Report onProposals

2012 Fall Revision Cycle

NOTE: The proposed NFPA documents addressed in this Report on

Proposals (ROP) and in a follow-up Report on Comments (ROC) will only

be presented for action at the NFPA June 2013 Association Technical

Meeting to be held June 10–13, 2013, at the McCormick Place Convention

Center, Chicago, IL, when proper Amending Motions have been submitted

to the NFPA by the deadline of October 5, 2012. Documents that receive

no motions will not be presented at the meeting and instead will be

forwarded directly to the Standards Council for action on issuance. For more

information on the rules and for up-to-date information on schedules and

deadlines for processing NFPA documents, check the NFPA website (www.

nfpa.org) or contact NFPA Standards Administration.

ISSN 1079-5332 Copyright © 2012 All Rights Reserved

NFPA and National Fire Protection Association are registered trademarks of the National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA 02169.

National Fire Protection Association®1 BATTERYMARCH PARK, QUINCY, MA 02169-7471

A compilation of NFPA® TechnicalCommittee Reports on Proposals for public review and comment

Public Comment Deadline: March 2, 2012

Information on NFPA Codes and Standards Development

I. Applicable Regulations. The primary rules governing the processing of NFPA documents (codes, standards, recommended practices, and guides) are the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects (Regs). Other applicable rules include NFPA Bylaws, NFPA Technical Meeting Convention Rules, NFPA Guide for the Conduct of Participants in the NFPA Standards Development Process, and the NFPA Regulations Governing Petitions to the Board of Directors from Decisions of the Standards Council. Most of these rules and regulations are contained in the NFPA Directory. For copies of the Directory, contact Codes and Standards Administration at NFPA Headquarters; all these documents are also available on the NFPA website at “www.nfpa.org.”

The following is general information on the NFPA process. All participants, however, should refer to the actual rules and regulations for a full understanding of this process and for the criteria that govern participation.

II. Technical Committee Report. The Technical Committee Report is defined as “the Report of the Technical Committee and Technical Correlating Committee (if any) on a document. A Technical Committee Report consists of the Report on Proposals (ROP), as modified by the Report on Comments (ROC), published by the Association.”

III. Step 1: Report on Proposals (ROP). The ROP is defined as “a report to the Association on the actions taken by Technical Committees and/or Technical Correlating Committees, accompanied by a ballot statement and one or more proposals on text for a new document or to amend an existing document.” Any objection to an action in the ROP must be raised through the filing of an appropriate Comment for consideration in the ROC or the objection will be considered resolved.

IV. Step 2: Report on Comments (ROC). The ROC is defined as “a report to the Association on the actions taken by Technical Committees and/or Technical Correlating Committees accompanied by a ballot statement and one or more comments resulting from public review of the Report on Proposals (ROP).” The ROP and the ROC together constitute the Technical Committee Report. Any outstanding objection following the ROC must be raised through an appropriate Amending Motion at the Association Technical Meeting or the objection will be considered resolved.

V. Step 3a: Action at Association Technical Meeting. Following the publication of the ROC, there is a period during which those wishing to make proper Amending Motions on the Technical Committee Reports must signal their intention by submitting a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion. Documents that receive notice of proper Amending Motions (Certified Amending Motions) will be presented for action at the annual June Association Technical Meeting. At the meeting, the NFPA membership can consider and act on these Certified Amending Motions as well as Follow-up Amending Motions, that is, motions that become necessary as a result of a previous successful Amending Motion. (See 4.6.2 through 4.6.9 of Regs for a summary of the available Amending Motions and who may make them.) Any outstanding objection following action at an Association Technical Meeting (and any further Technical Committee consideration following successful Amending Motions, see Regs at 4.7) must be raised through an appeal to the Standards Council or it will be considered to be resolved.

VI. Step 3b: Documents Forwarded Directly to the Council. Where no Notice of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAM) is received and certified in accordance with the Technical Meeting Convention Rules, the document is forwarded directly to the Standards Council for action on issuance. Objections are deemed to be resolved for these documents.

VII. Step 4a: Council Appeals. Anyone can appeal to the Standards Council concerning procedural or substantive matters related to the development, content, or issuance of any document of the Association or on matters within the purview of the authority of the Council, as established by the Bylaws and as determined by the Board of Directors. Such appeals must be in written form and filed with the Secretary of the Standards Council (see 1.6 of Regs). Time constraints for filing an appeal must be in accordance with 1.6.2 of the Regs. Objections are deemed to be resolved if not pursued at this level.

VIII. Step 4b: Document Issuance. The Standards Council is the issuer of all documents (see Article 8 of Bylaws). The Council acts on the issuance of a document presented for action at an Association Technical Meeting within 75 days from the date of the recommendation from the Association Technical Meeting, unless this period is extended by the Council (see 4.8 of Regs). For documents forwarded directly to the Standards Council, the Council acts on the issuance of the document at its next scheduled meeting, or at such other meeting as the Council may determine (see 4.5.6 and 4.8 of Regs).

IX. Petitions to the Board of Directors. The Standards Council has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the codes and standards development process and the issuance of documents. However, where extraordinary circumstances requiring the intervention of the Board of Directors exist, the Board of Directors may take any action necessary to fulfill its obligations to preserve the integrity of the codes and standards development process and to protect the interests of the Association. The rules for petitioning the Board of Directors can be found in the Regulations Governing Petitions to the Board of Directors from Decisions of the Standards Council and in 1.7 of the Regs.

X. For More Information. The program for the Association Technical Meeting (as well as the NFPA website as information becomes available) should be consulted for the date on which each report scheduled for consideration at the meeting will be presented. For copies of the ROP and ROC as well as more information on NFPA rules and for up-to-date information on schedules and deadlines for processing NFPA documents, check the NFPA website (www.nfpa.org) or contact NFPA Codes & Standards Administration at (617) 984-7246.

i

2012 Fall Revision Cycle ROP Contents

by NFPA Numerical Designation

Note: Documents appear in numerical order.

NFPA No. Type Action Title Page No.

10 P Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers ........................................................................................................ 10-1 14 P Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems ........................................................................ 14-1 17 P Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems ....................................................................................... 17-1 17A P Standard for Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems .................................................................................... 17A-1 22 P Standard for Water Tanks for Private Fire Protection .................................................................................... 22-1 36 P Standard for Solvent Extraction Plants ........................................................................................................... 36-1 52 P Vehicular Gaseous Fuel Systems Code .......................................................................................................... 52-1 67 N Guideline on Explosion Protection for Gaseous Mixtures in Pipe Systems .................................................. 67-1 68 P Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting .......................................................................... 68-1 70B P Recommended Practice for Electrical Equipment Maintenance ................................................................. 70B-1 140 P Standard on Motion Picture and Television Production Studio Soundstages, Approved Production Facilities, and Production Locations ........................................................................ 140-1 211 P Standard for Chimneys, Fireplaces, Vents, and Solid Fuel–Burning Appliances ........................................ 211-1 225 P Model Manufactured Home Installation Standard ....................................................................................... 225-1 241 P Standard for Safeguarding Construction, Alteration, and Demolition Operations ...................................... 241-1 259 P Standard Test Method for Potential Heat of Building Materials .................................................................. 259-1 260 P Standard Methods of Tests and Classification System for Cigarette Ignition Resistance of Components of Upholstered Furniture ..................................................................................................... 260-1 261 P Standard Method of Test for Determining Resistance of Mock-Up Upholstered Furniture Material Assemblies to Ignition by Smoldering Cigarettes.......................................................... 261-1 270 P Standard Test Method for Measurement of Smoke Obscuration Using a Conical Radiant Source in a Single Closed Chamber .............................................................................................................. 270-1 274 P Standard Test Method to Evaluate Fire Performance Characteristics of Pipe Insulation ............................ 274-1

289 P Standard Method of Fire Test for Individual Fuel Packages ........................................................................ 289-1 290 P Standard for Fire Testing of Passive Protection Materials for Use on LP-Gas Containers ......................... 290-1 495 P Explosive Materials Code ............................................................................................................................. 495-1 496 P Standard for Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment ............................................... 496-1 498 P Standard for Safe Havens and Interchange Lots for Vehicles Transporting Explosives ............................. 498-1 501 P Standard on Manufactured Housing ............................................................................................................. 501-1 501A P Standard for Fire Safety Criteria for Manufactured Home Installations, Sites, and Communities .......... 501A-1 505 P Fire Safety Standard for Powered Industrial Trucks Including Type Designations, Areas of Use, Conversions, Maintenance, and Operations ................................................................................................. 505-1 551 P Guide for the Evaluation of Fire Risk Assessments ..................................................................................... 551-1

705 P Recommended Practice for a Field Flame Test for Textiles and Films ....................................................... 705-1

ii

801 P Standard for Fire Protection for Facilities Handling Radioactive Materials ................................................ 801-1 900 P Building Energy Code ................................................................................................................................... 900-1

909 P Code for the Protection of Cultural Resource Properties — Museums, Libraries, and Places of Worship.......................................................................................................................................... 909-1 1006 P Standard for Technical Rescuer Professional Qualifications ..................................................................... 1006-1 1061 P Standard for Professional Qualifications for Public Safety Telecommunicator ........................................ 1061-1 1404 P Standard for Fire Service Respiratory Protection Training ........................................................................ 1404-1 1451 P Standard for a Fire Service Vehicle Operations Training Program (will be retitled as NFPA 1451, Standard for a Fire and Emergency Service Vehicle Operations Training Program) .................................................................................................................... 1451-1 1600 P Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs ................................. 1600-1 1851 P Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting ................................................................................. 1851-1 1852 P Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) ..................................................................................................................... 1852-1 1855 N Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for Technical Rescue Incidents ......................................................................................................................... 1855-1 1925 P Standard on Marine Fire-Fighting Vessels ................................................................................................. 1925-1 1962 P Standard for the Inspection, Care, and Use of Fire Hose, Couplings, and Nozzles and the Service Testing of Fire Hose (will be retitled as NFPA 1962, Standard for the Care, Use, Inspection, Service Testing, and Replacement of Fire Hose, Couplings, Nozzles, and Fire Hose Appliances ............................................. 1962-1 1964 P Standard for Spray Nozzles ......................................................................................................................... 1964-1 1981 P Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) for Emergency Services ............................................................................................................................. 1981-1 1982 P Standard on Personal Alert Safety Systems (PASS) .................................................................................. 1982-1 1989 P Standard on Breathing Air Quality for Emergency Services Respiratory Protection ................................ 1989-1 1999 P Standard on Protective Clothing for Emergency Medical Operations ....................................................... 1999-1

TYPES OF ACTION

P Partial Revision N New Document R Reconfirmation W Withdrawal

iii

2012 Fall Revision Cycle ROP Committees Reporting

Type Action Page No. Building Code Building Systems 900 Building Energy Code P 900-1 Chimneys, Fireplaces, and Venting Systems for Heat-Producing Appliances 211 Standard for Chimneys, Fireplaces, Vents, and Solid Fuel–Burning Appliances P 211-1 Construction and Demolition 241 Standard for Safeguarding Construction, Alteration, and Demolition Operations P 241-1 Cultural Resources 909 Code for the Protection of Cultural Resource Properites — Museums, Libraries, and Places of

Worship P 909-1

Dry and Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems 17 Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems P 17-1 17A Standard for Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems P 17A-1 Electrical Equipment in Chemical Atmospheres 496 Standard for Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment P 496-1 National Electrical Code Electrical Equipment Maintenance 70B Recommended Practice for Electrical Equipment Maintenance P 70B-1 Emergency Management and Business Continuity 1600 Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs P 1600-1 Explosion Protection Systems 67 Guideline on Explosion Protection for Gaseous Mixtures in Pipe Systems N 67-1 68 Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting P 68-1 Explosives 495 Explosive Materials Code P 495-1 498 Standard for Safe Havens and Interchange Lots for Vehicles Transporting Explosives P 498-1 Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment Electronic Safety Equipment 1982 Standard on Personal Alert Safety Systems (PASS) P 1982-1 Emergency Medical Services Protective Clothing and Equipment 1999 Standard on Protective Clothing for Emergency Medical Operations P 1999-1 Respiratory Protection Equipment 1852 Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus

(SCBA) P 1852-1

1981 Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) for Emergency Services P 1981-1 1989 Standard on Breathing Air Quality for Emergency Services Respiratory Protection P 1989-1 Special Operations Protective Clothing and Equipment 1855 Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for Technical Rescue Incidents

N 1855-1

Structural and Proximity Fire Fighting Protective Clothing and Equipment 1851 Standard for Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting

and Proximity Fire Fighting P 1851-1

Fire Hose 1962 Standard for the Inspection, Care, and Use of Fire Hose, Couplings, and Nozzles and the Service

Testing of Fire Hose P 1962-1

1964 Standard for Spray Nozzles P 1964-1 Fire Protection for Nuclear Facilities 801 Standard for Fire Protection for Facilities Handling Radioactive Materials P 801-1 Fire Risk Assessment Methods 551 Guide for the Evaluation of Fire Risk Assessments P 551-1

iv

Fire Service Training 1404 Standard for Fire Service Respiratory Protection Training P 1404-1 1451 Standard for a Fire Service Vehicle Operations Training Program P 1451-1 Fire Tests 259 Standard Test Method for Potential Heat of Building Materials P 259-1 260 Standard Methods of Tests and Classification System for Cigarette Ignition Resistance of

Components of Upholstered Furniture P 260-1

261 Standard Method of Test for Determining Resistance of Mock-Up Upholstered Furniture Material Assemblies to Ignition by Smoldering Cigarettes

P 261-1

270 Standard Test Method for Measurement of Smoke Obscuration Using a Conical Radiant Source in a Single Closed Chamber

P 270-1

274 Standard Test Method to Evaluate Fire Performance Characteristics of Pipe Insulation P 274-1 289 Standard Method of Fire Test for Individual Fuel Packages P 289-1 290 Standard for Fire Testing of Passive Protection Materials for Use on LP-Gas Containers P 290-1 705 Recommended Practice for a Field Flame Test for Textiles and Films P 705-1 Industrial Trucks 505 Fire Safety Standard for Powered Industrial Trucks Including Type Designations, Areas of Use,

Conversions, Maintenance, and Operations P 505-1

Manufactured Housing 225 Model Manufactured Home Installation Standard P 225-1 501 Standard on Manufactured Housing P 501-1 501A Standard for Fire Safety Criteria for Manufactured Home Installations, Sites, and Communities P 501A-1 Marine Fire Fighting Vessels 1925 Standard on Marine Fire-Fighting Vessels P 1925-1 Motion Picture and Television Industry 140 Standard on Motion Picture and Television Production Studio Soundstages, Approved Production

Facilities, and Production Locations P 140-1

Portable Fire Extinguishers 10 Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers P 10-1 Professional Qualifications Rescue Technician Professional Qualifications 1006 Standard for Technical Rescuer Professional Qualifications P 1006-1 Public Safety Telecommunicator Professional Qualifications 1061 Standard for Professional Qualifications for Public Safety Telecommunicator P 1061-1 Solvent Extraction Plants 36 Standard for Solvent Extraction Plants P 36-1 Standpipes 14 Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems P 14-1 Vehicular Alternative Fuel Systems 52 Vehicular Gaseous Fuel Systems Code P 52-1 Water Tanks 22 Standard for Water Tanks for Private Fire Protection P 22-1

FORM FOR COMMENT ON NFPA REPORT ON PROPOSALS 2012 Fall Revision CYCLE

FINAL DATE FOR RECEIPT OF COMMENTS: 5:00 pm EDT, March 2, 2012

For further information on the standards-making process, please contact the Codes and Standards Administration at 617-984-7249 or visit www.nfpa.org/codes.

