Skip navigation
All Places > NFPA Today > Blog
1 2 3 Previous Next

NFPA Today

4,566 posts
The following proposed Tentative Interim Amendments (TIAs) for NFPA 10, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers; NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems; NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems; NFPA 72®, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code®; NFPA 1994, Standard on Protective Ensembles for First Responders to Hazardous Materials Emergencies and CBRN Terrorism Incidents; and NFPA 1999, Standard on Protective Clothing and Ensembles for Emergency Medical Operations, are being published for public review and comment:
Anyone may submit a comment on these proposed TIAs by the July 19, 2018 closing date; send your comments to mailto:TIAs_Errata_FIs@nfpa.org. Along with your comment, please identify the number of the TIA and forward to the Secretary, Standards Council by the closing date.

Today’s blog marks the 100th #FireCodefridays post!  I started writing about issues related to NFPA 1, Fire Code, back in March of 2016.  Thanks to everyone who reads, contributes to, and shares this information!

College campuses are filled with students, staff, and visitors looking for a quick (and delicious!) meal, at all hours of the day.  This makes them an ideal location for food trucks and other food vendors to park and serve hungry passersby.  While colleges and universities are perhaps busiest during the academic year, they are also hosts to a variety of festivals and other events throughout the summer months that attract food vendors to serve the crowds of people that flock to the campus.  Just the other weekend, my alma mater hosted an event to introduce families to engineering and technology, and sure enough on all of the marketing information was a mention of food trucks! We have seen no slowdown in the interest of mobile food vendors and from what I’ve seen, they continue to grow in popularity.

 

Food truck safety and issues related to temporary and mobile cooking were brought to the Fire Code Technical Committee during the last Code revision cycle, as a topic to consider for possible inclusion in the 2018 edition of the Code.   Requirements in new Section 50.7 are based primarily on new provisions from NFPA 96, Standard for Ventilation Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations, 2017 edition as well as NFPA 58, Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code, 2017 edition.  NFPA 96 was the driving force behind the development of new provisions for food trucks and mobile cooking and they serve as the expert source for the details regarding installation and inspection, testing and maintenance for the cooking equipment used on the vehicles and other cooking operations.  It should be noted that the 2017 edition of NFPA 96 contains new provisions for mobile and temporary cooking operations in an adoptable Annex B.  The NFPA standards development process does not permit another document (NFPA 1) to directly extract from an Annex so users will not see extract notations from NFPA 96.  However, the intent of the NFPA 1 committee was to include technical requirements consistent with those from NFPA 96. The technical committees will continue to work together over the next revision cycles to further enhance, improve, and coordinate the provisions. Many additional requirements are also extracted from NFPA 58.

 

While the Code defers to the expertise of standards such as NFPA 96 and NFPA 58 it also includes requirements that are unique to NFPA 1 and are included only in NFPA 1 based on its scope.  Some criteria you will find in new Section 50.7 are as follows:

  • Permits: Where required by the AHJ, permits are required for the location, design, construction, and operation of mobile and temporary cooking operations.
  • Vehicle Safety: Wheel chocks must be used to prevent mobile and temporary cooking units from moving.
  • Separation: Mobile or temporary cooking operations are required to be separated from buildings or structures, combustible materials, vehicles, and other cooking operations by a minimum of 10 ft (3 m).
  • Tents: Mobile or temporary cooking cannot not take place within tents occupied by the public.
  • Seating: Seating for the public shall not be located within any mobile or temporary cooking vehicle.
  • Fire Department Access: Mobile or temporary cooking operations cannot block fire department access roads, fire lanes, fire hydrants, or other fire protection devices and equipment.
  • Communication and Training:
    • An approved method of communication to emergency personnel shall be accessible to all employees.

    • The address of the current operational location is to be posted and accessible to all employees.

    • Prior to performing mobile or temporary cooking operations, workers are to be trained in emergency response procedures and a refresher training shall be provided every year.

