MEMORANDUM. Technical Committee on Notification Appliances for Fire Alarm and Signaling Systems

Transcription

1 National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA Phone: Fax: MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Technical Committee on Notification Appliances for Fire Alarm and Signaling Systems Jenny Depew, Project Administrator DATE: November 17, 2016 SUBJECT: NFPA 72 First Draft Technical Committee FINAL Ballot Results (A2018) According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass ballot. 25 Members Eligible to Vote 2 Members Not Returned (Rhome, Toporek) 11 Members Voted Affirmative on All Revisions 4 Members Voted Affirmative w/ Comment on one or more Revisions (Olsen, Schifiliti, Stoops, Strelecki) 7 Members Voted Negative on one or more Revisions (Edwards, Klein, Newhouse, Olsen, Schifiliti, Stoops, Strelecki) 1 Members Abstained on one or more Revisions (Jennison) The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the explanation of the vote for each revision. To pass ballot, each revision requires: (1) a simple majority of those eligible to vote and (2) an affirmative vote of 2 /3 of ballots returned. See Sections (c) and of the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards.

2 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Global Input ] Any place in the body of Chapter 18 or its annex that the value lumens/ft 2 is used the metric equivalent shall be lumens/m 2. Any place in the body of Chapter 18 or its annex that the value 1 Foot is used the metric equivalent shall be 0.3 m. Any place in the body of Chapter 18 or its annex that the value 15 feet is used the metric equivalent shall be 4.6 m. Any place in the body of Chapter 18 or its annex that the value 16 feet is used the metric equivalent shall be 4.9 m. Any place in the body of Chapter 18 or its annex that the value 16.5 feet is used the metric equivalent shall be 5.0 m. Any place in the body of Chapter 18 or its annex that the value 20 feet is used the metric equivalent shall be 6.1 m. Any place in the body of Chapter 18 or its annex that the value 21 feet is used the metric equivalent shall be 6.4 m. Any place in the body of Chapter 18 or its annex that the value 30 feet is used the metric equivalent shall be 9.1 m. Any place in the body of Chapter 18 or its annex that the value 6 feet is used the metric equivalent shall be 1.8 m. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jul 25 11:31:31 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The Technical Committee agrees with the metric conversions proposed in the public inputs and makes the change. Public Input No. 428-NFPA [Global Input] Public Input No. 697-NFPA [Global Input] Public Input No. 560-NFPA [Global Input] Public Input No. 566-NFPA [Global Input] Public Input No. 567-NFPA [Global Input] Public Input No. 568-NFPA [Global Input] Public Input No. 574-NFPA [Global Input] Public Input No. 575-NFPA [Global Input]

3 2 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Public Input No. 585-NFPA [Global Input] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 20 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David Edwards, Michael L. Grill, Raymond A. Grosch, Daniel M. Klein, Jeffrey M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Newhouse, David Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Schifiliti, Robert P. Seibel, Daniel L. Strelecki, Paul R. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. No Comment Stoops, Morris L. no comment

4 3 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

5 4 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Global Input ] Throughout Chapter 18, replace the term enforcing authority with the term authority having jurisdiction. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jul 25 12:47:46 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: This first revision is being created because it uses a defined, existing term that is used in this standard and others. The Technical Committee notes to the Correlating Committee that this would also need to be changed in Chapter 7, and Chapter 26, and Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 19 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David Edwards, Michael L. Grill, Raymond A. Grosch, Daniel M.

6 5 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Klein, Jeffrey M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Newhouse, David Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Seibel, Daniel L. Strelecki, Paul R. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. No Comment Stoops, Morris L. no comment Negative with Comment Schifiliti, Robert P. I disagree with the elimination of enforcing authority. Th term was the result of work several cycles ago to create some standard language for TCs to use. The problem is that in many places the use of authority having jurisdiction is inappropriate since there can be many different AHJs on a project, including the owner. So, for example, it would be inappropriate to allow the AHJ (owner) to exempt a system from using a T3 signal, but it might be ok for the enforcing authority to do so. Instead of the suggested change, do the following: Create a First Revision. Resolve by adding new definition and annex text revised as follows: Enforcing Authority Definition 3.2.x Enforcing Authority: An agency or an organization that promulgates and/or enforces laws, codes or standards and who has been given these responsibilities and powers by federal, state or local governmental laws. A.3.2.x Enforcing Authority. An enforcing authority may also be an authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). The enforcing authority may be an individual within the agency or organization assigned to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the enforcing authorities including developing regulations supported by the enforcing authority. In many places in the code the authority having jurisdiction is permitted to exempt a system from soe requirement. In many of those sections, the use of authority having jurisdiction is inappropriate since there can be many different AHJs on a project, including the owner. So, for example, it would be inappropriate to allow any AHJ (such as an owner) to exempt a system from using a T3 signal, but it might be acceptable for the enforcing authority to do so. Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

7 6 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Global Input ] Throughout chapter 18 and its annex, change the term visible notification appliance to visual notification appliance Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jul 25 13:33:06 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: This revision is made to correlate with First Revision #2503. The Technical Committee requests the Correlating Committee to review use of the word and direct other Technical Committees to review use in their chapters. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 19 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David Grill, Raymond A. Grosch, Daniel M. Klein, Jeffrey M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W.

8 7 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Newhouse, David Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Schifiliti, Robert P. Seibel, Daniel L. Strelecki, Paul R. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. No Comment Stoops, Morris L. There is a Chapter 18 Task group updating the visual and loudspeaker notification appliance terms throughout 72. Negative with Comment Edwards, Michael L. I concur with the desire to be consistent in using the term visible notification versus visual notification; however, this is change for the sake of change. The term "visible signaling appliance/visible notification appliance" has been in use in NFPA 101 since 1988 ( ) and defined in NFPA 72 since 1999, if not earlier. The proposed change does not clarify or improve the code, as it is doubtful that anyone has misconstrued the code intent due to the perceived lapse in grammar. If this modification is processed, logic indicates "audible notification appliance" must become, "auditory notification appliance" and "tactile notification appliance" "tactual notification applicance". "Visible" is also the term used throughout the industry and by organizations such as UL. Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

9 8 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Section No ] Visible Visual Notification Appliance. A notification appliance that alerts by the sense of sight. (SIG-NAS) * Textual Visible Notification Appliance. A notification appliance that conveys a stream of visible information that displays an alphanumeric or pictorial message. (SIG-NAS) Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jul 25 13:17:59 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: These appliances provide a visual stimulus. The term visual more accurately describes the appliance as being a stimulus to the eye rather than simply being visible to the eye. The Technical Committee notes to the Correlating Committee that the word "visible" would also need to be changed in other chapters. Public Input No. 624-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 20 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris Affirmative All Becker, David E.