For technical assistance, please call NFPA at 1-800-344-3555.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Log #:

Date Rec’d:

Please indicate in which format you wish to receive your ROP/ROC electronic paper download (Note: If choosing the download option, you must view the ROP/ROC from our website; no copy will be sent to you.)

Date 8/1/200X Name John B. Smith Tel. No. 253-555-1234

Company Email

Street Address 9 Seattle St. City Tacoma State WA Zip 98402

***If you wish to receive a hard copy, a street address MUST be provided. Deliveries cannot be made to PO boxes.

Please indicate organization represented (if any) Fire Marshals Assn. of North America

1. (a) NFPA Document Title National Fire Alarm Code NFPA No. & Year NFPA 72, 200X ed.

(b) Section/Paragraph 4.4.1.1

2. Comment on Proposal No. (from ROP): 72-7

3. Comment Recommends (check one): new text revised text deleted text

4. Comment (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 strike-through to denote wording to be deleted (deleted wording).]

Delete exception.

5. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Comment: (Note: State the problem that would be resolved by your recommendation; give the specific reason for your Comment, including copies of tests, research papers, fire experience, etc. If more than 200 words, it may be abstracted for publication.)

A properly installed and maintained system should be free of ground faults. The occurrence of one or more ground faults should be required to cause a ‘trouble’ signal because it indicates a condition that could contribute to future malfunction of the system. Ground fault protection has been widely available on these systems for years and its cost is negligible. Requiring it on all systems will promote better installations, maintenance and reliability.

6. Copyright Assignment

(a) I am the author of the text or other material (such as illustrations, graphs) proposed in the Comment.

(b) Some or all of the text or other material proposed in this Comment 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 Comment and understand that I acquire no rights in any publication of NFPA in which this Comment 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 Comment and that I have full power and authority to enter into this assignment.

Signature (Required)

PLEASE USE SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH COMMENT

Mail to: Secretary, Standards Council · National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park · Quincy, MA 02169-7471 OR

Fax to: (617) 770-3500 OR Email to: proposals_comments@nfpa.org

11/17/2011

FORM FOR COMMENT ON NFPA REPORT ON PROPOSALS 2012 Fall Revision CYCLE

FINAL DATE FOR RECEIPT OF COMMENTS: 5:00 pm EDT, March 2, 2012

For further information on the standards-making process, please contact the Codes and Standards Administration at 617-984-7249 or visit www.nfpa.org/codes.

For technical assistance, please call NFPA at 1-800-344-3555.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Log #:

Date Rec’d:

Please indicate in which format you wish to receive your ROP/ROC electronic paper download (Note: If choosing the download option, you must view the ROP/ROC from our website; no copy will be sent to you.)

Date Name Tel. No.

Company Email

Street Address City State Zip

***If you wish to receive a hard copy, a street address MUST be provided. Deliveries cannot be made to PO boxes.

Please indicate organization represented (if any)

1. (a) NFPA Document Title NFPA No. & Year

(b) Section/Paragraph

2. Comment on Proposal No. (from ROP):

3. Comment Recommends (check one): new text revised text deleted text

4. Comment (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 strike-through to denote wording to be deleted (deleted wording).]

5. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Comment: (Note: State the problem that would be resolved by your recommendation; give the specific reason for your Comment, including copies of tests, research papers, fire experience, etc. If more than 200 words, it may be abstracted for publication.)

6. Copyright Assignment

(a) I am the author of the text or other material (such as illustrations, graphs) proposed in the Comment.

(b) Some or all of the text or other material proposed in this Comment 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 Comment and understand that I acquire no rights in any publication of NFPA in which this Comment 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 Comment and that I have full power and authority to enter into this assignment.

Signature (Required)

PLEASE USE SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH COMMENT

Mail to: Secretary, Standards Council · National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park · Quincy, MA 02169-7471 OR

Fax to: (617) 770-3500 OR Email to: proposals_comments@nfpa.org 11/17/2011

v

COMMITTEE MEMBER CLASSIFICATIONS1,2,3,4

The following classifications apply to Committee members and represent their principal interest in the activity of the Committee. 1. M Manufacturer: A representative of a maker or marketer of a product, assembly, or system, or portion thereof,

that is affected by the standard. 2. U User: A representative of an entity that is subject to the provisions of the standard or that voluntarily uses the

standard. 3. IM Installer/Maintainer: A representative of an entity that is in the business of installing or maintaining a product,

assembly, or system affected by the standard. 4. L Labor: A labor representative or employee concerned with safety in the workplace. 5. RT Applied Research/Testing Laboratory: A representative of an independent testing laboratory or independent

applied research organization that promulgates and/or enforces standards. 6. E Enforcing Authority: A representative of an agency or an organization that promulgates and/or enforces

standards. 7. I Insurance: A representative of an insurance company, broker, agent, bureau, or inspection agency. 8. C Consumer: A person who is or represents the ultimate purchaser of a product, system, or service affected by the

standard, but who is not included in (2). 9. SE Special Expert: A person not representing (1) through (8) and who has special expertise in the scope of the

standard or portion thereof. NOTE 1: “Standard” connotes code, standard, recommended practice, or guide. NOTE 2: A representative includes an employee. NOTE 3: While these classifications will be used by the Standards Council to achieve a balance for Technical Committees, the Standards Council may determine that new classifications of member or unique interests need representation in order to foster the best possible Committee deliberations on any project. In this connection, the Standards Council may make such appointments as it deems appropriate in the public interest, such as the classification of “Utilities” in the National Electrical Code Committee. NOTE 4: Representatives of subsidiaries of any group are generally considered to have the same classification as the parent organization.

Sequence of Events Leading to Issuance of an NFPA Committee Document

Step 1 Call for Proposals

▼ Proposed new document or new edition of an existing document is entered into one of two yearly revision cycles, and a Call for Proposals is published.

Step 2 Report on Proposals (ROP)

▼ Committee meets to act on Proposals, to develop its own Proposals, and to prepare its Report.

▼ Committee votes by written ballot on Proposals. If two-thirds approve, Report goes forward. Lacking two-thirds approval, Report returns to Committee.

▼ Report on Proposals (ROP) is published for public review and comment.

Step 3 Report on Comments (ROC)

▼ Committee meets to act on Public Comments to develop its own Comments, and to prepare its report.

▼ Committee votes by written ballot on Comments. If two-thirds approve, Report goes forward. Lacking two-thirds approval, Report returns to Committee.

▼ Report on Comments (ROC) is published for public review.

Step 4 Association Technical Meeting

▼ “Notices of intent to make a motion” are filed, are reviewed, and valid motions are certified for presentation at the Association Technical Meeting. (“Consent Documents” that have no certified motions bypass the Association Technical Meeting and proceed to the Standards Council for issuance.)

▼ NFPA membership meets each June at the Association Technical Meeting and acts on Technical Committee Reports (ROP and ROC) for documents with “certified amending motions.”

▼ Committee(s) vote on any amendments to Report approved at NFPA Annual Membership Meeting.

Step 5 Standards Council Issuance

▼ Notification of intent to file an appeal to the Standards Council on Association action must be filed within 20 days of the NFPA Annual Membership Meeting.

▼ Standards Council decides, based on all evidence, whether or not to issue document or to take other action, including hearing any appeals.

The Association Technical Meeting

The process of public input and review does not end with the publication of the ROP and ROC. Following the completion of the Proposal and Comment periods, there is yet a further opportunity for debate and discussion through the Association Technical Meeting that takes place at the NFPA Annual Meeting.

The Association Technical Meeting provides an opportunity for the final Technical Committee Report (i.e., the ROP and ROC) on each proposed new or revised code or standard to be presented to the NFPA membership for the debate and consideration of motions to amend the Report. The specific rules for the types of motions that can be made and who can make them are set forth in NFPA’s rules, which should always be consulted by those wishing to bring an issue before the membership at an Association Technical Meeting. The following presents some of the main features of how a Report is handled.

The Filing of a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion. Before making an allowable motion at an Association Technical Meeting, the intended maker of the motion must file, in advance of the session, and within the published deadline, a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion. A Motions Committee appointed by the Standards Council then reviews all notices and certifies all amending motions that are proper. The Motions Committee can also, in consultation with the makers of the motions, clarify the intent of the motions and, in certain circumstances, combine motions that are dependent on each other together so that they can be made in one single motion. A Motions Committee report is then made available in advance of the meeting listing all certified motions. Only these Certified Amending Motions, together with certain allowable Follow-Up Motions (that is, motions that have become necessary as a result of previous successful amending motions) will be allowed at the Association Technical Meeting.

Consent Documents. Often there are codes and standards up for consideration by the membership that will be noncontroversial and no proper Notices of Intent to Make a Motion will be filed. These “Consent Documents” will bypass the Association Technical Meeting and head straight to the Standards Council for issuance. The remaining documents are then forwarded to the Association Technical Meeting for consideration of the NFPA membership.

What Amending Motions Are Allowed. The Technical Committee Reports contain many Proposals and Comments that the Technical Committee has rejected or revised in whole or in part. Actions of the Technical Committee published in the ROP may also eventually be rejected or revised by the Technical Committee during the development of its ROC. The motions allowed by NFPA rules provide the opportunity to propose amendments to the text of a proposed code or standard based on these published Proposals, Comments, and Committee actions. Thus, the list of allowable motions include motions to accept Proposals and Comments in whole or in part as submitted or as modified by a Technical Committee action. Motions are also available to reject an accepted Comment in whole or part. In addition, Motions can be made to return an entire Technical Committee Report or a portion of the Report to the Technical Committee for further study.

The NFPA Annual Meeting, also known as the NFPA Conference & Expo, takes place in June of each year. A second Fall membership meeting was discontinued in 2004, so the NFPA Technical Committee Report Session now runs once each year at the Annual Meeting in June.

Who Can Make Amending Motions. NFPA rules also define those authorized to make amending motions. In many cases, the maker of the motion is limited by NFPA rules to the original submitter of the Proposal or Comment or his or her duly authorized representative. In other cases, such as a Motion to Reject an accepted Comment, or to Return a Technical Committee Report or a portion of a Technical Committee Report for Further Study, anyone can make these motions. For a complete explanation, the NFPA Regs should be consulted.

Action on Motions at the Association Technical Meeting. In order to actually make a Certified Amending Motion at the Association Technical Meeting, the maker of the motion must sign in at least an hour before the session begins. In this way a final list of motions can be set in advance of the session. At the session, each proposed document up for consideration is presented by a motion to adopt the Technical Committee Report on the document. Following each such motion, the presiding officer in charge of the session opens the floor to motions on the document from the final list of Certified Amending Motions followed by any permissible Follow-Up Motions. Debate and voting on each motion proceeds in accordance with NFPA rules. NFPA membership is not required in order to make or speak to a motion, but voting is limited to NFPA members who have joined at least 180 days prior to the Association Technical Meeting and have registered for the meeting. At the close of debate on each motion, voting takes place, and the motion requires a majority vote to carry. In order to amend a Technical Committee Report, successful amending motions must be confirmed by the responsible Technical Committee, which conducts a written ballot on all successful amending motions following the meeting and prior to the document being forwarded to the Standards Council for issuance.

Standards Council Issuance

One of the primary responsibilities of the NFPA Standards Council, as the overseer of the NFPA codes and standards development process, is to act as the official issuer of all NFPA codes and standards. When it convenes to issue NFPA documents, it also hears any appeals related to the document. Appeals are an important part of assuring that all NFPA rules have been followed and that due process and fairness have been upheld throughout the codes and standards development process. The Council considers appeals both in writing and through the conduct of hearings at which all interested parties can participate. It decides appeals based on the entire record of the process as well as all submissions on the appeal. After deciding all appeals related to a document before it, the Council, if appropriate, proceeds to issue the document as an official NFPA code or standard. Subject only to limited review by the NFPA Board of Directors, the decision of the Standards Council is final, and the new NFPA code or standard becomes effective twenty days after Standards Council issuance.

