requirements for Class N are satisfied by allowing the Primary and Redundant Pathway Segments to share the same media by providing two possible directions of communications on a ring topology (see Figure A (5)). This configuration is fully compliant with (5). The daisy chain configuration is also a permissible connection method for multiple control units that require verified Primary and Redundant Pathway Segments. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved A_12_3_6-5.tif figure A (5) Questions concerning the acceptability of using Ethernet and other non-fire or non-mns networks for fire alarm and signaling systems applications are being raised more and more. Because of these questions and the rapidly changing technology, the Task Group on Networks in FA/ECS was formed by the Correlating Committee to address the risk analysis, design, application, installation, and performance of networks and networking equipment used in fire alarm systems, fire EVACS and mass notification systems. This proposal and Annex material is a result of that effort. Some of the concerns that were raised during related discussions for the 2013 edition included: ground detection, system management, availability, and software control. These issues were discussed and the results are provided in the Task Group s proposal. The task group reviewed the new Shared Pathway Designations added to Chapter 12 in The proposal addresses the type of network acceptable, reliability required, listings required and use of the network to connect devices or appliances or interfaced systems. The proposal is the recommendation by a unanimous vote of the Correlating Committee Task Group members that was comprised of TC members from Chapters 10, 14, 23, 24 and 26 as well as individuals outside of the committees. Wayne Moore A.J. Capowski Joe L. Collins Dan Horon Vic Humm Michael Pallett Charles Pugh Robert Schifiliti Aviv Siegel Larry Shudak Bob Elliott submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

159 Paul Crowley Jeff Silveira Jeff Knight Andrew Berezowski Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 270-NFPA [New Section after ] Relationship Class N Network Submission Submitter Full Name: Michael Pallett Organization: Telecor Inc. Submittal Date: Wed May 15 16:13:41 EDT 2013 I, Michael Pallett, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Michael Pallett, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 2/2

160

161 Public Input No. 298-NFPA [ New Section after A ] A Examples of pathway survivability level 1 could be: (1) 2-hour fire-rated circuit integrity (CI) cable (2) 2-hour fire-rated cable system [electrical circuit protective system(s)] (3) A fire resistance rated enclosure or protected area (4) Performance alternatives approved by the authority having jurisdiction (5) Any interconnecting conductors, cables, or other physical pathways installed in metal raceways in buildings that are fully protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprink ler Systems. In a one hour fire resistance rated building, it isn t necessary to construct a 2 hour fire resistance rated enclosure or develop an alternative approach to meet a 2 hour performance. A Examples of pathway survivability level 2 could be: (1) 2-hour fire-rated circuit integrity (CI) cable or 2-hour fire-rated cable system [electrical circuit protective system(s)] in buildings that are fully protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems. (2) Installing any interconnecting conductors, cables, or other physical pathways installed in metal raceways in a 2-hour fire-rated enclosure and protected area in buildings that are fully protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems. (3) Performance alternatives that provide redundant protection as approved by the authority having jurisdiction Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved Pathway_Levels_je_121.4.pdf Cover Sheet When this committee developed pathway survivability levels, it was not meant to be hierarchical. For proof (or a reminder), see page in the 2009 ROC in response to Comment , log 382. However, because of the numbering scheme used (levels 0 through 4) and an incorrect perception to a number of code users that all the 2 hr options in pathway level 2 are superior to the sprinkler option provided in pathway level 1, some chapters are excluding the latter as an equivalent option. The requirement for pathway levels are borne out of the section pertaining to circuits surviving an attack by fire which was previously contained in Chapter 6 of the 2007 edition of NFPA 72. In that edition, the four current pathway level 2 options and the pathway level 1 sprinkler option were all deemed equivalent. From the 2007 edition of NFPA 72: Where the separation of emergency voice/alarm control equipment locations results in the portions of the system controlled by one location being dependent upon the control equipment in other locations, the circuits between the dependent controls shall be protected against attack by fire using one of the following methods: (1) A 2-hour fire rated circuit integrity (CI) cable (2) A 2-hour fire rated cable system (electrical circuit protective system) (3) Routing the cable through a 2-hour rated enclosure (4) Performance alternatives approved by the authority having jurisdiction submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

162 (5) Buildings fully protected by an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, and with the interconnecting wiring or cables between the emergency voice/alarm communication control equipment locations installed in metal raceways and in accordance Article 760 of NFPA 70 The code needs to remove the hierarchical implication between pathway levels 1 and 2 once and for all by combining the two pathway levels. But it needs to go further and stop listing specific methods for meeting pathway survivability requirements and instead, use performance based language. If examples are needed, place them in the annex as I ve proposed. Note: this public input is independent of the public input I submitted as part of a SIG-PRO task group. It s different as it proposed to move all examples to the annex. Though I think this public input is viable on its own, I have no issue with the SIG-PRO task group s PI should that be preferred by the TC. Submitter Full Name: Joshua Elvove Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Thu May 16 08:36:39 EDT 2013 I, Joshua Elvove, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Joshua Elvove, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 2/2