10 9 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Dressler, David Edwards, Michael L. Grill, Raymond A. Grosch, Daniel M. Klein, Jeffrey M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Newhouse, David Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Schifiliti, Robert P. Seibel, Daniel L. Strelecki, Paul R. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. No Comment Stoops, Morris L. There is a Chapter 18 Task group updating the visual and loudspeaker notification appliance terms throughout 72. Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

11 10 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Section No ] Performance-based design alternatives for strobe visual notification appliance design shall be in accordance with Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jul 25 15:18:47 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The term strobe is being changed to visual notification appliance to be consistent with the terminology used throughout the chapter and to coordinate with First Revision #2503. Public Input No. 263-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 20 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David Edwards, Michael L. Grill, Raymond A.

12 11 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Grosch, Daniel M. Klein, Jeffrey M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Newhouse, David Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Schifiliti, Robert P. Seibel, Daniel L. Strelecki, Paul R. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. No Comment Stoops, Morris L. There is a Chapter 18 Task group updating the visual and loudspeaker notification appliance terms throughout 72. Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

13 12 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Section No ] Performance-based design documentation for strobes visual notification appliances shall be in accordance with (SIG-NAS) Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jul 25 15:21:45 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The term strobe is being changed to visual notification appliance to be consistent with the terminology used throughout the chapter and to coordinate with First Revision #2503. Public Input No. 264-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 20 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David Edwards, Michael L. Grill, Raymond A.

14 13 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Grosch, Daniel M. Klein, Jeffrey M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Newhouse, David Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Schifiliti, Robert P. Seibel, Daniel L. Strelecki, Paul R. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. No Comment Stoops, Morris L. There is a Chapter 18 Task group updating the visual and loudspeaker notification appliance terms throughout 72. Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

15 14 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Section No ] The requirements of Chapters 10, 14, 23, and 24 shall apply to the interconnection of notification appliances, the control configurations, the power supplies, and the use of the information provided by notification appliances. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jul 25 16:24:01 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: This revision is being made to coordinate with the First Revision made by SIG-FUN (PI 722). Public Input No. 729-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 19 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 2 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David Edwards, Michael L. Grill, Raymond A.

16 15 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Grosch, Daniel M. Klein, Jeffrey M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Newhouse, David Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Seibel, Daniel L. Strelecki, Paul R. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Stoops, Morris L. no comment Negative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. I do not concur that this section should be removed from Chapter 18. The removal of similar text has been removed from some chapters and not from others. Schifiliti, Robert P. I disagree with FUNs removal of this from Ch 18 and other similar moves. The fact is that users routinely open the code to the chapter they THINK applies to their query. It is important that this qualifying statement be include in the chapter for proper context. If FUN wants to duplicate the statement in Ch 10, fine. Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

17 16 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Section No ] * Sound from normal or permanent sources, having a duration greater than of at least 60 seconds, shall be included when measuring maximum ambient sound level. Sound from temporary or abnormal sources shall not be required to be included when measuring maximum ambient sound level. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jul 25 16:28:55 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: This revision is being made to make the language consistent with other sections in Chapter 18. Public Input No. 123-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 19 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David Edwards, Michael L. Grill, Raymond A.

18 17 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Grosch, Daniel M. Klein, Jeffrey M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Newhouse, David Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Seibel, Daniel L. Strelecki, Paul R. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. No Comment Stoops, Morris L. no comment Negative with Comment Schifiliti, Robert P. I disagree. The existing test "greater than" is clear, common code language. In First Revision No the TC made a change to use "greater than". Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

19 18 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ New Section after ] Distinctive Carbon Monoxide Signal When a carbon monoxide sensor or alarm is required by other codes or standards or by the authority having jurisdiction, a distinctive signal pattern shall be required that is different from a fire evacuation signal The carbon monoxide signal shall be a four-pulse temporal pattern and comply with the following: (1) Signals shall be a pattern consisting of four cycles of 100 milliseconds ± 10 percent on and 100 milliseconds ± 10 percent off, followed by 5 seconds ± 10 percent off. (2) After the initial 4 minutes of the carbon monoxide signal, the 5-second off time shall be permitted to be changed to 60 seconds ± 10 percent. Figure Temporal Pattern Parameters Carbon Monoxide Signal The signal shall be synchronized within a notification zone. Supplemental Information File Name Description Figure_ _Temporal_Pattern_Parameters_-_Carbon_Monoxide_Signal.docx Shows Figure Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jul 25 17:23:17 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The Technical Committee includes a distinct audible signal for carbon monoxide. The Technical Committee adds new and Figure Public Input No. 477-NFPA [New Section after 18.4]

20 19 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Public Input No. 609-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 17 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 3 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David Edwards, Michael L. Grill, Raymond A. Grosch, Daniel M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Seibel, Daniel L. Strelecki, Paul R. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. N Comment Schifiliti, Robert P. The text needs to be reworded: Where an audible carbon monoxide alarm signal required... Where, not when. And, a sensor can be used without an alarm signal think CO stage 1 in a parking garage. And, a CO alarm could be a self contained unit covered by Ch 29. So, the requirement must be applied to the CO alarm signal.

21 20 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Negative with Comment Klein, Jeffrey M. Submitter agrees with the concept. However, the use of the word "sensor" should be changed to "detector". This makes this language consistent with the now discontinued NFPA 720 which defines a Carbon Monoxide Detector as a device having a sensor that responds to carbon monoxide gas that is connected to an alarm control unit. Newhouse, David The term Carbon Monoxide Sensor when used in FR-2515, FR-2516 and FR-2528 to define a Carbon Monoxide Detector is clearly in conflict with many published standards, glossaries and definitions found throughout the industry. NFPA 720 * defines a Carbon Monoxide Detector as a device having a sensor that responds to carbon monoxide gas that is connected to an alarm control unit. ANSI/UL 2075** The standard for carbon monoxide detectors - defines the word sensor in the glossary as The component or combination of components of the detector/alarm that responds to and in turn provides a usable output signal in the presence of a combustible and/or toxic gas. Wikipedia*** defines a CO detector as a device that detects the presence of CO to prevent carbon monoxide poisoning. It further defines four types of sensors as Opto-chemical, Biomimetic, Electrochemical and semiconductor. These sensors are defined as a component of a detector which senses the presence of CO. *NFPA edition section **ANSI/UL nd edition section 3.15 *** Stoops, Morris L. System CO detector alarms should be indicated at the facility control panel(s) and at alarm receiving stations, but since occupant response is the same for CO as fire, the signal should be the same (ANSI/ASA "3-3"). Different signals with the same occupant response is confusing. Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