17A-1

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 17AReport of the Committee on

Dry and Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems

David A. de Vries, ChairFiretech Engineering Inc., IL [SE]

Andrew Blum, Exponent, Inc., MD [SE] Thomas C. Brown, The RJA Group, Inc., MD [SE] Paul E. Buchhofer, Building Inspection Underwriters, Inc., PA [E] Samuel S. Dannaway, S. S. Dannaway Associates, Inc., HI [SE] Jack K. Dick, Heiser Logisticss, Inc., NY [M] Bradley T. Howard, Koorsen Fire & Security, OH [IM] Bill Isemann, Guardian Fire Protection Services LLC, MD [IM] Edward J. Kaminski, Clark County Fire Department, NV [E] Thomas H. Kelly, Zurich Services Corporation, MI [I] Doug Kline, Nowak Supply Fire Systems, IN [IM] Rep. Fire Suppression Systems Association William Klingenmaier, Tyco Suppression Systems & Building Products, WI [M] Michael E. Luna, Intertek Testing Services, TX [RT] Michael P. McGreal, Firedyne Engineering, PC, IL [SE] Thomas L. McVerry III, DunnWell, LLC, NC [IM] Michael S. Mitchell, Boulder Fire Rescue Department, CO [E] J. R. Nerat, UTC/Badger Fire Protection, MI [M] Rep. NFPA Industrial Fire Protection Section Erik G. Olsen, Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, NJ [I] Robert B. Popa, Farmington Fire Department, NM [E] Robert V. Scholes, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, CA [I] Blake M. Shugarman, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] Raymond A. Stacy, FM Approvals, MA [I] Rep. FM Global Laurie K. Szumla, All State Fire Equipment of WNY, NY [IM] William Vegso, Buckeye Fire Equipment Company, NC [M] Rep. Fire Equipment Manufacturers’ Association J. Craig Voelkert, Amerex Corporation, AL [M] Richard W. Wood, City of Nashua Fire Rescue Department, NH [E] Thomas Steven Wright, Fisher Engineering, Inc., AZ [SE]

Alternates

Richard J. Biehl, Tyco Suppression Systems, WI [M] (Alt. to William Klingenmaier) Mark T. Conroy, Brooks Equipment Company, MA [M] (Alt. to Jack K. Dick) Kevin Holly,Jr., Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] (Alt. to Blake M. Shugarman) Robert Kasiski, FM Global, MA [I] (Alt. to Raymond A. Stacy) Richard T. Long, Jr., Exponent, Inc., MD [SE] (Alt. to Andrew Blum) Richard L. Lupien, UTC/Kidde-Fenwal, Inc., MA [M] (Alt. to J. R. Nerat)Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors, IL [IM] (Voting Alt. to NAFED Rep.) Stephen M. Micke, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, CA [I] (Alt. to Robert V. Scholes) Kenneth A. Mier, Amerex Corporation, AL [M] (Alt. to J. Craig Voelkert)

Nonvoting

Edward D. Leedy, Naperville, IL (Member Emeritus) Staff Liaison: Sandra Stanek

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the design, installation, operation, testing, maintenance, and use of dry and wet chemical extinguishing systems for fire protection.

This list represents the membership at the time the Committee was balloted on the text of this report. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred. A key to classifications is found at the front of the document.

The Technical Committee on Dry and Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems is presenting two Reports for adoption, as follows:

Report I: The Technical Committee proposes for adoption, amendments to NFPA 17, Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems, 2009 edition. NFPA 17-2009 is published in Volume 2 of the 2011 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.

The report on NFPA 17 has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Dry and Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems, which consists of 28 voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.

Report II: The Technical Committee proposes for adoption, amendments to NFPA 17A, Standard for Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems, 2009 edition. NFPA 17A-2009 is published in Volume 2 of the 2011 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.

The report on NFPA 17A has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Dry and Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems, which consists of 28 voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.

17A-2

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 17A_______________________________________________________________ 17A-1 Log #4 Final Action: Reject(Entire Document)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul O’Shea, Economy Fire ServicesRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows: All Ansul Suppressions or wet Chemical Kitchen Systems should have color coded nozzles, meaning if a nozzle is protecting fryers, then the nozzle should or shall be a specific color. Same rule applies with each appliance, plenum, and extraction ducts. Substantiation: This will benefit because it will stop chefs or persons whose job it is to move or clean kitchen areas from putting appliances back in wrong position if color coding is implemented. Also it will heighten awareness in this area and possible reduce incidents. Via Signage etc. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Nozzles are already required to be uniquely identifiable. Appliance requirements are beyond the scope of NFPA 17A. See NFPA 96, Standard for Ventilation Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-2 Log #CP1 Final Action: Accept(Entire Document)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Dry and Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems, Recommendation: Review entire document to: 1) Update any extracted material by preparing separate proposals to do so, and 2) review and update references to other organizations documents, by preparing proposal(s) as required. Substantiation: To conform to the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptRevise text to read as follows: 2.2 NFPA Publications. National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471. NFPA 70®, National Electrical Code®, 2008 2011 edition.NFPA 72®, National Fire Alarm Code®, 2007 2010 edition.NFPA 96, Standard for Ventilation Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations, 2008 2011edition.2.3 Other Publications. 2.3.1 UL Publications. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096. ANSI/UL 300, Fire Testing of Fire Extinguishing Systems for Protection of Commercial Cooking Equipment, 2005. 2.3.2 Other Publications. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, Merriam-Webster, Inc., Springfield, MA, 2003. 2.4 References for Extracts in Mandatory Sections. NFPA 17, Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems, 2009 2013 edition. NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems, 2008 2011 edition.NFPA 72®, National Fire Alarm Code®, 2007 2010 edition.NFPA 820, Standard for Fire Protection in Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities, 2008 2012 edition.Chapter 3 Definitions 3.3.6* Inspection. A visual examination of a system or portion thereof to verify that it appears to be in operating condition and is free of physical damage. [820, 2008 2012]3.3.7 Liquid Agent. See 3.3.22, Wet Chemical. 3.3.11 Operation. 3.3.11.1 Automatic Operation. Operation without human intervention. This operation includes, but is not limited to, heat, rate of heat rise, smoke, or pressure change. [25, 2008 2011]3.3.11.2 Manual Operation. Operation of a system or its components through human action. [25, 2008 2011]3.3.12 Pipe. Circular conduit for conveying the extinguishing agent to the discharge nozzle(s). Wherever pipe is used in this standard, it shall be understood also to mean tube. [17, 2009 2013]3.3.17 Signal. A status indication communicated by electrical or other means. [72, 2007 2010]3.3.18 Trained. One who has undergone the instructions necessary to safely design, install, and reliably perform the maintenance and recharge service in accordance with the manufacturer’s listed manual. [17, 2009 2013]Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M.Comment on Affirmative: KLINE, D.: Review corrections shown for date and title - see comments 17.

_______________________________________________________________ 17A-3 Log #10 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part(Entire Document)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Don Dawkins, DAWCO Fire & Safety Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: Manufacturers of fire equipment shall make available to State Fire Marshal Offices product installation and service manuals and provide timely product safety bulletins for dissemination to all Authorized and Licensed Fire Equipment Service companies for all Fire Equipment Products manufactured, listed and sold for profit in those states. Also, Product Service Training and/or Listed Installation and service manuals shall be offered and made available for a reasonable fee to any state authorized and licensed fire equipment service company. Substantiation: This would greatly improve the level of professionalism, training and quality of service inspections conducted by authorized, licensed and permitted fire equipment service personnel. Currently, there are many oversights or mistakes routinely being made and identification of service companies or their employees performing at substandard levels is difficult to distinguish. By adding this requirement to all standards would ensure the availability of proper training and flow of information. Non-Compliant issues could be readily identified and corrected. Fire equipment service companies and/or their service employees which perform at substandard levels could be readily identified. The purpose for these standards is to ensure minimum requirements. This amendment would accomplish the best of what is achievable when it comes to protecting overall public safety and property. It is time to reduce the politics and truly put public safety where it belongs – First. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in PartRevise text to read as follows: A.6.2 Manufacturers of fire suppression system equipment should make available the listed installation, maintenance manual and product safety bulletins to the AHJ upon request. Committee Statement: Submitter did not give any section where to refer. The committee chose a section within the Annex for its location. The AHJ is clearly defined within the standard and it would be useful to provide such a manual to them. Original wording was too restrictive to State Fire Marshals only and should be made available to all AHJ’s which is defined in the standard and is inclusive of State Fire Marshals. The availability of these documents to fire equipment service companies should be left to the manufacturers discretion. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M.Comment on Affirmative: DE VRIES, D.: The reference location indicated, A.6.2, does not appear to be the best location. I recommend the TC consider placing this as part of the Annex Note for the definition, i.e. A.3.3.9.1, and also refer to it in an Annex Note for 6.4.3. _______________________________________________________________ 17A-4 Log #CP5 Final Action: Accept(Entire Document)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Dry and Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems, Recommendation: Terminology should be editorially updated throughout the document to change any of the reference words from the word “manual” to the words “manufacturer’s design, installation, and maintenance manual”. Substantiation: Consistent with revised definition.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M.Comment on Affirmative: DE VRIES, D.: This change throughout the document must consider the context. The word “manual” also may be referring to the nature of an action, meaning by hand, rather than automatic. The appropriate context is where the document refers to the manufacturer’s manual. _______________________________________________________________ 17A-5 Log #CP7 Final Action: Reject(1.3, 2.3.2, 2.3.2, 4.3.1.1, 4.9, 5.1.1, 5.1.2(6), 5.2.1.5, and 5.7)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Dry and Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems, Recommendation: Add or revise the following sections:Revise 1.3 to add reference to mobile equipment. Section 2.3.2 add reference AMSE publications. Section 2.3.1 add reference to UL-1254. Section 4.3.1.1 add reference that subject is limited to commercial cooking. Section 4.9 add storage container text from NFPA 17 reference (4.9.1 and 4.9.2) Section 5.1.1 for clarification add reference to commercial cooking. Section 5.1.2(6) Add new subsection for mobile equipment. Section 5.2.1.5 For clarification add reference to commercial cooking.

17A-3

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 17ASection 5.7 Add entire section 9.9 from NFPA 17 as a separate section at this point. Appropriately renumber and change all references of “dry” to “wet”. Substantiation: It is understood that current applications of wet chemical systems involving mobile equipment are being installed without an applicable standard. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This committee proposal has been rejected because it has not been developed sufficiently to incorporate into the standard as yet. A task group has been formed to work on this subject prior to the ROC. Although rejected, this has been published to solicit public input. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M.Comment on Affirmative: DE VRIES, D.: Editorially change “AMSE” to “ASME”. _______________________________________________________________ 17A-6 Log #60 Final Action: Accept in Principle(1.7)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:1.7 Only persons properly trained shall be considered competent to design or layout, install and service dry chemical systems.Substantiation: Properly is not defined and subjective whereas trained is defined in this standard. Pre-engineered systems are not designed by the installer. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: 1.7 Only persons properly trained persons shall be considered competent to design or layout, install and service dry wet chemical systems.Committee Statement: This is to change the term to properly fit in NFPA 17A. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-7 Log #16 Final Action: Accept(2.3.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: John F. Bender, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.Recommendation: Revise text as follows: 2.3.1 UL Publications. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096. ANSI/UL 300, Fire Testing of Fire Extinguishing Systems for Protection of Commercial Cooking Equipment, 2005, revised 2010.Substantiation: Reason: Update referenced standard to most recent revision.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: Accepted, also see Proposal 17A-2 (Log # CP1).Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-8 Log #61 Final Action: Reject(3.3.2 Deficiency)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Add definition to read as follows: 3.3.2 Deficiency. A situation, condition or failure within a system or system component that makes the system non-complaint with this standard or the manufacturers listed maintenance and installation manual.Substantiation: Add definition of term deficiency as used in 17A 7.3.2 and other proposals. Move all other 3.3 items down one number. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: A definition within the standard is not needed if the term is not used. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-9 Log #62 Final Action: Reject(3.3.7 Layout (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Add new definition to read as follows: 3.3.7 Layout. A plan or sketch indicating the arrangement and relationship of the parts of the pre-engineered fire system to ensure that the system configuration is within the listed design determined by the manufacturer and outlined in the manufacturer’s listed maintenance and installation manual.Substantiation: Define the term Layout as used in several other proposals.

Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The addition of the word “layout” will not add clarification. This and other proposals raise issues that have not been completely addressed. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M.Comment on Affirmative: DE VRIES, D.: See comment with 17A-14. _______________________________________________________________ 17A-10 Log #34 Final Action: Accept(3.3.8 Maintenance)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mark T. Conroy, Brooks Equipment CompanyRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 3.3.8 Revise the definition of “maintenance” to read as follows: Maintenance. Work, including, but not limited to, repair, replacement, and service, performed to ensure that equipment operates properly. Substantiation: Definition was taken from the NFPA Glossary of Terms which references NFPA 72 as the source. The current definition does not adequately define the term. The new definition defines the term as it is used in chapter 7 of the standard. This definition was also added to NFPA 96 during the last revision after significant deliberation. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-11 Log #35 Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.3.9.1 Manufacturer’s Listed Installation and Maintenance Manual)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mark T. Conroy, Brooks Equipment CompanyRecommendation: Revise the term and definition to read as follows: 3.3.9.1* Manufacturer’s Listed Installation and Maintenance Manual. The pamphlet referenced as part of the listing for installation and maintenance of the wet chemical extinguishing system. (The terminology should be editorially updated throughout the document.) Substantiation: I serve on the NFPA committee on venting systems for cooking appliances which recently corrected NFPA 96, 11.2.3 by dropping the term “listed” when referencing these manuals (A11, ROP 96-102). The reason that the committee provided in the committee proposal was “There are no listed installation manuals.” There is a need for correlation. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: 3.3.9.1* Manufacturer’s design Listed Installation and Maintenance Manual. The pamphlet document referenced as part of the listing for design, installation and maintenance of the listed wet chemical extinguishing system equipment. (The terminology should be editorially updated throughout the document.) Committee Statement: The committee is incorporating the term “design” because the manual is required to incorporate design criteria. We are striking the term “listed” from the title because this action is consistent with the actions of the NFPA 96 committee. This committee lacks consensus on whether manuals are listed as part of the system listing or as an individual listing. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-12 Log #63 Final Action: Reject(3.3.10 Non-Compliant (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Add new definition to read as follows:3.3.10 Non-Compliant. Not meeting all applicable requirements of this standard.Substantiation: Add new text to define Non-Compliant as used in 17A - 7.3.3.4.1. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The submitter does not meet the NFPA Manual of Style and the committee does not see the need to define this term. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-13 Log #20 Final Action: Accept(3.3.13 Pre-Engineered Systems)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kevin Richards, Kidde-Fenwal Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: These systems have the specific pipe size, maximum and minimum pipe lengths, flexible hose specifications, number of fittings, and number and types of nozzles prescribed verified by a testing laboratory.