163 Public Input No. 296-NFPA [ New Section after A ] A (4) A performance based alternative is needed because it is possible to construct a non-sprinklered, Type V(000) building that employs relocation or partial evacuation (e.g., a single story ambulatory health care occupancy) that wouldn t warrant either a 2 hour fire resistance rated enclosure or 2 hour cable A (4) A performance based alternative is needed because it is possible to construct a sprinklered single story Type V(111) or multi-story Type II(111) building that employs relocation or partial evacuation (e.g., a health care occupancy) that wouldn t warrant either a 2 hour fire resistance rated enclosure or 2 hour cable (i.e., a 1 hr enclosure would suffice) Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved Pathway_Levels_TG_12.4.pdf Cover Sheet This public input has been created with input from the SIG-PRO Task Group on Wiring Systems. Members are: A.J. Capowski (Chair), Dan Horon, Sagiv- Weiss-Ishai, Jebediah Novak, Mark Hayes, Vic Humm and Jeff Van Keuren. The purpose of this public input is to eliminate the perceived hierarchy that was inadvertently created when the SIG-PRO committee first created pathway survivability levels for the 2010 edition of NFPA 72. As it was never the intent to create a hierarchy, the provisions from pathway survivability levels 1 and 2 are being consolidated.. As such, all options that previously existing in paragraph of the 2007 edition of NFPA 72 are now listed as pathway survivability level 2 with one change. The change now permits any performance alternative as approved by the AHJ, instead of only those that mandate a 2 hour performance. This is because it is possible to construct buildings that are not rated for 2 hours that employ relocation or partial evacuation. Hence, the two proposed new annex notes. Note: Though pathway survivability level 1 has been eliminated, the task group felt it would be better to maintain pathway survivability level 2, rather than consolidate all requirements under pathway survivability level 1. But this is something the correlating committee can weigh in on. Submitter Full Name: Joshua Elvove Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Thu May 16 08:28:47 EDT 2013 I, Joshua Elvove, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Joshua Elvove, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

164 NFPA Public Input Form NOTE: All Public Input must be received by 5:00 pm EST/EDST on the published Public Input Closing Date. For further information on the standards-making process, please contact the Codes and Standards Administration at or visit For technical assistance, please call NFPA at FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Log #: Date Rec d: Date 5/15/22013 Name Joshua W. Elvove (on behalf of SIG-PRO TG) Tel. No. Company NA Street Address City State Zip Please indicate organization represented (if any) 1. (a) Title of NFPA Standard (b) Section/Paragraph 12.4 NA 72, Fire Alarm & Signaling Code NFPA No. & Year Public Input Recommends (check one): new text revised text deleted text 3. Proposed Text of Public Input (include proposed new or revised wording, or identification of wording to be deleted): [Note: Proposed text should be in legislative format; i.e., use underscore to denote wording to be inserted (inserted wording) and strikethrough to denote wording to be deleted (deleted wording).] Revise Section 12.4 as follows 12.4 Pathway Survivability. All pathways shall comply with the NFPA 70, National Electrical Code Pathway Survivability Level 0. Level 0 pathways shall not be required to have any provisions for pathway survivability Not used Pathway Survivability Level 1. Pathway survivability Level 1 shall consist of pathways in buildings that are fully protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, with any interconnecting conductors, cables, or other physical pathways installed in metal raceways Pathway Survivability Level 2. Pathway survivability Level 2 shall consist of one or more of the following: (1) 2-hour fire-rated circuit integrity (CI) cable (2) 2-hour fire-rated cable system [electrical circuit protective system(s)] (3) 2-hour fire-rated enclosure or protected area (4)* 2-hour pperformance alternatives approved by the authority having jurisdiction (5) Any interconnecting conductors, cables, or other physical pathways installed in metal raceways in buildings that are fully protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems Pathway Survivability Level 3. Pathway survivability Level 3 shall consist of in buildings that are fully protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, and one or more of the following: (1) 2-hour fire-rated circuit integrity (CI) cable (2) 2-hour fire-rated cable system [electrical circuit protective system(s)] (3) 2-hour fire-rated enclosure or protected area (4)* 2-hour pperformance alternatives approved by the authority having jurisdiction Add the following new annex material: A (4) A performance based alternative is needed because it is possible to construct a non-sprinklered, Type V(000) building that employs relocation or partial evacuation (e.g., a single story ambulatory health care occupancy) that wouldn t warrant either a 2 hour fire resistance rated enclosure or 2 hour cable A (4) A performance based alternative is needed because it is possible to construct a sprinklered single story Type V(111) or multi-story Type II(111) building that employs relocation or partial evacuation (e.g., a health care occupancy) that wouldn t warrant either a 2 hour fire resistance rated enclosure or 2 hour cable (i.e., a 1 hr enclosure would suffice) 4. : (Note: State the problem that would be resolved by your recommendation; give the specific reason for your Public Input, including copies of tests, research papers, fire experience, etc. If more than 200 words, it may be abstracted for publication.)