22 Figure Temporal Pattern Parameters Carbon Monoxide Signal

23 21 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Section No ] Distinctive Evacuation Signal * To meet the requirements of Section 10.10, the alarm audible signal pattern used to notify building occupants of the need to evacuate (leave the building) or relocate (from one area to another) shall be the standard alarm evacuation signal consisting of a three-pulse temporal pattern. The pattern shall be in accordance with ANSI/ASA S3.41. Figure and shall consist of the following in this order: On phase lasting 0.5 second ±10 percent Off phase lasting 0.5 second ±10 percent for three successive on periods Off phase lasting 1.5 seconds ±10 percent Figure Temporal Pattern Parameters. Exception: Where approved by the authority having jurisdiction, continued use of the existing consistent evacuation signaling scheme shall be permitted A single-stroke bell or chime sounded at on intervals lasting 1 second ±10 percent, with a 2-second ±10 percent off interval after each third on stroke, shall be permitted The signal shall be repeated for a period appropriate for the purposes of evacuation of the building, but for not less than 180 seconds The minimum repetition time shall be permitted to be manually interrupted The minimum repetition time shall be permitted to be automatically interrupted for the transmission of mass notification messages in accordance with Chapter * The standard evacuation signal shall be synchronized within a notification zone. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip:

24 22 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Submittal Date: Mon Jul 25 16:54:58 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: Because of the many additional changes in the referenced ANSI standard, it is best that the technical requirements not be repeated in the body of NFPA 72. Compliance with appropriate ANSI standards will be handled by manufacturers and listing agencies. Public Input No. 121-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 562-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 20 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David Edwards, Michael L. Grill, Raymond A. Grosch, Daniel M. Klein, Jeffrey M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Newhouse, David Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Schifiliti, Robert P.

25 23 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Seibel, Daniel L. Strelecki, Paul R. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. No Comment Stoops, Morris L. the ANSI/ASA standard has the updated technical information Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

26 24 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Section No ] Appliances that are an integral part of a smoke detector, carbon monoxide sensor, smoke alarm, carbon monoxide alarm, or other initiating device shall be located in accordance with the requirements for that device. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jul 25 18:25:13 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The Technical Committee agrees with the integration of NFPA 720 into NFPA 72 and has added language for carbon monoxide in an existing section. The word sensor is used instead of detector to be consistent with FR #2515. Public Input No. 610-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 17 Affirmative All 3 Affirmative with Comments 2 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David Edwards, Michael L.

27 25 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Grill, Raymond A. Grosch, Daniel M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Schifiliti, Robert P. Seibel, Daniel L. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. No Comment Stoops, Morris L. no comment Strelecki, Paul R. Is a detector the same as a sensor? We have now introduced two descriptions of a device that sees a condition, smoke or CO. This is confusing. Negative with Comment Klein, Jeffrey M. Submitter agrees with the concept. However, the use of the word "sensor" should be changed to "detector". This makes this language consistent with the now discontinued NFPA 720 which defines a Carbon Monoxide Detector as a device having a sensor that responds to carbon monoxide gas that is connected to an alarm control unit. Newhouse, David The term Carbon Monoxide Sensor when used in FR-2515, FR-2516 and FR-2528 to define a Carbon Monoxide Detector is clearly in conflict with many published standards, glossaries and definitions found throughout the industry. NFPA 720 * defines a Carbon Monoxide Detector as a device having a sensor that responds to carbon monoxide gas that is connected to an alarm control unit. ANSI/UL 2075** The standard for carbon monoxide detectors - defines the word sensor in the glossary as The component or combination of components of the detector/alarm that responds to and in turn provides a usable output signal in the presence of a combustible and/or toxic gas. Wikipedia*** defines a CO detector as a device that detects the presence of CO to prevent carbon monoxide poisoning. It further defines four types of sensors as Opto-chemical, Biomimetic, Electrochemical and semiconductor. These sensors are defined as a component of a detector which senses the presence of CO. *NFPA edition section **ANSI/UL nd edition section 3.15 *** Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

28 26 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Section No ] Each ADS that does not require voice intelligibility shall be identified as requiring or not requiring voice intelligibility * Unless specifically required by other governing laws, codes, or standards, or by other parts of this Code, intelligibility shall not be required in all ADSs. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jul 25 18:41:59 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: The Technical Committee edits the text defining ADS s that do not require intelligibility. Response Message: Public Input No. 479-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 19 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David Edwards, Michael L.

29 27 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Grill, Raymond A. Grosch, Daniel M. Klein, Jeffrey M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Newhouse, David Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Seibel, Daniel L. Strelecki, Paul R. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. I concur with the proposed change, but I feel that a reference to Chapter 7 (7.3.4 Notification) should be made for clarification so users of the code have some direction when "shall be identified." is required. Stoops, Morris L. Clarifying the design operation of ADS will clarify operations for system owners and AHJs. Negative with Comment Schifiliti, Robert P. This change should not be made. This would not require a designer to identify ADSs that require intelligibility. The problem is that implying that everything other non-intelligible ADSs does require intelligibility is insufficient. Why? Because each ADS that requires intelligibility is DIFFERENT. That's the purpose of ADS identification - to show what is different and why a different design approach is required. Thus, those that req. intelligible voice must be explicitly identified. Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

30 28 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Sections , ] Intelligibility shall not be required be permitted to be determined through quantitative measurements as described in D.2.4shall be permitted but are is not required to be determined through quantitative measurements Quantitative measurements as described in D.2.4 shall be permitted but are not required. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jul 25 18:52:16 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The Technical Committee is accepting the proposals in PIs 62 and 63 in order to clarify the requirements for measuring intelligibility. The proposals in PI 744 were not accepted because the Technical Committee concluded that the basic requirement of qualitative measurement consistent with the definition of intelligibility is permitted. Public Input No. 63-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 62-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 744-NFPA [Sections , ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 20 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris

31 29 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David Edwards, Michael L. Grill, Raymond A. Grosch, Daniel M. Klein, Jeffrey M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Newhouse, David Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Schifiliti, Robert P. Seibel, Daniel L. Strelecki, Paul R. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. No Comment Stoops, Morris L. Provides AHJ with guidance. Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