17A-4

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 17ASubstantiation: This statement implies that an independent lab defines the system design. An independent testing laboratory prescribes the test protocol for system performance. It is the responsibility of the system manufacturer to define the specifications of the system. The independent laboratory verifies whether or not the system as specified by the manufacturer meets the test requirements. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-14 Log #64 Final Action: Reject(3.3.13 Pre-Engineered Systems)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Revise definition to read as follows: 3.3.13* Pre-Engineered Systems. Those having designed and engineered by the manufacturer to have predetermined flow rates, nozzle pressures, and quantities of extinguishing agent. These systems have the specific pipe size, maximum and minimum pipe lengths, flexible hose specifications, number of fittings, and number and types of nozzles prescribed by a testing laboratory. The maximum and minimum pipe lengths and the number of fittings shall be permitted to be expressed in equivalent feet of pipe. The hazards protected by these systems are specifically limited as to type and size by a testing laboratory, based on actual fire tests. Limitations on hazards that are permitted to be protected by these systems and piping and nozzle configurations are determined by the manufacturer design and are contained in the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual, which is part of the listing of the system. Substantiation: Reword 3.3.13 to indicate that pre-engineered systems are designed and engineered by system manufacture Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The existing language is sufficient and the added language in the proposal does not clarify the existing language. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M.Comment on Affirmative: DE VRIES, D.: There are design decisions that must be made with regard to pre-engineered systems as the standard is currently written. If the standard were more explicit regarding certain judgment areas, then layout might be used to differentiate the functions of the person preparing plans for a system. The SFPE white paper on this subject addresses many of the considerations of this subject. _______________________________________________________________ 17A-15 Log #65 Final Action: Reject(3.3.18 Trained)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Revise definition to read as follows: 3.3.18 Trained. One who has undergone the instructions necessary to safely design, install, layout or and reliably perform the maintenance and recharge service in accordance with the manufacturer’s listed manual. Substantiation: Add the term layout to the list contained in 3.3.18.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee is incorporating the term “design” because the manual is required to incorporate design criteria. We are striking the term “listed” from the title because this action is consistent with the actions of the NFPA 96 committee. This committee lacks consensus on whether manuals are listed as part of the system listing or as an individual listing. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M.Comment on Affirmative: DE VRIES, D.: See comment with 17A-14. _______________________________________________________________ 17A-16 Log #21 Final Action: Accept(3.3.19 Transport Canada (TC))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kevin Richards, Kidde-Fenwal Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Transport Canada (TC). The department that hHas jurisdiction over design and transportation of compressed gas cylinders and cartridges in Canada.Substantiation: The definition as written is incomplete, inconsistent with similar definition of US DOT in sec 3.3.20, and does not indicate the scope of authority. The revised text clarifies that TC is a specific department and that jurisdiction pertains to Canada only. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M.

_______________________________________________________________ 17A-17 Log #22 Final Action: Accept(3.3.20 US Department of Transportation (DOT))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kevin Richards, Kidde-Fenwal Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: US Department of Transportation (DOT). The department that has jurisdiction over design and transportation of compressed gas cylinders and cartridges in the US.Substantiation: DOT does not have jurisdiction outside the US. The revised text clarifies that jurisdiction pertains to the US only. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-18 Log #66 Final Action: Reject(3.4 Function Test)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Add new definition to read as follows: Function Test. The regular, periodic testing and maintenance and testing of the system equipment and hardware, according to the established schedule and the manufacturer’s listed installation manual, to ensure that the system is in safe and functional operating condition.Substantiation: Add this definition to note the difference between a function test and a discharge test. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Does not add additional clarity: The term “functional” and the term “safe” could be misinterpreted. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-19 Log #CP2 Final Action: Accept(4.3.1.5)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Dry and Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems, Recommendation: Add the term “environmental” after the word “moisture” and before “foreign materials”. Substantiation: Wet chemical systems are now being used in applications that may subject them to environmental contaminants that can affect their operation. This is also consistent with NFPA 17, Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M.Comment on Affirmative: DE VRIES, D.: Text should read”...grease vapors, moisture, environmental, or other foreign materials into the piping.” _______________________________________________________________ 17A-20 Log #CP3 Final Action: Accept(4.4)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Dry and Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems, Recommendation: Revise Section 4.4 as follows:4.4 Operating Devices. 4.4.1 Operating devices shall be listed.4.4.1.1 All operating devices shall be designed for the service they will encounter, and shall not be readily rendered inoperative or susceptible to accidental operation, and shall operate at least from 32°F to 120°F (0°C to 49°C).4.4.1.2 Operating devices shall be marked to indicate their listed minimum and maximum temperature limitations, but all devices shall operate at least from 32°F to 120°F (0°C to 49°C).Substantiation: Clarifies labeling requirements for temperature ratings of wet chemical extinguishing system equipment. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-21 Log #67 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.4.2.5)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: All remote manual operating devices shall be indentified to the hazard they protect.

17A-5

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 17ASubstantiation: It is important that all manual operating devices be indentified.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: All remote readily accessible manual operating devices shall identify the hazards they protect. (See 5.2.1.10)Committee Statement: The wording has been revised so as not to require identification of manual operating devices located in areas that are not readily accessible or that addresses specific hazards. Fixed nozzles are not needed to be addressed in NFPA 17A. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-22 Log #19 Final Action: Reject(4.4.3.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bradley Howard, Koorsen Fire & SecurityRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.4.3 Shutoff Devices.4.4.3.1 On activation of any cooking equipment fire extinguishing system, all sources of fuel and electric power that produce heat to all equipment protected by the system shall be shut down.Substantiation: I have contacted various AHJ’s in my area and have concluded that it is a significant electrocution hazard for the non-protected equipment to remain electrically energized due to the fact that the wet chemical agents will conduct electricity. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: There has never been any documentation of a specific electrocution hazard. Intent of the current language is to shut down potential ignition sources and allow appliances to cool. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-23 Log #36 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.6.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mark T. Conroy, Brooks Equipment CompanyRecommendation: Revise 4.6.1 to read as follows: 4.6.1* The type of wet chemical used in the system shall be listed for the particular system and recommended by the manufacturer of the wet chemical system.Substantiation: The current text does not match the NFPA Manual of Style. Recommendations do not belong in the body of the standard. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise 4.6.1 to read as follows: 4.6.1* The type of wet chemical used in the system shall be listed for the particular system as specified and recommended by the manufacturer of the wet chemical system. Committee Statement: To avoid confusion about similar chemicals we are requiring a specific wet chemical for the particular system. Number Eligible to Vote: 28Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-24 Log #68 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.6.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.6.1 The type of wet chemical used in the system shall be listed for the particular system and recommended by the manufacturer of the wet chemical system.Substantiation: This is a redundant requirement; the wet chemical agent should only be what is listed for the specific system. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise 4.6.1 to read as follows: 4.6.1* The type of wet chemical used in the system shall be listed for the particular system as specified and recommended by the manufacturer of the wet chemical system. Committee Statement: To avoid confusion about similar chemicals we are requiring a specific wet chemical for the particular system. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-25 Log #69 Final Action: Reject(4.7)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.7 Electrical Wiring and Equipment. Electrical wiring and equipment shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 70. or the requirements of the authority having jurisdiction.

Substantiation: Due to the nature of the hazards involved: high temperatures, grease, high air flows, only wiring and equipment specifically mandated by the National Electrical Code should be used. A local authority may not be aware of these special conditions. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Not all jurisdictions use NFPA 70, National Electrical Code. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-26 Log #13 Final Action: Reject(4.8)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:Wet chemical systems shall be provided with an audible or visual indicator to show that the system is in a ready condition or is in need of recharging. The audible or visual indicator shall be capable of being heard or seen in the vicinity of the protected cooking equipment. Substantiation: Many times the fire-extinguishing system is located in a remote location from the cooking equipment being protected, such as an adjacent room or above a ceiling. There have been instances where, due to the “clean agent” being utilized, it is difficult to see that the system has triggered and the audible/visual notification cannot be heard/seen due to the remote or inaccessible location of the system. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The proposed wording is vague and the term vicinity is not enforceable. Evidence of discharge would be apparent. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-27 Log #23 Final Action: Reject(5.1.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kevin Richards, Kidde-Fenwal Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Wet chemical fire-extinguishing systems shall comply with ANSI/UL 300 or equivalent listing standard.Substantiation: This statement is too restrictive as currently written. Other standards exist which may be acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: There are no equivalent listing standards.Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-28 Log #CP4 Final Action: Accept(5.1.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Dry and Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems, Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Wet chemical fire-extinguishing systems for use in commercial cooking operations shall comply with ANSI/UL 300. Substantiation: ANSI/UL 300 is applicable only to extinguishing systems for commercial cooking operations. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-29 Log #37 Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.3)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mark T. Conroy, Brooks Equipment CompanyRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 5.1.3 Applications. The NFPA 96 and the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual shall be consulted for system limitations and applications for which wet chemical extinguishing systems are considered satisfactory protection. Substantiation: NFPA 96 is the occupancy standard that provides minimum requirements for the protection of venting system and cooking appliance hazards and therefore should be part of this requirement. That committee updated the reference to the manufacturer’s manuals by proposal A10, FOP 96-102. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAdd new text to read as follows: 5.1.3 Applications. The NFPA 96 and the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual shall be consulted for system limitations and applications for which wet chemical extinguishing systems for commercial cooking operations are considered satisfactory protection.

17A-6

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 17ACommittee Statement: Adding the terminology clarifies the purposes.Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-30 Log #101 Final Action: Accept(5.1.3.1 (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bill Vegso, Fire Equipment Manufacturers AssociationRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows:5.1.3.1 Equipment, listed or otherwise, that provides secondary filtration or air pollution control and that is installed in the path of travel of exhaust products shall be provided with an approved automatic fire suppression system, installed in accordance with the automatic fire suppression system manufacturer’s instructions in accordance with NFPA 96.Substantiation: 5.1.3.1 is taken from NFPA 96, 9.3.3 (2011 edition). It is included to support new proposal 5.6.3.1.1 (which requires the automatic fire suppression system that is protecting a secondary filtration or air pollution control unit to be simultaneously operated with the automatic fire suppression system protecting the ventilation hood(s) that the secondary filtration or air pollution control unit is serving). Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: We note The reference to the IFC section is incorrect.Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-31 Log #70 Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.4)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.1.4 Each protected cooking appliance, individual hood, and branch exhaust duct directly connected to the hood shall be protected by a system or systems designed installed for simultaneous operation.Substantiation: Remove the word design and replace it with installed since “design” is a function of the equipment manufacture. Systems falling under this section must be “installed” to operate simultaneously. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: 5.1.4 Each protected cooking appliance, individual hood, and branch exhaust duct directly connected to the hood shall be protected by a system or systems designed and installed for simultaneous operation.Committee Statement: The words “designed” and “installed” both apply.Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-32 Log #71 Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1.5)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.1.5 Where two or more hazards can be simultaneously involved in fire by reason of their proximity, the hazards shall be protected by either of the following: (1) Individual systems installed on each hazard to operate simultaneously (2) A single system designed installed to protect all hazards that can be simultaneously involved Substantiation: Remove the word design and replace it with “installed”, since “design” is a function of the equipment manufacture. Systems falling under this section must be “installed” to operate simultaneously. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: 5.1.5 Where two or more hazards can be simultaneously involved in fire by reason of their proximity, the hazards shall be protected by either of the following: (1) Individual systems installed on each hazard to operate simultaneously (2) A single system designed and installed to protect all hazards that can be simultaneously involved Committee Statement: The words “designed” and “installed” both apply.Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-33 Log #38 Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.2.1.3)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mark T. Conroy, Brooks Equipment CompanyRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.2.1.3 Automatic detection and system actuation shall be in accordance with this standard and the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual.

Substantiation: Clarification. The current text could be misinterpreted. NFPA 17A contains many requirements for detection and actuation that are not contained in the manuals. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAutomatic detection and system actuation shall be in accordance with manufacturers design, installation, and maintenance manual.Committee Statement: The committee is incorporating the term “design” because the manual is required to incorporate design criteria. We are striking the term “listed” from the title because this action is consistent with the actions of the NFPA 96 committee. This committee lacks consensus on whether manuals are listed as part of the system listing or as an individual listing. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-34 Log #1 Final Action: Reject(5.2.1.8)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Gary R. Long, Office of the State Fire MarshalRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: An Audible or and visual indicators shall be provided to show that the system has operated, that personnel response is needed, and that the system is in need of a recharge. Substantiation: I believe that an audible indicator should be required to alert kitchen personnel and diners in the eating areas. If the system activates while kitchen personnel are out of the area, a visible indicator will provide no warning. The small “flag” indicating agent discharge is visible, but usually out of sight. Agent all over the stove is visible, but does nothing to alert personnel out of the immediate area. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This would require a retrofit of existing installations and is readily apparent as operation of wet chemical system shuts down the cooking equipment. Notification of occupants outside of the kitchen area is a fire code issue. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-35 Log #2 Final Action: Reject(5.2.1.8)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Gary R. Long, Office of the State Fire MarshalRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:Audible or visual indicator shall be provided to show that the system has operated, that personnel response is needed, and that the system is in need of a recharge. Substantiation: I believe that an audible indicator should be required to alert kitchen personnel and diners in the eating areas. If the system activates while kitchen personnel are out of the area, a visible indicator will provide no warning. The small “flag” indicating agent discharge is visible, but usually out of sight. Agent all over the stove is visible, but does nothing to alert personnel out of the immediate area. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This would require a retrofit of existing installations and is readily apparent as operation of wet chemical system shuts down the cooking equipment. Notification of occupants outside of the kitchen area is a fire code issue. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-36 Log #5 Final Action: Accept(5.2.1.9)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert Bourke, Northeastern Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Revise to read: The extinguishing system shall be connected to the fire alarm system, if provided, in accordance with the requirements of NFPA 72, so that the actuation of the extinguishing system will sound the fire alarm as well as provide the function of the extinguishing system.Substantiation: Connecting the extinguishing system to the fire alarm system only allows actuation to sound the fire alarm. It does not also provide or even help provide the function of the extinguishing system. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M.