165 This public input has been created with input from the SIG-PRO Task Group on Wiring Systems. Members are: A.J. Capowski (Chair), Dan Horon, Sagiv- Weiss-Ishai, Jebediah Novak, Mark Hayes, Vic Humm and Jeff Van Keuren. The purpose of this public input is to eliminate the perceived hierarchy that was inadvertently created when the SIG-PRO committee first created pathway survivability levels for the 2010 edition of NFPA 72. As it was never the intent to create a hierarchy, the provisions from pathway survivability levels 1 and 2 are being consolidated.. As such, all options that previously existing in paragraph of the 2007 edition of NFPA 72 are now listed as pathway survivability level 2 with one change. The change now permits any performance alternative as approved by the AHJ, instead of only those that mandate a 2 hour performance. This is because it is possible to construct buildings that are not rated for 2 hours that employ relocation or partial evacuation. Hence, the two proposed new annex notes. Note: Though pathway survivability level 1 has been eliminated, the task group felt it would be better to maintain pathway survivability level 2, rather than consolidate all requirements under pathway survivability level 1. But this is something the correlating committee can weigh in on. 5. (a) I am the author of the text or other material (such as illustrations, graphs) proposed in the Public Input. (b) Some or all of the text or other material proposed in this Public Input was not authored by me. Its source is as follows: (please identify which material and provide complete information on its source) I hereby grant and assign to the NFPA all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Text and the Statement of Problem and Substantiation). I understand that I acquire no rights in any publication of NFPA in which this Public Input in this or another similar or analogous form is used. Except to the extent that I do not have authority to make an assignment in materials that I have identified in (b) above, I hereby warrant that I am the author of this Public Input and that I have full power and authority to enter into this assignment. Signature (Required) PLEASE USE SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH PUBLIC INPUT To: Secretary, Standards Council National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park Quincy, MA OR Fax to: (617) OR to: proposals_comments@nfpa.org 5/15/2013

166 Public Input No. 202-NFPA [ New Section after 12.7 ] A12.7 Nomenclature Type your content here... A.12.7 The nomenclature described in this paragraph may be found on drawings, specifications, and/or the actual installed circuits. Some examples of the nomenclature would be: X.2.3, A, B.3. This public input has been created by the SIG-PRO Task Group on Wiring Systems. Members are: A.J. Capowski (Chair), Dan Horon, Sagiv Weiss-Ishai, Jebediah Novak, Mark Hayes, Vic Humm and Jeff Van Keuren. The purpose of this public input is to clean up the wording of 12.7 and add an Annex paragraph Submitter Full Name: Anthony Capowski Organization: Tyco/SimplexGrinnell Submittal Date: Mon May 06 12:20:28 EDT 2013 I, Anthony Capow ski, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Anthony Capow ski, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/1

167 Public Input No. 570-NFPA [ Section No. A ] A Emergency control function interface devices can be located far from the device to be activated, such as air-handling units and exhaust fans located on the roof. The requirement for monitoring installation wiring for integrity only applies to the wiring between the fire alarm control unit and the emergency control function interface device. For example, it does not apply to the wiring between the emergency control function interface device and a motor stop/start control relay, or between the emergency control function interface device and the equipment to be controlled (e.g., air-handling units and exhaust fans). The location of the emergency control function interface device within 3 ft (0.9 m) applies to the point of interface and not to remotely located equipment. Figure Y shows one arrangement for a fire alarm system or other signaling system to control an emergency function using an emergency control function interface device. The figure shows an elevator controller monitoring contacts controlled by a fire alarm or signaling system. Those contacts may be integral to the control unit, part of an electrically controlled relay or part of an addressable control module relay. Two individual systems, such as a fire alarm system and an elevator controller might also interface using a special module that allows direct data communications between the two systems. [INSERT FIGURE Y FROM FILE Emergency Control Function Interface.png ] Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved Emergency_Control_Function_Interface.png New figure as part of new text added to A New text and figure added to existing A show the interface between a fire alarm or signaling system and some other individual system. Figure graphically shows the delineation of NFPA 72 and standards that might cover the other individual system. Submitter Full Name: Robert Schifiliti Organization: R. P. Schifiliti Associates, I Submittal Date: Mon May 20 15:14:15 EDT 2013 I, Robert Schifiliti, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and By checking this box I affirm that I am Robert Schifiliti, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/viewerpage.jsp 1/2

168