32 30 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Section No ] * The maximum light pulse duration shall be 20 milliseconds with a maximum duty cycle of 40 percent. Exception: Lights used to meet the requirements of shall be permitted to be listed and labeled to have pulse durations up to 100 milliseconds. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jul 26 15:05:15 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The Technical Committee agrees that duty cycle is no longer necessary because it is redundant. The exception is being deleted to eliminate confusion and complications in installation designs. Public Input No. 247-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 480-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 481-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 100-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 19 Affirmative All 3 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris Affirmative All

33 31 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Becker, David E. Dressler, David Edwards, Michael L. Grill, Raymond A. Grosch, Daniel M. Klein, Jeffrey M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Newhouse, David Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Seibel, Daniel L. Strelecki, Paul R. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. No Comment Schifiliti, Robert P. I agree with elimination of the duty cycle. I disagree with elimination of the exception. The comm. statements is "The exception is being deleted to eliminate confusion and complications in installation designs". I do not think there should be any confusion. We have just short of a bizilliion different strobe intensities available for designers. What s wrong with having a strobe that is listed for corridor use only? Also, One of the existing listed LED strobes on the market falls into this category. Stoops, Morris L. Clarification removes ambiguity for designers, owners and AHJs. Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

34 32 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Section No ] * Lights Visual notification appliances used for fire alarm signaling only or to signal the intent for complete evacuation shall be clear or nominal white and shall not exceed 1000 cd (effective intensity). Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jul 26 15:18:50 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The Technical Committee agrees with the work that the Correlating Committee Task Group did and agrees that light is not applicable. The term visual notification appliance is the proper term. Public Input No. 248-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 20 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David Edwards, Michael L. Grill, Raymond A.

35 33 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Grosch, Daniel M. Klein, Jeffrey M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Newhouse, David Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Schifiliti, Robert P. Seibel, Daniel L. Strelecki, Paul R. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. No Comment Stoops, Morris L. There is a Chapter 18 Task group updating the visual and loudspeaker notification appliance terms throughout 72. Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

36 34 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ New Section after ] Visual notification appliances used for carbon monoxide signaling shall be as required by the emergency plan and the authority having jurisdiction for the area or building and shall not exceed 1000 cd (effective intensity). Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jul 26 15:23:05 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: This revision is made to add code language for carbon monoxide signaling as a result of the integration of NFPA 720 into NFPA 72. The term visual notification appliance was used instead of light because it is a more appropriate term. The term alarm was not included to coordinate with other first revisions. Public Input No. 611-NFPA [New Section after ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 20 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David

37 35 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Edwards, Michael L. Grill, Raymond A. Grosch, Daniel M. Klein, Jeffrey M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Newhouse, David Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Schifiliti, Robert P. Seibel, Daniel L. Strelecki, Paul R. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. No Comment Stoops, Morris L. There is a Chapter 18 Task group updating the visual and loudspeaker notification appliance terms throughout 72. Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

38 36 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Sections , ] Lights Visual notification appliances used to signal occupants to seek information or instructions shall be clear, nominal white, or other color as required by the emergency plan and the authority having jurisdiction for the area or building * The strobe visual synchronization requirements of this chapter shall not apply where the visible visual notification appliances located inside the building are viewed from outside of the building. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jul 26 15:28:37 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The Technical Committee agrees with the work that the Correlating Committee Task Group did and agrees that light and strobe are not applicable. The term visual notification appliance is the proper term. Public Input No. 265-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 249-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 20 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris

39 37 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David Edwards, Michael L. Grill, Raymond A. Grosch, Daniel M. Klein, Jeffrey M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Newhouse, David Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Schifiliti, Robert P. Seibel, Daniel L. Strelecki, Paul R. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. No Comment Stoops, Morris L. There is a Chapter 18 Task group updating the visual and loudspeaker notification appliance terms throughout 72. Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

40 38 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Section No ] * Appliance Photometrics. The light output shall comply with the polar dispersion requirements of ANSI/UL 1971, Standard for Signaling Devices for the Hearing Impaired, or equivalent. for public mode signaling as described in ANSI/UL 1971, Standard for Signaling Devices for the Hearing Impaired, ANSI/UL 1638, Standard for Visible Signaling Devices for Fire Alarm and Signaling Systems, Including Accessories, or equivalent. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jul 26 15:35:21 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: The Technical Committee edits the text to include UL Response Message: Public Input No. 450-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 19 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David Edwards, Michael L. Grill, Raymond A.

41 39 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Grosch, Daniel M. Klein, Jeffrey M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Newhouse, David Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Seibel, Daniel L. Strelecki, Paul R. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. No Comment Stoops, Morris L. Change coordinates terms with UL updates. Negative with Comment Schifiliti, Robert P. Unless something has changed, UL 1638 should not be added to this section as it is located in 18.5 which covers Public Mode used to be only for private mode and 1971 for public mode. Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

42 40 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Section No ] Where low ceiling heights do not permit wall mounting at a minimum of 80 in. (2.03 m), wall mounted visible visual notification appliances shall be mounted within 6 in. (150 mm) of the ceiling. The room size covered by a strobe visual notification appliance of a given value shall be reduced by twice the difference between the minimum mounting height of 80 in. (2.03 m) and the actual lower mounting height. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jul 26 15:40:22 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The Technical Committee agrees with the work that the Correlating Committee Task Group did and agrees that strobe is not applicable. The term visual notification appliance is the proper term. Public Input No. 266-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 20 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David

43 41 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Edwards, Michael L. Grill, Raymond A. Grosch, Daniel M. Klein, Jeffrey M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Newhouse, David Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Schifiliti, Robert P. Seibel, Daniel L. Strelecki, Paul R. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. No Comment Stoops, Morris L. There is a Chapter 18 Task group updating the visual and loudspeaker notification appliance terms throughout 72. Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

44 42 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Section No ]

45 43 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM

46 44 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Spacing shall be in accordance with either Table (a) and Figure or Table (b). Table (a) Room Spacing for Wall-Mounted Visible Visual Notification Appliances Maximum Room Size ft m Minimum Required Light Output [Effective Intensity (cd)] One Light Visual Notification Appliance per Room Four Lights Visual Notification Appliances per Room (One Light per Wall) 15 NA 30 NA 34 NA NA: Not allowable. Table (b) Room Spacing for Ceiling-Mounted Visible Visual Notification Appliances Maximum Minimum Required Maximum Lens Height* Room Size Light Output (Effective Intensity); ft m ft m One Light Visual Notification Appliance (cd)

47 45 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Maximum Minimum Required Maximum Lens Height* Room Size Light Output (Effective Intensity); ft m ft m One Light Visual Notification Appliance (cd) *This does not preclude mounting lens at lower heights. Figure Room Spacing for Wall-Mounted Visible Visual Notification Appliances.