17A-7

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 17A_______________________________________________________________ 17A-37 Log #6 Final Action: Reject(5.2.1.10)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert Bourke, Northeastern Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Revise to read: A readily accessible means for manual actuation shall be located in a path of egress. When manual actuation is used for cooking-related protection, the manual actuation device It shall be installed no more than 48 in. (1200 mm), and no less than 42 in. (1067 mm), above the floor and shall clearly identify the hazard protected. Substantiation: The requirement is appropriately written without the stated condition. That is, the location of the manual actuation means is not dependant on what is being protected. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Deletion of this text could result in a conflict for other applications of wet chemical systems. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-38 Log #104 Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.2.1.11 and 5.2.1.12 (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bill Vegso, Fire Equipment Manufacturers AssociationRecommendation: Add the following and renumber accordingly – 5.2.1.11 At least one manual actuation device shall be located either a minimum of 3 m (10 ft) and a maximum of 6 m (20 ft) from the kitchen appliance(s) or as directed by the authority having jurisdiction, within the path of egress. 5.2.1.12 Manual activation using a cable-operated pull station shall not require more than 178 N (40 lb.) of force with a pull movement not to exceed 356 mm (14 in) to activate the system.Substantiation: Proposal duplicates, in principle, requirements in NFPA 96 – 2011 and would avoid potential conflict between the two standards. Gives better guidance to installers and authorities. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAdd the following and renumber accordingly. 5.2.1.11 At least one manual actuation device shall be located in accordance with NFPA 96 either a minimum of 3 m (10 ft) and a maximum of 6 m (20 ft) from the kitchen appliance(s) or as directed by the authority having jurisdiction, within the limitations of the manufacturers design, installation, and maintenance manual. path of egress.5.2.1.12 Manual activation using a cable-operated pull station shall not require more than 178 N (40 lb.) of force with a pull movement not to exceed 356 mm (14 in) to activate the system.Committee Statement: NFPA 96, Standard for Ventilation Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations, provisions for location of manual activation devices, but recognizes the submitter’s concern that some applications cannot meet the strict limitations of distance and can be modified by the AHJ. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-39 Log #92 Final Action: Accept(5.2.1.12)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bill Vegso, Fire Equipment Manufacturers AssociationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.2.1.12 The means for manual actuation mechanical actuator(s) shall be mechanical and shall not rely on electrical power for actuation. Substantiation: I believe this is a clerical error requiring clarification by changing the word “mechanical” to “manual”. NFPA 17, 9.4.2 has very similar wording. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: We note the reference to the IFC section is not correct.Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-40 Log #93 Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.2.1.13)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bill Vegso, Fire Equipment Manufacturers AssociationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.2.1.13 Electrical power shall be permitted to be used for manual actuation if electrical supervision and a reserve power supply is provided in accordance with NFPA 72 or if supervision is provided as per Section 5.3.Substantiation: Section 5.3 has a heading entitled, “Supervision”. But it deals entirely with detection. There are exemptions for electrical supervision in this section that do not apply to manual actuation.

Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: 5.2.1.13 Electrical power shall be permitted to be used for manual actuation if electrical supervision and a reserve power supply is provided in accordance with 5.3.1 or if supervision is provided as per Section 5.3.Committee Statement: 5.3.1 is a more appropriate reference than NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm And Signaling Code. We note the reference to the IFC section is incorrect. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-41 Log #72 Final Action: Accept(5.3.1.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.3.1.1 Where supervision of any or all of the following is provided, it shall be designed and installed to give an indication of trouble in the following: (1) Automatic detection system (2) Electrical actuation circuit (3) Electrical power supply Substantiation: Add the word “installed”, since “design” is a function of the equipment manufacture not the installer Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: The committee disagrees with the substantiation but agrees with adding the words “and installed”. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-42 Log #94 Final Action: Accept(5.3.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bill Vegso, Fire Equipment Manufacturers AssociationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.3.2 Where fixed automatic fire-extinguishing systems include mechanical detection and actuation as a backup detection system, electrical power required for automatic operation shall not require monitoring or and a reserve power supply shall not be requiredSubstantiation: 5.3.2 is an exemption to supervision and backup power for electrical detection. Having a redundant mechanical detection system is not criteria for not having circuit monitoring and/or a backup power supply for electrical manual pull stations. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: We note the reference to the IFC section is incorrect.Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-43 Log #15 Final Action: Reject(5.4, 5.4.1, 5.8.2.2, and A.5.4)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: David R. Hague, Liberty Mutual Commercial MarketsRecommendation: Add new Section 5.4 to read as follows:5.4* Reserve Supply A.5.4 A fully charged reserve unit permanently connected to the system is desirable and can be required by the authority having jurisdiction. 5.4.1 Where uninterrupted protection is required, both the main and reserve supply shall be permanently connected to the distribution piping and arranged for changeover.Where a dry chemical system protects multiple hazards by means of selector valves, sufficient dry chemical and expellant gas shall be kept on hand for one complete recharge of the system. 5.8.2.2 Changeover shall be accomplished by a main/reserve selector switch or valve or other approved method. For single hazard systems, a similar supply shall be kept on hand if the importance of the hazard is such that it cannot be shut down until recharges can be procured.Substantiation: According to the NFPA report “U.S. Experience with Sprinklers and Other Automatic Fire Extinguishing Equipment”, dry chemical systems operated in 64% of cases where the fire was considered large enough to activate the system. When the system did not operate, the reasons for lack of operation were: lack of maintenance (44%), manual intervention defeated the system (17%) and, system shut off (15%). In cases where the system operated, only 66% of the systems were effective. When systems were not effective, the reasons for such ineffectiveness were: not enough agent released (51%), agent did not reach the fire (40%), lack of maintenance (4%) and manual intervention defeated the system (3%). According to the NFPA report “U.S. Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments”, 54% of fires in these occupancies are directly related to cooking equipment, resulting in 38% of property damage overall.

17A-8

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 17A Note: these numbers may include wet chemical systems since there is no separate category for these systems. Many of the reasons cited above indicate that a reserve supply of agent is needed to provide better assurance of extinguishment and control. The language in this proposal still permits the lack of a reserve supply where uninterrupted protection is not needed, however this proposal provides stronger language for the AHJ to require a main and reserve supply. This proposal will also reduce the length of the system impairment needed for servicing. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: There are currently no systems utilizing selector valves and reserve supplies. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-44 Log #39 Final Action: Reject(5.4.1, 5.4.2, and 7.1.1.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mark T. Conroy, Brooks Equipment CompanyRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.4.1 Wet chemical containers and expellant gas assemblies shall be located within 32°F to 120°F (0°C to 49°C ). the temperature range specified in the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual. 5.4.2 If ambient temperatures outside the manufacturer’s operating temperature range specified in 5.4.1 are expected, protection shall be provided to maintain the temperature within the listed that range. 7.1.1.2 Wet chemical supplies shall be maintained within the manufacturer’s recommended storage temperature range outlined in 5.4.1.Substantiation: The temperature range should be in the standard rather than sending the user to another document. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: There are currently systems listed for use outside of the proposed temperature ranges. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-45 Log #40 Final Action: Reject(5.4.6)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mark T. Conroy, Brooks Equipment CompanyRecommendation: Replace 5.4.6 with the following: 5.4.6 Agent storage containers shall not be located where they can be rendered inoperable. A.5.4.6 Storage containers should be located so that they will not be exposed to a fire in a manner likely to impair system performance. Substantiation: The objective should be to locate agent containers so that the system will not become impaired and will operate as intended. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Existing language is clear and location of containers should be kept as close to the hazard as possible. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M.Comment on Affirmative: DE VRIES, D.: Agent containers should be located outside the hazard area, but as close as practical to the hazard to minimize piping runs and facilitate maintenance. The intent is to protect the containers from being damaged or disabled by a fire before the system operates to extinguish the fire. _______________________________________________________________ 17A-46 Log #73 Final Action: Accept(5.6.1.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.6.1.1 The building owner(s) or owner’s agent shall be responsible for the protection of a common exhaust duct(s) used by more than one tenant. Substantiation: Contractual obligations may transfer this responsibility to a third party agent or management firm. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-47 Log #24 Final Action: Accept(5.6.1.4)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kevin Richards, Kidde-Fenwal Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.6.1.4 5.6.1.6.2Substantiation: This paragraph logically follows 5.6.1.6.

Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-48 Log #95 Final Action: Accept(5.6.3.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bill Vegso, Fire Equipment Manufacturers AssociationRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 5.6.3.1 Either a common extinguishing system shall be provided to protect both the ignition source(s) contained within an exhaust system as well as the exhaust system itself, or separate extinguishing systems protecting the exhaust system and the ignition sources shall be arranged for simultaneous automatic operation upon actuation of any one of the systems.Substantiation: The entire exhaust system including any devices installed within it, must be considered a single hazard area. Consequently, in the event of a fire, some form of simultaneous system operation must be utilized. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: We note the reference to the IFC section is incorrect.Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M.Explanation of Negative: KLINGENMAIER, W.: I believe Log #95 was submitted by FEMA by mistake. Log #95 was the first attempt at writing a proposal to require simultaneous operation when fire suppression systems were being utilized in a single hazard area such as in a common ventilation system. The Log was subsequently re-written by FEMA in the form of Log #102 and Log #103. Log #95 is no longer needed and was not expected to be submitted, as the subsequent logs (#102,#103) fully encapsulate the intent of Log #95 and better describe the proposal requirements. _______________________________________________________________ 17A-49 Log #102 Final Action: Accept(5.6.3.1 (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bill Vegso, Fire Equipment Manufacturers AssociationRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 5.6.3.1 Either a common automatic fire suppression system shall be provided to protect both the ignition source(s) contained within an exhaust system as well as the exhaust system itself, or separate automatic fire suppression systems protecting the exhaust system and the ignition sources shall be arranged for simultaneous automatic operation upon actuation of any one of the systems.Substantiation: The entire exhaust system including any devices installed within it, must be considered a single hazard area. Consequently, in the event of a fire, some form of simultaneous system operation must be utilized. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: We note the reference to the IFC section is incorrect.Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M.Comment on Affirmative: KLINGENMAIER, W.: Correct Log (along with Log #103) instead of Log #95 (see comments on Log #95). _______________________________________________________________ 17A-50 Log #103 Final Action: Accept(5.6.3.1.1 (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bill Vegso, Fire Equipment Manufacturers AssociationRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 5.6.3.1.1 A secondary filtration or air pollution control unit, whether including an ignition source or not, shall either be protected with a separate automatic fire suppression system designed to operate simultaneously with the activation of the automatic fire suppression system protecting the ventilation hood(s) being served, or with a single automatic fire suppression system that protects both the secondary filtration or air pollution control unit and the hood(s) being served.Substantiation: The requirement, 5.6.3.1.1 is also addressed in NFPA 96, 9.3.3 (2011 edition). However, it is not as clear as it could have been. This addition to NFPA 17A will help to clarify the requirement (which requires the automatic fire suppression system that is protecting a secondary filtration or air pollution control unit to be simultaneously operated with the automatic fire suppression system protecting the ventilation hood(s) that the secondary filtration or air pollution control unit is serving) Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: We note the reference to the IFC section is incorrect.Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M.Comment on Affirmative: KLINGENMAIER, W.: Correct Log (along with Log #102) instead of Log #95 (see comments on Log #95).

17A-9

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 17A_______________________________________________________________ 17A-51 Log #25 Final Action: Accept(6.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kevin Richards, Kidde-Fenwal Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Specifications for wet chemical fire extinguishing systems shall be drawn up with care by or under the supervision of a trained person and with the advice of the authority having jurisdiction. Substantiation: The phrase “with care” is too subjective and therefore difficult to enforce. Deleting this phrase and adding “by or” allows a trained person (not just someone under the supervision of a trained person) to draw up plans and is readily enforceable. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-52 Log #74 Final Action: Reject(6.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 6.2* Review and Certification. Design Layout and installation of systems shall be performed only by persons properly trained and qualified to design layout and/or install the specific system being provided. The installer shall provide certification to the authority having jurisdiction that the installation complies with the terms of the listing and the manufacturer’s instructions and/or manufacturers approved design.Substantiation: Reword 6.2 to indicate that pre-engineered systems are designed by system manufacture the installer performs layout to meet the manufacturers listed and approved design Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Also See Proposal 17A-9 (Log #62). The addition of the word “layout” will not add clarification. This and other proposals raise issues that have not been completely addressed. Manufacturers do not approve design of an installation. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M.Comment on Affirmative: DE VRIES, D.: See comment with 17A-14. _______________________________________________________________ 17A-53 Log #41 Final Action: Reject(6.4)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mark T. Conroy, Brooks Equipment CompanyRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 6.4 Approval of Installations. 6.4.1 Assembly 6.4.1.1 During assembly, the piping distribution system shall be examined internally to detect the possibility of any oil or particulate matter soiling the hazard area or affecting the extinguishing agent distribution due to a reduction in the effective nozzle orifice area. 6.4.1.2 All discharge nozzles shall be oriented in such a manner that optimum extinguishing agent dispersal can be effected. 6.4.1.3 All extinguishing agent storage containers and mounting brackets shall be fastened securely in accordance with the approved plans (see 6.3), where required, and the system installation and maintenance manual. 6.4.1.4 The discharge nozzles, piping, and mounting brackets shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans, where required, and in such a manner that they will not potentially cause injury to personnel. 6.4.1.5 All extinguishing agent storage containers shall be properly located in accordance with the approved plans, where required, and the system installation and maintenance manual. 6.4.1.6 The completed system shall be reviewed to verify that the installation complies with the approved plans, where required, and the system installation and maintenance manual and meets the approval of the authority having jurisdiction. 6.4.2 Installation Acceptance. 6.4.2.1 General. It shall be determined that the appliances, hoods, and ducts are properly protected with nozzles determined and positioned in accordance with the approved plans, where required, and the system installation and maintenance manual. 6.4.2.2 Mechanical Components and Appliances. 6.4.2.2.1 It shall be determined that the piping system layout is in compliance with the approved plans, where required, and the system installation and maintenance manual. 6.4.2.2.2 It shall be determined that nozzles and pipe size are in accordance with the approved plans, where required, and the system installation and maintenance manual.

6.4.2.2.3 It shall be determined that the attitudes of tees are in conformance with the approved plans, where required, and the system installation and maintenance manual. 6.4.2.2.4 It shall be determined that piping joints, discharge nozzles, and piping supports are securely fastened to prevent unacceptable vertical or lateral movement during discharge. 6.4.2.2.5 It shall be determined that discharge nozzles are installed in such a manner that they cannot become detached from piping during discharge. 6.4.2.2.6 It shall be determined that the actual installed appliances are the same as those indicated on the approved plans, where required,. 6.4.2.2.7 It shall be determined that the installed appliances are in the locations indicated on the approved plans, where required,. 6.4.2.3 Piping Integrity and Flow Tests. 6.4.2.3.1 Pressure Test. The piping shall be pneumatically tested in a closed circuit for a period of 10 minutes at 40 psi (276 kPa), and at the end of 10 minutes, the pressure drop shall not exceed 20 percent of the test pressure. 6.4.2.3.2 The pressure test shall be permitted to be omitted if the total piping contains no more than one change in direction fitting between the storage container and the discharge nozzle, and where all piping is physically checked for tightness. 6.4.2.3.3 Flow Test. A flow test using nitrogen or dry air shall be performed on the piping network to verify that flow is continuous and that the piping and nozzles are unobstructed. 6.4.2.3.3.1 The flow test shall be performed using gaseous nitrogen or compressed air at a pressure not to exceed the normal operating pressure of the extinguishing system. 6.4.2.3.3.2 The nitrogen or dry air shall be introduced into the piping network at the extinguishing agent container connection. 6.4.2.3.3.3 The quantity of nitrogen or dry air used for this test shall be sufficient to verify that each and every nozzle is unobstructed. 6.4.2.3.3.4 It shall be determined that nitrogen or dry air has discharged out of each and every nozzle in the system. 6.4.2.3.3.5 Nozzle flow shall not be obstructed by the installation of balloons on discharge nozzles. 6.4.2.4 Review Electrical Components. 6.4.2.4.1 It shall be determined that all system wiring has been properly installed in compliance with local codes, the approved plans, where required,, and the system installation and maintenance manual. 6.4.2.4.32 It shall be determined that system wiring that is required to be installed in conduit or raceway has been done and in accordance with the approved plans, where required, and system installation and maintenance manual. 6.4.2.4.3 It shall be determined that all field connected circuits are free of ground faults and short circuits. 6.4.2.4.4 Where the system is connected to the building alarm system, it shall be determined that all functions such as alarm-sounding or displaying devices and remote annunciation devices are in accordance with the approved plans, where required, and system installation and maintenance manual. 6.4.2.5 Review Detection System and Manual Release Devices. 6.4.2.5.1 The detection devices shall be checked for proper type and location as specified on the approved plans, where required, and the system installation and maintenance manual. 6.4.2.5.2 The detection system shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans, where required, and the system installation and maintenance manual. 6.4.2.5.3 It shall be determined that all manual release devices (manual pull stations) are properly installed, readily accessible, accurately identified, and properly protected to prevent damage in accordance with the approved plans, where required, and the system installation and maintenance manual. 6.4.2.5.4 It shall be determined that the control panel is properly installed, readily accessible, and in accordance with the approved plans, where required, and the system installation and maintenance manual. 6.4.2.6 Functional Testing. 6.4.2.6.1 Preliminary Functional Tests. The preliminary functional tests outlined in 6.4.2.6.1.1 through 6.4.2.6.1.5 shall be performed to determine that the system activates the building alarm, where required,. 6.4.2.6.1.1 If the system is connected to an alarm receiving office, notify the alarm receiving office that the fire system test is to be conducted and that an emergency response by the fire department or alarm station personnel is not desired. 6.4.2.6.1.2 Notify all concerned personnel at the end-user’s facility that a test is to be conducted and instruct personnel as to the sequence of operation. 6.4.2.6.1.3 Disable each extinguishing agent storage container release mechanism so that activation of the release device will not discharge extinguishing agent. 6.4.2.6.1.5 Where required,, it shall be determined that all supervised circuits operate for proper trouble response. 6.4.2.6.2 System Functional Operational Tests. System functional operational tests shall be performed as outlined in 6.4.2.6.2.1 through 6.4.2.6.2.2.5. 6.4.2.6.2.1 Manual Release Installation Acceptance. 6.4.2.6.2.1.1 Operate each manual release device and verify that manual release functions occur according to design specifications.

17A-10

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 17A 6.4.2.6.2.1.2 Confirm that the visual or audible signals or both are received at the control panel that show that the system is in a ready condition in accordance with the design specifications. 6.4.2.6.2.1.3 It shall be determined that the gas shutoff operates or the electrical power shutdown operates in accordance with the design specifications during the functional test of the system. 6.4.2.6.2.1.4 During the functional test, it shall be determined that the visual or audible signals or both are received at the control panel that show that the system is in need of recharging of the system in accordance with the design specifications. 6.4.2.6.2.2 Automatic Release Installation Acceptance. 6.4.2.6.2.2.1 It shall be determined that the system release operates correctly by simulating the operation by cutting the most remote (terminal) link, cutting the installed test link, or operating the pneumatic release as described in the system installation and maintenance manual. 6.4.2.6.2.2.2 Confirm that a visual signal, audible signal, or both that indicate that the system is in need of recharge are received at the control panel. 6.4.2.6.2.2.3 Where pneumatic equipment is installed, it shall be determined that all pneumatic equipment was installed in accordance with the approved plans, where required, and the system installation and maintenance manual. 6.4.2.6.2.2.4 Where pneumatic equipment is installed, the integrity of the pneumatic equipment shall be verified in accordance with the system installation and maintenance manual. 6.4.2.6.2.2.5 It shall be determined that the gas shutoff operates the electrical power shutdown operates during the functional test of the system. 6.4.2.7 Control Panel. 6.4.2.7.1 It shall be determined that the control panel is connected to a dedicated circuit and labeled properly. 6.4.2.7.2 It shall be determined that the control panel is readily accessible, yet restricted from unauthorized personnel. 6.4.2.8 Return of System to Operational Condition. 6.4.2.8.1 When all installation acceptance work is completed, each extinguishing agent storage container shall be reconnected so that activation of the release mechanism will release the system extinguishing agent. 6.4.2.8.2 It shall be determined that the system has been returned to its fully operational condition in accordance with the approved plans, where required, and in compliance with the system installation and maintenance manual. 6.4.2.8.3 The alarm-receiving office and all concerned personnel at the end-user’s facility shall be notified that the fire system test is complete and that the system has been returned to full service operational condition. Substantiation: All NFPA extinguishing systems should contain minimum requirements for installation acceptance which supports a reasonable level of safety and helps assure that the systems will work in the event of a fire emergency. The NFPA 3 committee is assigned to commissioning and integrated testing and this material will be appropriate with their work. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: While alternatives to full discharge testing should be investigated, the proposed wording needs more time to be reviewed and edited to meet the agreement of the committee. A task group will continue to work on this information prior to the ROC meeting. Public input on this subject is invited. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-54 Log #76 Final Action: Reject(6.4)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 6.4 Approval of Installations. The completed system shall be acceptance tested by trained personnel as required in a manner prescribed by the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual. Substantiation: Clarify that the method of acceptance testing shall be conducted as outlined in the manufacturers listed installation and maintenance manual Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: While alternatives to full discharge testing should be investigated, the proposed wording needs more time to be reviewed and edited to meet the agreement of the committee. A task group will continue to work on this information prior to the ROC meeting. Public input on this subject is invited. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-55 Log #17 Final Action: Accept in Part(6.4.1 and 6.4.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Michael J. Laderoute, Buckeye Fire Equipment Co.Recommendation: Delete text to read as follows:6.4.1 The test shall determine that the system has been properly installed and will function as intended.

6.4.2* Where required by the authority having jurisdiction, the approval tests shall include a discharge test, in accordance with the manufacturer’s listed installation manual, to verify that the system is properly installed and functional.Substantiation: Section 6.4.1 is redundant and therefore not needed. Section 6.4 already states that the test shall be conducted as per the UL listed manufacturers manual. The process outlined in the UL manual is intended to assure the system has been properly installed and will function as intended. Section 6.4 already calls for the approval test. Also, it states “as required by the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual”. These manuals provide detailed steps of this process. Section 6.4.2 implies that a wet test should be conducted. NO manufacturer’s listed installation manual calls for a wet test as part of the approval process. UL Listed systems are already tested by an independent third party and must be installed as per their UL Listed Manual. This assures that the system will perform as expected. A wet test is not recommended and can promote problems with the system if it is not cleaned up properly after the test. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PartDelete text to read as follows: 6.4.1 The test shall determine that the system has been properly installed and will function as intended.6.4.2* Where required by the authority having jurisdiction, the approval tests shall include a discharge test, in accordance with the manufacturer’s listed installation manual, to verify that the system is properly installed and functional.Committee Statement: Section 6.4.1 is appropriate and should be retained. See Committee Action on Proposal 17A-59 (Log #106). This has also been assigned to a task group for additional review. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-56 Log #7 Final Action: Reject(6.4.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert Bourke, Northeastern Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Revise to read: Where approval tests are required by the authority having jurisdiction, the approval tests they shall include a discharge test, in accordance with the manufacturer’s listed installation manual, to verify that the system is properly installed and functional. Substantiation: As currently written it could be mistakenly interpreted that the AHJ is requiring an approval test that doesn’t include a discharge test. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This section has been deleted by committee action on Proposal 17A-59 (Log #106). Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-57 Log #26 Final Action: Accept in Principle(6.4.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kevin Richards, Kidde-Fenwal Inc.Recommendation: Delete entire paragraph.Substantiation: Sections 6.4 and 6.4.1 fully address the necessary test requirements. Section 6.4.2 is not needed. If this proposal is accepted, the appendix information provided in A6.4.2 should be included under a new paragraph A.6.4.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleSee Committee Action on Proposal 17A-59 (Log #106). Committee Statement: See Committee Action on Proposal 17A-59 (Log #106). Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-58 Log #75 Final Action: Reject(6.4.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 6.4.2* Where required by the authority having jurisdiction, the approval tests shall include a discharge test only if the discharge test can be conducted in accordance with the manufacturer’s listed installation manual, to verify that the system is properly installed and functional. Substantiation: Clarify that the method of acceptance testing shall be conducted as outlined in the manufacturers listed installation and maintenance manual. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Discharge testing has been eliminated. See committee action on Proposal 17A-59 (Log #106).

17A-11

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 17ANumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-59 Log #106 Final Action: Accept(6.4.2 and A.6.4.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bill Vegso, Fire Equipment Manufacturers AssociationRecommendation: Delete text to read as follows: 6.4.2 Where required by the authority having jurisdiction, the approval tests shall include a discharge test, in accordance with the manufacturer’s listed manual, to verify that the system is properly installed and functional.A.6.4.2 When a discharge test is required, contact the particular system manufacturer for detailed functional discharge procedures. The use of substitute liquids, such as water, is not endorsed by all of the wet chemical extinguishing manufacturers.Substantiation: This section and related annex material is beyond the stated scope of the document (i.e., that it contains only essential requirements and recommendations) and is being misinterpreted by fire equipment distributors and local authorities. Section 6.4 clearly states that the system shall be tested by trained personnel as required by the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual. Each manufacturer has a specific, unique procedure for testing their system. This procedure is clearly documented in their listed manual. The manufacturer’s listed manual must be the basis for all system testing and is clearly the “essential requirement” as stated in the document’s scope. Currently, manufacturers do not require discharge testing and, in fact, advise against it. Additionally, some manufacturers advise against the use of water as a substitute if discharge testing is required by the local authority. Both Section 6.4.2 and A.6.4.2 are being misinterpreted to mean that discharge testing and/or discharge testing using water is a standard practice, which is clearly not the case. As such, both Section 6.4.2 and A.6.4.2 should be removed to avoid this confusion and bring the document back into alignment with its stated scope. Local authorities can require testing and documentation beyond that which is required by the manufacturer’s listed technical manual, however, it is not the purpose of this document to offer misleading suggestions for the development of these procedures. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-60 Log #3 Final Action: Reject(6.4.3)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: David R. Hague, Liberty Mutual PropertyRecommendation: Insert new Section 6.4.3 to read as follows, renumber existing Section 6.4.3 to 6.4.4. 6.4.3 The installing contractor shall complete and sign the acceptance test checklist in Figure 6.4.3 (See new figure Figure 6.4.3 Acceptance Test Checklist. on the following pages.) Substantiation: Currently there is no form for properly documenting the tests results for a wet chemical system acceptance test. The proposed form is consistent with that required by other installation standards. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Because of the variety and complexity of systems, a single checklist may omit specific manufacturer requirements and is not recommended. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M.Explanation of Negative: STACY, R.: I am in disagreement with the Technical Committee action to “Reject” this Proposal. My recommendation is the proper action for this Proposal to be “Accept in Principle”. The submitter is correct there is no proper form for documenting compliance to paragraph 6.4.1. The Technical Committee is also correct that due to the variety of system characteristics between manufacturers the specific form should not be included in the standard. But there are basic common elements that need to evaluated in all wet chemical systems for its proper operation. Thus, the “Accept In Principle” requiring a form to be used to summarize compliance but the form be included as Appendix material for guidance on which elements are to be included.