48 46 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jul 26 15:45:46 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The Technical Committee agrees with the work that the Correlating Committee Task Group did and agrees that light is not applicable. The term visual notification appliance is the proper term. Public Input No. 250-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 20 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris

49 47 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David Edwards, Michael L. Grill, Raymond A. Grosch, Daniel M. Klein, Jeffrey M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Newhouse, David Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Schifiliti, Robert P. Seibel, Daniel L. Strelecki, Paul R. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. No Comment Stoops, Morris L. There is a Chapter 18 Task group updating the visual and loudspeaker notification appliance terms throughout 72. Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

50 48 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Section No ] Visible Visual notification appliances shall be installed in accordance with Table (a) or Table (b) using one of the following: (1) A single visible visual notification appliance. (2)* Two groups of visible visual notification appliances, where visual notification appliances of each group are synchronized, in the same room or adjacent space within the field of view. This shall include synchronization of strobes visual appliances operated by separate systems. (3) More than two visible visual notification appliances or groups of synchronized appliances in the same room or adjacent space within the field of view that flash in synchronization. Supplemental Information File Name 72_FR-2526_A _2_NAS.docx Description Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jul 26 15:59:53 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The Technical Committee agrees with the work that the Correlating Committee Task Group did and agrees that strobe is not applicable. The term visual notification appliance is the proper term. For the annex, The Technical Committee agrees with the work that the Correlating Committee Task Group did and agrees that light and strobe are not applicable. The term visual notification appliance is the proper term. Public Input No. 267-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 258-NFPA [Section No. A (2)] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 20 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments

51 49 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM 0 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David Edwards, Michael L. Grill, Raymond A. Grosch, Daniel M. Klein, Jeffrey M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Newhouse, David Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Schifiliti, Robert P. Seibel, Daniel L. Strelecki, Paul R. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. No Comment Stoops, Morris L. There is a Chapter 18 Task group updating the visual and loudspeaker notification appliance terms throughout 72. Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

52 FR 2526, [NAS] A (2) The field of view is based on the focusing capability of the human eye specified as 120 degrees in the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) Lighting Handbook Reference and Application. The apex of this angle is the viewer s eye. In order to ensure compliance with the requirements of , this angle should be increased to approximately 135 degrees. Testing has shown that high flash rates of high-intensity strobe lightsvisual notification appliances can pose a potential risk of seizure to people with photosensitive epilepsy. To reduce this risk, more than two visible visual notification appliances are not permitted in any field of view unless their flashes are synchronized. This does not preclude synchronization of appliances that are not within the same field of view.

53 50 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Section No ] Global FR Any design that provides a minimum of lumens/ft 2 ( lumens/m 2 ) of illumination at any point within the covered area at all angles specified by the polar dispersion planes for wall- or ceilingmounted public mode visual notification appliances in ANSI/UL 1971, Standard for Signaling Devices for the Hearing Impaired,ANSI/UL 1638, Standard for Visible Signaling Devices for Fire Alarm and Signaling Systems, Including Accessories, or equivalent, as calculated for the maximum distance from the nearest visual notification appliance, shall be permitted in lieu of the requirements of , excluding Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jul 26 16:19:19 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: The Technical Committee edits the text to include ANSI/UL Response Message: Public Input No. 457-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 19 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David

54 51 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Edwards, Michael L. Grill, Raymond A. Grosch, Daniel M. Klein, Jeffrey M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Newhouse, David Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Seibel, Daniel L. Strelecki, Paul R. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. No Comment Stoops, Morris L. There is a Chapter 18 Task group updating the visual and loudspeaker notification appliance terms throughout 72. Numerical standardization is applied. Negative with Comment Schifiliti, Robert P. Unless something has changed, UL 1638 should not be added to this section as it is located in 18.5 which covers Public Mode used to be only for private mode and 1971 for public mode. Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

55 52 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Section No ] Sleeping Areas Combination smoke detectors and visible visual notification appliances or combination smoke alarms and visible visual notification appliances shall be installed in accordance with the applicable requirements of Chapters 17, 18, and Combination carbon monoxide sensors and visual notification appliances or combination carbon monoxide alarms and visual notification appliances shall be installed in accordance with the applicable requirements of Chapters 17, 18, and * Table Table Table shall apply to sleeping areas. Table Effective Intensity Requirements for Sleeping Area Visible Visual Notification Appliances Distance from Ceiling Minimum Intensity to Top of Lens (cd) in. mm <24 < For rooms with a linear dimension greater than 16 ft (4.87 m 4.9 m ), the visible visual notification appliance shall be located within 16 ft (4.87 m 4.9 m ) of the pillow. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jul 26 16:25:32 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: This revision is made to add code language for carbon monoxide signaling as a result of the integration of NFPA 720 into NFPA 72. The term visual was used instead of visible because it is a more appropriate term. The proposed exception was not included because the Technical Committee concluded that it was not necessary to have a separate exception for carbon monoxide devices. The proposed revisions in PI 64 were not included. Mounting height for notification appliances are addressed elsewhere in Once mounting height is established, then table would be applied to determine cd. Public Input No. 612-NFPA [Section No ]

56 53 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Public Input No. 64-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 18 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 2 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David Edwards, Michael L. Grill, Raymond A. Grosch, Daniel M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Schifiliti, Robert P. Seibel, Daniel L. Strelecki, Paul R. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. No Comment Stoops, Morris L. no comment Negative with Comment

57 54 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Klein, Jeffrey M. Submitter agrees with the concept. However, the use of the word "sensor" should be changed to "detector". This makes this language consistent with the now discontinued NFPA 720 which defines a Carbon Monoxide Detector as a device having a sensor that responds to carbon monoxide gas that is connected to an alarm control unit. Newhouse, David The term Carbon Monoxide Sensor when used in FR-2515, FR-2516 and FR-2528 to define a Carbon Monoxide Detector is clearly in conflict with many published standards, glossaries and definitions found throughout the industry. NFPA 720 * defines a Carbon Monoxide Detector as a device having a sensor that responds to carbon monoxide gas that is connected to an alarm control unit. ANSI/UL 2075** The standard for carbon monoxide detectors - defines the word sensor in the glossary as The component or combination of components of the detector/alarm that responds to and in turn provides a usable output signal in the presence of a combustible and/or toxic gas. Wikipedia*** defines a CO detector as a device that detects the presence of CO to prevent carbon monoxide poisoning. It further defines four types of sensors as Opto-chemical, Biomimetic, Electrochemical and semiconductor. These sensors are defined as a component of a detector which senses the presence of CO. *NFPA edition section **ANSI/UL nd edition section 3.15 *** Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

58 55 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Section No ] Location of Visible Visual Notification Appliances for Wide- Area Signaling. Visible Visual notification appliances for wide- area signaling shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the authority having jurisdiction, approved design documents, and the manufacturer s instructions to achieve the required performance. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jul 26 16:45:17 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: This is an editorial revision to remain consistent with the hyphenated term wide-area used elsewhere in the document. The term visual was used instead of visible because it is a more appropriate term. Public Input No. 688-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 20 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David Edwards, Michael L.