_______________________________________________________________ 17A-61 Log #79 Final Action: Accept(7.1 (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: 7.1 The responsibility for inspection, testing, maintenance, and recharge of the fire protection system shall ultimately be that of the owner of the system, provided that this responsibility has not been transferred in written form to a management company, tenant, or other party.Substantiation: Add new text to section 7.1 to mirror the text found in NFPA 96 2011 4.1.5, outlining the responsibility for the inspection, maintenance and recharge of the fire suppression system remains with the owner of the system Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M.Explanation of Negative: DE VRIES, D.: It is rare, if ever, that a special hazard extinguishing system is owned by a party other than the owner of the hazard it is intended to protect. Although in many cases the owner of the building is also the owner of the hazard and the system, the context of the proposed change implies that the extinguishing system is always owned by the building owner. It is important that the owner of the system, whether that entity is the building owner, a tenant, or another party, be responsible for ensuring that the system remains operable and is properly maintained. Both the NFPA Fire Code and International Fire Code state that the notice of violation of a provision of the code, i.e. to maintain the system in an operable condition, shall be issued to the owner, occupant or other party that is responsible for the condition or violation. Thus, in most jurisdictions that have a fire prevention code, there is no need to add this language to the standard, but if deemed necessary to include such language in this standard, suffice it to say “The responsibility for inspection, testing, maintenance and recharge of the fire protection system shall be that of the owner of the system.” In the event that the system is owned by party other than the owner of the hazard or building, the responsibility remains with the owner of the system. Such a requirement does not preclude a contractual arrangement between the various owners or between the owner and a service company to actually perform the work, but maintains the requirement that the owner of the system must see to it that the work is done. _______________________________________________________________ 17A-62 Log #77 Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.1.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:7.1.1 Storage. Recharging supplies of wet chemical shall be stored in the original closed shipping container supplied by the manufacturer. 7.1.1.1 These containers shall not be opened until the system is recharged. 7.1.1.2 Wet chemical supplies shall be maintained within the manufacturer’s recommended storage temperature range. 7.4.4 Storage. Recharging supplies of wet chemical shall be stored in the original closed shipping container supplied by the manufacturer. 7.4.4.1 These containers shall not be opened until the system is recharged. 7.4.4.2 Wet chemical supplies shall be maintained within the manufacturer’s recommended storage temperature range.Substantiation: Relocate existing 7.1.1, 7.1.1.1 & 7.1.1.2 text to Section 7.4 which is the recharge section of chapter 7, all references to items pertaining to Recharge should be located in 7.4 Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: 7.1.1 Storage. Recharging supplies of wet chemical shall be stored in the original closed shipping container supplied by the manufacturer. 7.1.1.1 These containers shall not be opened until the system is recharged. 7.1.1.2 Wet chemical supplies shall be maintained within the manufacturer’s recommended storage temperature range. 7.4.4* Storage. Recharging supplies of wet chemical shall be stored in the original closed shipping container supplied by the manufacturer. 7.4.4.1 These containers shall not be opened until the system is recharged. 7.4.4.2 Wet chemical supplies shall be maintained within the manufacturer’s recommended specified storage temperature range. Relocate A7.1.1 to A7.4.4.Committee Statement: The committee recognizes that this is a relocation of existing material. The annex material should follow and the change from “recommended” to “specified” is preferred per the NFPA Manual of Style. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M.

17A-12

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 17A

Proposal 17A-60 (Log #3) Recommendation

17A-13

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 17A

Proposal 17A-60 (Log #3) Recommendation continued

17A-14

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 17A

Proposal 17A-60 (Log #3) Recommendation continued

17A-15

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 17A_______________________________________________________________ 17A-63 Log #78 Final Action: Accept(7.1.2, 7.1.3, 7.3.6, and 7.3.7)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 7.1.2 Expellant Gas. A method and instructions shall be provided for checking the amount or the pressure of expellant gas to ensure that it is sufficient for the proper operation of the system. 7.1.3 Access. System access for inspection or maintenance that requires opening panels in fire chases or ducts, or both, shall not be permitted while any appliance(s) or equipment protected by that system is in operation. 7.3.6 Expellant Gas. A method and instructions shall be provided for checking the amount or the pressure of expellant gas to ensure that it is sufficient for the proper operation of the system. 7.3.7 Access. System access for inspection or maintenance that requires opening panels in fire chases or ducts, or both, shall not be permitted while any appliance(s) or equipment protected by that system is in operation. Substantiation: Relocate existing 7.1.2 & 7.1.3 text to Section 7.3 which is the Maintenance section of chapter 7, all references to items pertaining to maintenance Recharge should be located in 7.3. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-64 Log #42 Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.1.4 and 7.4.3)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mark T. Conroy, Brooks Equipment CompanyRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 7.1.4* Recharge. After any discharge, or if insufficient charge is noted during an inspection or maintenance procedure, the following procedures shall be conducted in accordance with the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual: (1) The system shall be properly recharged. (2) The system shall be placed in the normal operating condition. (3) The Following a discharge, the piping shall be flushed and blown out with nitrogen in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommended instructions (only following a discharge). 7.4.3 After any discharge, the system piping shall be flushed in accordance with and blown out with nitrogen. the procedures detailed in the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual.Substantiation: Clarification. There is no need to reference another document to flush and blow out the piping. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: 7.1.4* Recharge. After any discharge, or if insufficient charge is noted during an inspection or maintenance procedure, the following procedures shall be conducted in accordance with the manufacturer’s listed design, installation and maintenance manual: (1) The system shall be properly recharged. (2) The system shall be placed in the normal operating condition. (3) The Following a discharge, the piping shall be flushed and blown out with dry air or nitrogen in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommended instructions design, installation and maintenance manual (only following a discharge). 7.4.3 After any discharge, the system piping shall be flushed and blown out with dry air or nitrogen in accordance with the procedures detailed in the manufacturer’s listed design, installation and maintenance manual.Committee Statement: Various agents require different flushing procedures. Dry air is an acceptable medium. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-65 Log #12 Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.2.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert Bourke, Northeastern Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Revise Section 7.2.2 At a minimum, this “quick check” or inspection shall include verification of the following: Substantiation: The text is a colloquialism and is superfluous. The words, “quick check” is not defined nor used elsewhere. Additionally the word “inspection” by itself is sufficient. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleSee Committee Action on Proposal 17A-66 ( Log #80). Committee Statement: The action on Proposal 17A-66 (Log #80) meets the intent of the submitter in more preferred language. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M.

_______________________________________________________________ 17A-66 Log #80 Final Action: Accept(7.2.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:At a minimum, this “quick check” or inspection shall include verification of the following: Substantiation: The term “quick check” is undefined and downplays the importance of the owners monthly inspection. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-67 Log #27 Final Action: Accept(7.2.2(8))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kevin Richards, Kidde-Fenwal Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Neither the protected equipment nor tThe hazard has not been replaced, modified, or relocated changed, including replacement, modification and relocation of protected equipment.Substantiation: This statement is confusing as currently written. Proposed text clearly states the requirement. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-68 Log #11 Final Action: Reject(7.2.5)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert Bourke, Northeastern Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Revise Section 7.2.5 At least monthly, the date of the inspection is performed and the initials of the person performing the inspection shall be recorded. Substantiation: This is a redundancy. The phrase is not needed as 7.2.1 already states that the inspection is required monthly Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The requirement for monthly inspections is important and is included here for emphasis. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-69 Log #8 Final Action: Reject(7.3.1 and 7.3.1.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert Bourke, Northeastern Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Revise to read: 7.3.1 A service technician who performs maintenance on an extinguishing system shall be trained and shall have passed a written or online test that is to a level and in a manner acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction. 7.3.1.1 Where required by the authority having jurisdiction the The service technician shall possess a certification document acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction confirming the requirements in 7.3.1 and issued by the manufacturer or testing organization that is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.Substantiation: It is not within the authority of this Standard to dictate what method the AHJ uses to determine how he decides who is and who is not trained to his criteria. This is the AHJ’s prerogative. Not all AHJ’s require a certification document. When he does, it is not within the authority of this Standard to limit the prerogative of the AHJ by dictating by whom the certificate is issued. For instance, an AHJ may require certification be by a government agency that may not place all the decision on just testing. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The proposed wording is too vague and could cause confusion on what is required of service technicians and put even more pressure on the AHJ to determine competency. Written testing is used to confirm the level of competency. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M.

17A-16

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 17A_______________________________________________________________ 17A-70 Log #100 Final Action: Accept(7.3.3)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bill Vegso, Fire Equipment Manufacturers AssociationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 7.3.3* At least semi-annually, and after any system activation, maintenance shall be conducted in accordance with the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual. Substantiation: After any system activation, it should be required to conduct a maintenance or “thorough check” of the system to assist in determining the cause for activation and to give assurance regarding the system function/reliability. Additionally, this is a requirement in the IFC (International Fire Code) – 904.11.6.2 Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: We note the reference to the IFC section is incorrect.Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-71 Log #81 Final Action: Reject(7.3.3.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Delete the following text: 7.3.3.1 Maintenance shall include the following:(1) A check to see that the hazard has not changed (2) An examination of all detectors, the expellant gas container(s), the agent container(s), releasing devices, piping, hose assemblies, nozzles, signals, all auxiliary equipment, and the liquid level of all nonpressurized wet chemical containers (3)*Verification that the agent distribution piping is not obstructed Substantiation: Strike this sections because the current list of maintenance items is limited and the actual steps to perform maintenance are outlined by each manufacture in their listed installation and maintenance manual as directed in 17A 7.3.3. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: These are valuable minimum requirements and should be maintained within the document which is often the primary reference for the AHJ. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-72 Log #43 Final Action: Reject(7.3.3.1(3) and A.7.3.3.1(3))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mark T. Conroy, Brooks Equipment CompanyRecommendation: Delete A.7.3.3.1(3) in its entirety, and revise 7.3.3.1(3) to read as follows: (3)* Verification that the agent distribution piping is not obstructed by conducting a puff test or disassembling the pipingSubstantiation: Since discharge testing is not recommended, disassembly of the pipe or a puff test seem to be the only logical alternatives. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The proposal would eliminate utilizing methods recommended by the manufacturer including purging the piping with nitrogen or dry air, which is equivalent to a puff test. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-73 Log #44 Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.3.3.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mark T. Conroy, Brooks Equipment CompanyRecommendation: Revise 7.3.3.2 to read as follows: 7.3.3.2* Where semiannual maintenance of any wet chemical containers or system components reveals conditions such as, but not limited to, corrosion or pitting in excess of the manufacturer’s limits; structural damage; or fire damage; or repairs by soldering, welding, or brazing, the affected part(s) container shall be replaced or hydrostatically tested in accordance with the recommendations of the manufacturer or the listing agency.Substantiation: This paragraph should provide a clear, concise, and enforceable requirement for agent containers. If there are criteria for other components, it should be listed separately. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: This clarifies the differing requirements for containers and components. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M.

_______________________________________________________________ 17A-74 Log #82 Final Action: Reject(7.3.3.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 7.3.3.2 Where semiannual maintenance of any wet chemical containers, system components or piping reveals conditions such as…”.Substantiation: Piping that has not been properly flushed after a discharge is a major concern that can have a dramatic effect on the discharge o the system. Any pipe obstructions must be corrected. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: It is not necessary to include the term “piping” which is covered by the term “component”. Also see Committee Action on Proposal 17A-76 (Log #CP6). Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-75 Log #83 Final Action: Reject(7.3.3.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Delete the following text: 7.3.3.2* Where semiannual maintenance of any wet chemical containers or system components reveals conditions such as, but not limited to, corrosion or pitting in excess of the manufacturer’s limits; structural damage or fire damage; or repairs by soldering, welding, or brazing, the affected part(s) shall be replaced or hydrostatically tested in accordance with the recommendations of the manufacturer or the listing agency.Substantiation: Strike this sections because the current list of maintenance items is limited and the actual steps to perform maintenance are outlined by each manufacture in their listed installation and maintenance manual as directed in 17A 7.3.3. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: By the Committee Action on Proposal 17A-76 (Log #CP6) we have retained and clarified the requirements for maintenance. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-76 Log #CP6 Final Action: Accept(7.3.3.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Dry and Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems, Recommendation: Revise 7.3.3.2 to read as follows: 7.3.3.2 Where maintenance of any wet chemical containers reveals conditions such as, but not limited to, corrosion or pitting in excess of the manufacturer’s limits; structural damage; fire damage; or repairs by soldering, welding, or brazing, the affected container shall be replaced or hydrostatically tested in accordance with the recommendations of the manufacturer or the listing agency. The hydrostatic testing of wet chemical containers shall be in accordance with Section 7.5. Add 7.3.3.2.1 to read as follows: 7.3.3.2.1 Where maintenance of any wet chemical system components reveals conditions such as, but not limited to, corrosion or pitting in excess of the manufacturer’s limits; structural damage; or fire damage; the affected part(s) shall be replaced. Substantiation: This clarifies the differing requirements for containers and components. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-77 Log #84 Final Action: Reject(7.3.3.3)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 7.3.3.3 All wet chemical systems shall be function tested, which shall include...”. Substantiation: This section describes what is known in the industry as a function test, which shall not to be confused with a discharge test. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The existing language for dry chemical systems is adequate. Number Eligible to Vote: 28

17A-17

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 17ABallot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M.Comment on Affirmative: DE VRIES, D.: Editorially change “dry” to “wet” in the committee statement. _______________________________________________________________ 17A-78 Log #85 Final Action: Reject(7.3.3.3)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Delete the following text: 7.3.3.3* All wet chemical systems shall be tested, which shall include the operation of the detection system signals and releasing devices, including manual stations and other associated equipment.Substantiation: Strike this sections because the current list of maintenance items is limited and the actual steps to perform maintenance are outlined by each manufacture in their listed installation and maintenance manual as directed in 17A 7.3.3. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Minimum testing requirements are appropriate in this standard. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-79 Log #45 Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.3.3.4)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mark T. Conroy, Brooks Equipment CompanyRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 7.3.3.4 Where the maintenance of the system(s) reveals defective parts that could cause an impairment or failure of proper operation of the system(s), the affected parts shall be replaced or repaired in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.Substantiation: Defective parts should be replaced. Recommendations do not belong in the body of the standard. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: 7.3.3.4 Where the maintenance of the system(s) reveals defective parts that could cause an impairment or failure of proper operation of the system(s), the affected parts shall be replaced or repaired in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.the manufacturers instructionsCommittee Statement: Some parts can be repaired according to manufacturers instructions and need not be replaced. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-80 Log #86 Final Action: Reject(7.3.3.4)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 7.3.3.4 Where the maintenance of the system(s) reveals deficiencies or defective parts that could cause an impairment or failure of proper operation of the system(s), the deficiencies shall be removed and affected parts shall be replaced or repaired in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Substantiation: Add deficiencies to the items that can cause impairment of the fire system and the requirement to abate them Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The term “deficiencies” could be too broad and encompass conditions beyond the scope of this standard. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-81 Log #9 Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.3.3.4.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert Bourke, Northeastern Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Revise to read: Until such repairs are accomplished, the systems shall be tagged as noncompliant, and the owner or owner’s representative responsible for the system and the authority having jurisdiction shall be notified of the impairment. the owner or owner’s representative responsible for the system shall be notified that the systems is noncompliant and impaired. Where required by the authority having jurisdiction, the authority having jurisdiction shall be notified of the impairment.Substantiation: There is always the concern that a servicing vendor tagging equipment and notifying others would appear as a means of being an enforcement arm for the vendor. Different AHJs deal with this matter in

different ways. This Standard should not dictate how an impairment is to be dealt with. Most AHJ’s have their own particular process in place as to how vendors should deal with these matters. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise to read: Until such repairs are accomplished, the systems shall be tagged as non-compliant, and the owner or owner’s representative responsible for the system and the authority having jurisdiction shall be notified of the impairment, the owner or owner’s representative responsible for the system shall be notified that the systems is noncompliant and impaired. and where required, the authority having jurisdiction shall be notified of the impairment.Committee Statement: There is a need for the system to be tagged as non-compliant so there is a clear indication to the owner, staff and AHJ of the non-compliancy. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-82 Log #14 Final Action: Reject(7.3.4)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 7.3.4* Fixed temperature-sensing elements of the fusible metal alloy type shall be replaced at least semiannually from the date of installation, or more frequently, if necessary. They shall be destroyed when removed. Destroyed fusible links from the most recent inspection shall remain on site for inspection by the authority having jurisdiction.Substantiation: Destroyed fusible links should be kept on site so they can be viewed by the authority having jurisdiction. There is no way to know if the links have been removed or “recycled” between systems unless they are available for viewing. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: There is no reasonable way to show that the destroyed links are those that were removed at the last inspection. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-83 Log #87 Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.3.5.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 7.3.5.1 At a minimum, inspection maintenance and testing of restorable-type heat detectors shall include the following...”. Substantiation: Inspection is defined as a visual examination and maintenance is defined as work performed. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: 7.3.3.5.1 At a minimum, inspection maintenance and testing of restorable-type heat detectors shall include the following: (1) A visual inspection to determine that there is no damage to the detector or buildup of foreign debris. (2) An operational/functional test in accordance with the detector manufacturer’s testing instructions (3) A calibration verification test if applicable, in accordance with the detector manufacturer’s instructions. Committee Statement: The maintenance requirements which include inspection and testing are included within the revised text. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-84 Log #46 Final Action: Accept in Part(7.3.5.2 and 7.3.5.3)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mark T. Conroy, Brooks Equipment CompanyRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 7.3.5.2 Nonrestorable heat detectors shall be functionally tested in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. 7.3.5.3 Heat detectors and all associated wiring that show signs of fire damage shall be tested in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations and replaced if necessary. Substantiation: NFPA standards should only contain enforceable requirements. Recommendations do not belong in the body of the standard. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PartRevise text to read as follows: 7.3.5.2 Nonrestorable heat detectors shall be functionally tested in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. instructions. 7.3.5.3 Heat detectors and all associated wiring that show signs of fire damage shall be tested in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions recommendations and replaced if necessary.

17A-18

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 17ACommittee Statement: The committee change addresses the submitters concern regarding the term recommendations. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-85 Log #88 Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.3.5.3)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 7.3.5.3 Heat detectors and associated wiring that shows signs of fire damage shall be tested in accordance with the manufacture’s recommendations and replaced if necessary.Substantiation: Any wiring or detectors that are damaged by a fire should not be tested but should be replaced. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See Committee Action on 17A-84 (Log 46).Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-86 Log #47 Final Action: Accept(7.5.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mark T. Conroy, Brooks Equipment CompanyRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 7.5.2 Wet chemical containers, auxiliary pressure containers, and hose assemblies shall be subjected to a hydrostatic test pressure equal to the marked factory test pressure or the test pressure specified by in the manufacturer’s installation and maintenance manual.Substantiation: Updated to match NFPA 17 (11.5.2).Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-87 Log #48 Final Action: Accept(7.5.2.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mark T. Conroy, Brooks Equipment CompanyRecommendation: Replace 7.5.2.2 with the following text: The pressure in a hydrostatic test of a cylinder shall be maintained for a minimum of 30 seconds, but for no less time than is required for complete expansion of the cylinder and to complete the visual examination of the cylinder. Substantiation: Establishes a minimum enforceable requirement for all hydrostatic tests of agent containers. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-88 Log #49 Final Action: Reject(A.1.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mark T. Conroy, Brooks Equipment CompanyRecommendation: Delete A.1.1 in its entirety.Substantiation: Regarding the first paragraph, the standard does not present design considerations. The body of the standard should only contain minimum requirements. There is little useful information contained in the second paragraph and appears to be mostly promotional which is inappropriate in and NFPA standard. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The text does provide useful information about the characteristics of wet chemical systems. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-89 Log #50 Final Action: Accept(A.1.7)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mark T. Conroy, Brooks Equipment CompanyRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A.1.7 Although training and qualification might be available elsewhere, it is recommended that such training and qualification be performed by the manufacturer of the equipment being installed or serviced or their agent. It might be necessary for many of those charged with the purchasing, inspecting, testing, approving, operating, and maintaining of this equipment to consult an experienced fire protection engineer competent in this field, in order to discharge their respective duties effectively. Substantiation: Several manufacturers are currently working with their agents to provide this training and qualification.

Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-90 Log #28 Final Action: Accept(A.3.3.13)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kevin Richards, Kidde-Fenwal Inc.Recommendation: Delete entire section A.3.3.13.Substantiation: The appendix is a repeat of section 3.3.13 and adds no additional information. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-91 Log #51 Final Action: Accept(A.3.3.13)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mark T. Conroy, Brooks Equipment CompanyRecommendation: Delete A.3.3.13 in its entirety.Substantiation: The text in A.3.3.13 is pretty much redundant to 3.3.13.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-92 Log #89 Final Action: Accept in Principle(A.4.5.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: A.4.5.1 Add new sentence after existing test: Therefore it is not necessary for a professional engineer or architect to seal the layout of these systems. Substantiation: Some jurisdiction are requiring pre-engineered wet chemical system layouts be signed and sealed by a registered engineer of architect. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows:A.4.5.1 Add new sentence after existing text: Therefore it is typically not necessary for a professional engineer or architect to seal the design layout of these systems. Committee Statement: The committee modified the language and satisfied the submitters intent. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-93 Log #29 Final Action: Accept(A.5.6.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kevin Richards, Kidde-Fenwal Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: All diagrams in this section should immediately follow their respective text section. Substantiation: The section as currently arranged is confusing and difficult to follow. Placing each diagram with the related text will provide clarity. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-94 Log #96 Final Action: Accept(A.5.6.2.1(1))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bill Vegso, Fire Equipment Manufacturers AssociationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A.5.6.2.1(1) Move FIGURE A.5.6.2.1(1) directly after the Scenario for A.5.6.2.1(1). Substantiation: There is still confusion over these requirements. The figure should be directly after the language it is clarifying. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: We note the reference to the IFC section is incorrect.Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-95 Log #97 Final Action: Accept(A.5.6.2.1(2))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bill Vegso, Fire Equipment Manufacturers AssociationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A.5.6.2.1(2) Scenario (a) No. 1. Change from “No. 1” to (a) and also move FIGURE A.5.6.2.1(2)(a) directly after Scenario (a).

17A-19

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 17ASubstantiation: There is still confusion over these requirements. The language referral and the figure should be identified the same. The figure should be directly after the language it is clarifying. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: We note the reference to the IFC section is incorrect.Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-96 Log #98 Final Action: Accept(A.5.6.2.1(2))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bill Vegso, Fire Equipment Manufacturers AssociationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A.5.6.2.1(2) Scenario (b) No. 2. Change from “No. 2” to (b) and also move Figure A.5.6.2.1(2)(b) directly after Scenario (b).Substantiation: There is still confusion over these requirements. The language referral and the figure should be identified the same. The figure should be directly after the language it is clarifying. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: We note the reference to the IFC section is incorrect.Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-97 Log #99 Final Action: Accept(A.5.6.2.1(2))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bill Vegso, Fire Equipment Manufacturers AssociationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:A.5.6.2.1(2) Scenario (c) No. 3. Change from “No.3” to (c) and also move FIGURE A.5.6.2.1(2)(c) directly after Scenario (c).Substantiation: After any system activation, it should be required to conduct a maintenance or “thorough check” of the system to assist in determining the cause for activation and to give assurance regarding the system function/reliability. Additionally, this is a requirement in the IFC (International Fire Code) – 904.11.6.2 Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: We note the reference to the IFC section is incorrect.Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-98 Log #90 Final Action: Reject(A.6.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A.6.1 One of the first steps in the design layout and installation of a fire-extinguishing system should be to maintain complete and accurate records. Establishment of a job file will provide a means of documentation. A job file should contain all drawings, sketches, checklists, notes, maintenance agreements, and correspondence related to the installation from start to finish. Photographs are encouraged and should include a wide shot that shows the location of all appliances in the protected area at the time of installation. The photographs, as well as any checklists, drawings, or sketches, should be signed and dated. Substantiation: Change the word “design” to “layout” to reflect that design is a function of the equipment manufacturer not the installer. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: See Committee Action on Proposal 17A-9 (Log #62).Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-99 Log #91 Final Action: Reject(A.6.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED) Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A.6.2 It is recommended that system design layout and installation personnel be certified in accordance with the manufacturer’s requirements. It is standard industry practice to provide expiration dates on training certificates. Substantiation: Change the word “design” to “layout” to reflect that design is a function of the equipment manufacture not the installer. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The addition of the word “layout” will not add clarification. This and other proposals raise issues that have not been completely addressed. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M.

_______________________________________________________________ 17A-100 Log #52 Final Action: Accept(A.6.4.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mark T. Conroy, Brooks Equipment CompanyRecommendation: Delete A.6.4.2 in its entirety.Substantiation: Discharge the system following its installation is problematic because it could cause future system failure if the piping is not flushed and blown out satisfactorily. Justification has never been provided to support the need for this type of demonstration following system installation. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-101 Log #53 Final Action: Accept(A.7.1.4)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mark T. Conroy, Brooks Equipment CompanyRecommendation: Revise A.7.1.4 to read as follows: A.7.1.4 Wet chemical solutions are relatively harmless and normally have no lasting significant effects on the skin, respiratory system, or clothing. They can produce mild, temporary skin irritation after prolonged skin exposure, but the symptoms usually will disappear when contact is eliminated. Irritation of the eyes should be treated by flushing with tap water for 15 minutes or longer. Any condition of prolonged irritation should be referred to a physician for treatment. Disposal of Treatment of skin irritation due to exposure to wet chemical is best handled by flushing with water. These systems are investigated to determine that they do not splash burning grease when installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual. It is known that potassium carbonate is moderately irritating to the skin and eyes and that repeated skin contact can lead to dermatitis, but this is based on concentrations higher than those used in wet chemical extinguishing system units. Substantiation: Clarification.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-102 Log #54 Final Action: Accept(A.7.3.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mark T. Conroy, Brooks Equipment CompanyRecommendation: Revise A.7.3.2 to read as follows: A.7.3.2 It is recommended that system maintenance personnel be certified as outlined in 7.3.1. with the manufacturer’s requirements. It is standard industry practice to provide expiration dates on training certificates.Substantiation: New certification requirements were added to section 7.3 during the 2009 revision of the standard. Annex A.7.3.2 should be updated to match the revised body text. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-103 Log #55 Final Action: Accept(A.7.3.3)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mark T. Conroy, Brooks Equipment CompanyRecommendation: Delete text to read as follows: A.7.3.3 Regular service contracts with the equipment manufacturer or an authorized installation or maintenance company are recommended.Substantiation: The generic term for a company that performs maintenance is “maintenance company”. The advisory material is only intended to recommend that a regular service contract be developed. This helps ensure that regular service is performed. This text appears in NFPA 17, A.11.3.1. The documents should be correlated. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M._______________________________________________________________ 17A-104 Log #18 Final Action: Accept(A.7.3.4)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Michael J. Laderoute, Buckeye Fire Equipment Co.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: …replacement of fusible metal alloy-temperature-sensing elements that have been installed for up to 1 six (6) months in environments subjecting them…”.Substantiation: 7.3.4 Requires the link be replaced every six (6) months. The annex should reflect the same information. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Buchhofer, P., McGreal, M.