59 56 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Grill, Raymond A. Grosch, Daniel M. Klein, Jeffrey M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Newhouse, David Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Schifiliti, Robert P. Seibel, Daniel L. Strelecki, Paul R. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. No Comment Stoops, Morris L. no comment Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

60 57 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Section No. A ]

61 58 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM A Acoustically Distinguishable Space (ADS).

62 59 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM All parts of a building or area intended to have occupant notification are subdivided into ADSs as defined. Some ADSs might be designated to have voice communication communications capability and require that those communications be intelligible. Other spaces might not require voice intelligibility or might not be capable of reliable voice intelligibility. An ADS might have acoustical design features that are conducive for voice intelligibility, or it might be a space where voice intelligibility could be difficult or impossible to achieve. Each is still referred to as an ADS. In smaller areas, such as those under 400 ft 2 (40 m 2 ), walls alone will define the ADS. In larger areas, other factors might have to be considered. In spaces that might be subdivided by temporary or movable partitions, such as ballrooms and meeting rooms, each individual configuration should be considered a separate ADS. Physical characteristics, such as a change in ceiling height of more than 20 percent, or a change in acoustical finish, such as carpet in one area and tile in another, would require those areas to be treated as separate ADSs. In larger areas, there might be noise sources that require a section to be treated as a separate ADS. Any significant change in ambient noise level or frequency might necessitate an area be considered a separate ADS. In areas of 85 dba or greater ambient sound pressure level, meeting the pass/fail criteria for intelligibility might not be possible, and other means of communication communications might be necessary. So, for example, the space immediately surrounding a printing press or other high-noise machine might be designated as a separate ADS, and the design might call for some form of effective notification but not necessarily require the ability to have intelligible voice communication communications. The aisles or operator s control stations might be separate ADSs where intelligible voice communication might be desired. Significant differences in furnishings for example, an area with tables, desks, or low dividers, adjacent to an area with high shelving would require separate consideration. The entire desk area could be a single acoustic zone, whereas each area between shelving could be a unique zone. Essentially, any noteworthy change in the acoustical environment within an area will mandate consideration of that portion of the area to be treated as an acoustic zone. Hallways and stairwells will typically be considered as individual acoustic zones. Spaces confined by walls with carpeting and acoustical ceilings can be deemed to be one ADS. An ADS should be an area of consistent size and material. A change of materials from carpet to hard tile, the existence of sound sources, such as decorative waterfalls, large expanses of glass, and changes in ceiling height, are all factors that might separate one ADS from another. Each ADS might require different components and design features to achieve intelligible voice communication. For example, two ADSs with similar acoustical treatments and noise levels might have different ceiling heights. The ADS with the lower ceiling height might require more ceiling-mounted speakers to ensure that all listeners are in a direct sound field (see Figure A.3.3.6). Other ADSs might benefit from the use of alternate speaker technologies, such as line arrays, to achieve intelligibility. An ADS that differs from another because of the frequency and level of ambient noise might require the use of speakers and system components that have a wider frequency bandwidth than conventional emergency communications equipment. However, designers should not use higher bandwidth speakers in all locations, unless needed to overcome certain acoustic and ambient conditions. This is because the higher bandwidth appliance will require more energy to perform properly. This increases amplifier and wire size and power supply requirements. In some spaces, it might be impractical to achieve intelligibility, and, in such a case, alternatives to voice evacuation might be required within such areas. Figure A Illustration Demonstrating the Effect of Ceiling Height. (Source: R. P. Schifiliti Associates, Inc.) There might be some areas of a facility where there are several spaces of the same approximate size and the same acoustic properties. For example, there might be an office space with multiple individual offices, each with one speaker. If one or two are satisfactorily tested, there is no need to test all of them for speech intelligibility.

63 60 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jul 25 13:43:08 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The word communication is being changed to "communications" because the plural is the proper use in this context. The term speaker does not need to be replaced with Textual Audible Notification Appliance because this is already a sub-definition in section Public Input No. 195-NFPA [Section No. A.3.3.6] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 19 Affirmative All 3 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David Edwards, Michael L. Grill, Raymond A. Grosch, Daniel M. Klein, Jeffrey M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D.

64 61 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Newhouse, David Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Schifiliti, Robert P. Seibel, Daniel L. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. No Comment Stoops, Morris L. no comment Strelecki, Paul R. In the pro audio community the term "loudspeaker" is used to differentiate the sound producing electronic device over a "talker" that is understood to be human speech. The term "speaker" is ambiguous. Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

65 62 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Section No. A ] A Textual Audible Notification Appliance. An example of a textual audible notification appliance is a speaker an electrical acoustic transducer that reproduces a voice message or tone signal, such as a speaker. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jul 25 13:52:52 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The Technical Committee does not want to describe an appliance with the term appliance as suggested in the PI. The revision is being made to provide a more accurate description of the term. Public Input No. 197-NFPA [Section No. A ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 19 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David Edwards, Michael L. Grill, Raymond A.

66 63 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Grosch, Daniel M. Klein, Jeffrey M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Newhouse, David Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Schifiliti, Robert P. Seibel, Daniel L. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. No Comment Stoops, Morris L. There is a Chapter 18 Task group updating the visual and loudspeaker notification appliance terms throughout 72. Negative with Comment Strelecki, Paul R. The definition is appropriate for a "loudspeaker". The term "Textual Audible Notification Appliance" or "speaker" should be replaced throughout the code with "loudspeaker". To further clarify the term "Talker" should be defined as a human that is speaking. Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

67 64 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Section No. A ] A The intent is to prohibit labeling that could give an incorrect message. Wording such as Emergency would be acceptable for labeling because it is generic enough not to cause confusion. Fire alarm systems are often used as emergency notification systems, and therefore attention should be given to this detail. Combination audible and visible units may have several visible appliances, visual notification appliances are permitted to have multiple visual elements each labeled differently or not labeled at all. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jul 26 18:21:38 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The term may is removed in order to comply with the Manual of Style. The term visual was used instead of visible because it is a more appropriate term. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 19 Affirmative All 3 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David Edwards, Michael L.

68 65 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Grill, Raymond A. Grosch, Daniel M. Klein, Jeffrey M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Newhouse, David Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Schifiliti, Robert P. Seibel, Daniel L. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. No Comment Stoops, Morris L. no comment Strelecki, Paul R. The term "visual" is incorrect. The notification appliance does not have ( as described here) an element(s) that is visual, meaning that it has a device that can see. The element is "visible" meaning that an observer can see its output. The original term "visible" was correct. Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

69 66 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Section No. A ] A The maximum sound pressure level permitted in a space is 110 dba, reduced from 120 dba in previous editions. The change from 120 dba to 110 dba is to coordinate with other laws, codes, and standards. In addition to the danger of exposure to a high sound level, long-term exposure to lower levels may also be a problem when, for example, occupants must traverse long egress paths to exit or technicians test large systems over extended time periods. This Code does not presume to know how long a person will be exposed to an audible notification system. The limit of 110 dba has been set as a reasonable upper limit for the performance of a system. For workers who may be exposed to high sound levels over the course of a 40-year employment history, OSHA (Occupational, Health and Safety Administration) has established a maximum permitted dose before a hearing conservation program must be implemented. A worker exposed to 120 dba for 7.5 minutes a day for 40 years might be in danger of suffering a hearing impairment. The OSHA regulation includes a formula to calculate a dose for situations where a person is exposed to different sound levels for different periods of time. The maximum permitted by the regulation is an 8-hour equivalent dose of 90 dba. It is possible to calculate the dose a person experiences when traversing an egress path where the sound pressure level varies as he/she passes close to, then away from, audible appliances. Table A depicts OSHA permissible noise exposures. Table A Permissible Noise Exposures Duration (hr) (7.5 minutes) 120 L A (dba) Source: OSHA, 29 CFR , Table G-16, Occupational Noise Exposure. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jul 26 19:15:46 EDT 2016 Committee Statement

70 67 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Committee Statement: Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot The Technical Committee believes that explaining the change from 120 to 110 dba is no longer necessary. 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 19 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David Edwards, Michael L. Grill, Raymond A. Grosch, Daniel M. Klein, Jeffrey M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Newhouse, David Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Seibel, Daniel L. Strelecki, Paul R. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. No Comment Stoops, Morris L.

71 68 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM No comment Negative with Comment Schifiliti, Robert P. I disagree with striking of all of the annex text. The committee statement justifies deleting the first paragraph only. Although I disagree with that also, it certainly does NOT explain why the remaining text should be deleted. Deleting the remaining text removes a very import concept of Dosing from the annex. Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

72 69 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Section No. A ] A The typical average ambient sound level for the occupancies specified in Table A are intended only for design guidance purposes. The typical average ambient sound levels specified should not be used in lieu of actual sound level measurements. Table A Average Ambient Sound Level According to Location Location Average Ambient Sound Level (dba) Business occupancies Educational occupancies 45 Industrial occupancies Institutional occupancies 50 Mercantile occupancies 40 Mechanical rooms Piers and water-surrounded structures 40 Places of assembly Residential occupancies 35 Storage occupancies 30 Thoroughfares, high-density urban 70 Thoroughfares, medium-density urban 55 Thoroughfares, rural and suburban 40 Tower occupancies 35 Underground structures and windowless buildings 40 Vehicles and vessels 50 Sound levels can be significantly reduced due to distance and losses through building elements. Every time the distance from the source doubles, the sound level decreases by about 6 decibels (db). Audible notification appliances are typically rated by manufacturers' and testing agencies at 10 ft (3 m) from the appliance. Subsequently, at a distance of 20 ft (6.1 m) from an audible appliance rated at 84 dba, the sound level might be reduced to 78 dba. At a closed door, the loss might be about 10 db to 24 db or more depending on construction. If the opening around the door is sealed, this might result in a loss of 22 db to 34 db or more. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jul 26 17:08:34 EDT 2016 Committee Statement

73 70 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Committee Statement: Response Message: The Technical Committee recognizes the documentation from the Department of Health and Human Services and agrees with the proposed sound levels. The Technical Committee edits the dba values pertaining to business occupancies, industrial occupanices, mechanical rooms, and places of assembly Public Input No. 478-NFPA [Section No. A ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 20 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David Edwards, Michael L. Grill, Raymond A. Grosch, Daniel M. Klein, Jeffrey M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Newhouse, David Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Schifiliti, Robert P. Seibel, Daniel L. Strelecki, Paul R. Swanson, John R.

74 71 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. No Comment Stoops, Morris L. No comment Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

75 72 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Section No. A.18.5 ] A.18.5 The mounting height of the appliances affects the distribution pattern and level of illumination produced by an appliance on adjacent surfaces. It is this pattern, or effect, that provides occupant notification by visible visual appliances. If mounted too high, the pattern is larger but at a lower level of illumination (measured in lumens per square foot or foot-candles). If mounted too low, the illumination is greater (brighter) but the pattern is smaller and might not overlap correctly with that of adjacent appliances. A qualified designer could choose to present calculations to an authority having jurisdiction showing that it is possible to use a mounting height greater than 96 in. (2.44 m) or less than 80 in. (2.03 m), provided that an equivalent level of illumination is achieved on the adjacent surfaces. This can be accomplished by using listed higher intensity appliances or closer spacing, or both. Engineering calculations should be prepared by qualified persons and should be submitted to the authority having jurisdiction, showing how the proposed variation achieves the same or greater level of illumination provided by the prescriptive requirements of Section The calculations require knowledge of calculation methods for high-intensity strobes visual notification appliances. In addition, the calculations require knowledge of the test standards used to evaluate and list the appliance. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jul 26 17:39:33 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The Technical Committee agrees with the work that the CC TG did and agrees that strobe is not applicable. The term visual notification appliance is the proper term. Public Input No. 280-NFPA [Section No. A.18.5] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 20 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention

76 73 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David Edwards, Michael L. Grill, Raymond A. Grosch, Daniel M. Klein, Jeffrey M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Newhouse, David Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Schifiliti, Robert P. Seibel, Daniel L. Strelecki, Paul R. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. No Comment Stoops, Morris L. There is a Chapter 18 Task group updating the visual and loudspeaker notification appliance terms throughout 72. Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

77 74 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Section No. A ] A New research using lights visual notification appliances with longer pulse durations shows that the existing tables for indirect signaling [Table (a) and Table (b)] are inadequate to assure reliable notification. Until additional work is done and incorporated into this Code, lights visual notification appliances used for indirect signaling and having effective intensities specified in Table (a) or Table (b) need to be short duration, high intensity to be effective for the specified area of coverage. This limitation does not apply to direct signaling such as that used in corridors in accordance with For direct signaling in corridors ( ), longer pulse appliances (up to 100 ms), such as LED lights, have been shown to be effective. Longer pulse durations might also be effective in large volume spaces that use direct signaling, as discussed in A Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jul 26 17:41:55 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The Technical Committee agrees with the work that the Correlating Committee Task Group did and agrees that light is not applicable. The term visual notification appliance is the proper term. The last three sentences were deleted because the exception for direct signaling was removed in the body of the code. Public Input No. 253-NFPA [Section No. A ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 19 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris

78 75 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David Edwards, Michael L. Grill, Raymond A. Grosch, Daniel M. Klein, Jeffrey M. Krantz, Sr., Neal W. Lewis, Steven P. Lowrey, David O. Madole, David Morgan, Bob D. Newhouse, David Panowitz, Scott E. Papier, Isaac I. Pilette, Maurice M. Poole, Andrew W. Seibel, Daniel L. Strelecki, Paul R. Swanson, John R. Affirmative with Comment Olsen, Warren E. No Comment Stoops, Morris L. There is a Chapter 18 Task group updating the visual and loudspeaker notification appliance terms throughout 72. Negative with Comment Schifiliti, Robert P. I disagree with the striking of the last three sentences. Direct signaling is an important concept that permits the use of lower intensity strobes. See A and Abstention Jennison, Paul Since I was recently appointed to the committee and not involved in the discussions, I will abstain on this.

79 76 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM First Revision No NFPA [ Section No. A ] Global FR-2504

80 77 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM A

81 78 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM The prescriptive requirements of Section 18.5 assume the use of appliances having very specific characteristics of light color, intensity, distribution, and so on. The appliance and application requirements are based on extensive research. However, the research was limited to typical residential and commercial applications such as school classrooms, offices, hallways, and hotel rooms. While these specific appliances and applications will likely work in other spaces, their use might not be the most effective solution and might not be as reliable as other visible notification methods. For example, in large warehouse spaces and large distribution spaces such as super stores, it is possible to provide visible signaling using the appliances and applications of this chapter. However, mounting strobe lights visual notification appliances at a height of 80 in. to 96 in. (2.03 m to 2.44 m) along aisles with rack storage subjects the lights visual notification appliances to frequent mechanical damage by forklift trucks and stock. Also, the number of appliances required would be very high. It might be possible to use other appliances and applications not specifically addressed by this chapter at this time. Alternative applications must be carefully engineered for reliability and function and would require permission of the authority having jurisdiction. Tests of a system in large warehouse/super stores designed using the prescriptive approach of showed that high ambient light levels resulted in both indirect and direct signaling effects. The signalto-noise ratio produced by the operating visible notification appliances visual notification appliances was low in many locations. However, with visible notification appliances visual notification appliances located over the aisles or unobstructed by stock, indirect and some direct notification was sometimes achieved. Direct notification occurs even when occupants do not look up toward the ceiling-mounted visible notification appliances visual notification appliances due to the extended cone of vision shown in Figure A (a). The visible notification appliance visual notification appliance intensity and spacing resulting from the prescriptive design was generally sufficient for occupant notification by a combination of direct and indirect signaling. Testing showed that the best performance was achieved where visible notification appliances visual notification appliances were directly over aisles or where visible notification appliances visual notification appliances in adjacent aisles were not obstructed by stock. The performance-based design method will almost always result in aisles not having a line of visible notification appliances visual notification appliances in them, because the spacing of visible notification appliances visual notification appliances can be greater than the spacing of aisles. Also, it is recognized that aisles might be relocated after installation of the system. Good design practice is to place visible notification appliances visual notification appliances over aisles, especially those that are likely to remain unchanged such as main aisles, and over checkout areas. Where reorganization of aisles results in visible notification appliances visual notification appliances not in or over an aisle, or where that is the base design, it is important to have a clear view from that aisle to a nearby visible notification appliance visual notification appliance. See Figure A (b). Some spaces might have marginal visible notification appliance visual notification appliance effect (direct or indirect). However, occupants in these large stores and storage occupancies move frequently and place themselves in a position where they receive notification via the visible notification appliances visual notification appliances. In addition, complete synchronization of the visible notification appliances visual notification appliances in the space produced a desirable effect. Visible notification using the methods contained in is achieved by indirect signaling. This means the viewer need not actually see the appliance, just the effect of the appliance. This can be achieved by producing minimum illumination on surfaces near the appliance, such as the floor, walls, and desks. There must be a sufficient change in illumination to be noticeable. The tables and charts in Section 18.5 specify a certain candela-effective light intensity for certain size spaces. The data were based on extensive research and testing. Appliances do not typically produce the same light intensity when measured off-axis. To ensure that the appliance produces the desired illumination (effect), it must have some distribution of light intensity to the areas surrounding the appliance. ANSI/UL 1971, Standard for Signaling Devices for the Hearing Impaired, specifies the distribution of light shown to provide effective notification by indirect visible signaling. Figure A (a) Extended Cone of Vision. (Courtesy of R. P. Schifiliti Associates, Inc.) Figure A (b) Visible Notification AppliancesVisual Notification Appliances in Stores. (Courtesy of R. P. Schifiliti Associates, Inc.)

82 79 of 98 11/16/2016 4:28 PM Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SIG-NAS Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jul 26 17:48:47 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The Technical Committee agrees with the work that the Correlating Committee Task Group did and agrees that light is not applicable. The term visual notification appliance is the proper term. The other occurrences of visible in this section will be referred to the Task Group established to review Chapter 18 and related annex material for the use of the term visible and determine where it is appropriate to change the term to visual. Public Input No. 256-NFPA [Section No. A ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 19 Affirmative All 3 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Rhome, Rich Toporek, Morris Affirmative All Becker, David E. Dressler, David Edwards, Michael L. Grill, Raymond A.