    • Training must be documented and made available to AHJ.

  • Fryers: All fat fryers shall have a lid over the oil vat that can be secured to prevent the spillage of cooking oil during transit. This lid shall be secured at all times when the vehicle is in motion.

 

The safety and enforcement of events with the presence of trucks relies on multiple parties being aware of what requirements are out there related to mobile and temporary cooking equipment. During the summer, college activities could range in size from a few hundred people attending summer classes to a large concert where tens of thousands of people are visiting.  Event management and communication amongst staff and authorities is critical.  At colleges and universities this may mean event planning staff working with local/campus fire departments or campus safety teams to arrange for a safe presence of food vendors (verifying plans, issuing permits, etc).  Inspectors play a critical role in ensuring the safety of campus events.  

 

Along with requirements for food trucks, NFPA 1 also contains requirements for special outdoor events, carnivals and fairs.  In section 10.14 of the Code, requirements address permits, life safety evaluations, fire personnel, fire protection systems, electrical safety and communications.  Combined with the knowledge and awareness of the provisions in new 50.7, events with food trucks should be safe and fun for all.

Thanks for reading, stay safe!

 

(To view the 2018 edition of NFPA 1 visit www.nfpa.org/1 . You can also view all past #FireCodefridays here. Follow along on twitter @KristinB_NFPA for further Fire Code news and fire safety stories)

 

 

This is the first in a series of three videos featuring the personal stories of NFPA 3000 technical committee members. The second will be published on Thursday, June 28. 
Brian Murphy isn’t shy about telling his story.
A retired law enforcement officer who now works for a bullet-proof vest manufacturer, Murphy even jokes about what happened to him six years ago. He says Swiss is his favorite cheese, and when someone argues with him he replies, “What are you gonna do, shoot me?” 
As a lieutenant with the Oak Creek (Wisconsin) Police Department, Murphy was shot 15 times responding to an active shooter at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin in 2012. Starting last summer, he was able to bring the lessons he learned during the response to and recovery from that incident to the table in writing NFPA 3000™ (PS), Standard for an Active Shooter/Hostile Event Response (ASHER) Program. Murphy is one of three NFPA 3000 technical committee members who are the subjects of a documentary-style video series called "The stories that shaped NFPA 3000." 
"You don't get to pick when bad things happen, they pick you," Murphy says in the video. "If it was the other way around, I would've slept really well the night before, I would've left with about 18 guns in the car, and I would've just been sitting up on the hill waiting for him and shot him then, but you don't get to. ... But having all the tools in place [through NPFA 3000] to make the response better, you can't beat that." 
Learn more about NFPA 3000 at nfpa.org/3000news

 

June 25th marks the one hundredth anniversary of the biggest disaster in the history of Cle Elum, Washington. On this day in 1918, a massive fire tore through the mining town, destroying half of the business district and 205 homes. 

According to a report by Chief Carr, the origin of the fire was possibly due to a carelessly discarded cigarette into a pile of rubbish outside a movie theater. Property losses were estimated at more than $500,000, with less than 10% being covered by insurance.
For more information regarding this and other moments in fire history, please feel free to reach out to the NFPA Research Library & Archives.

 

We house all of NFPA's publications, both current and historic. Library staff are available to answer research questions from members and the general public.

NFPA 1802, Standard on Two-Way, Portable RF Voice Communications Devices for Use by Emergency Services Personnel in the Hazard Zone, and NFPA 1891, Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Hazardous Materials Clothing and Equipment, are seeking public inputs on their preliminary drafts. These preliminary drafts allow the public to review and submit any suggested revisions prior to the publication as First Draft Reports.


NFPA 1802 identifies the operating environment parameters, as well as the minimum requirements for the design, performance, testing, and certification of portable RF voice communications devices (RF devices) and remote speaker microphones (RSMs) for use by emergency services personnel (ESP) within the hazard zone during emergency incident operations without compromising compatibility with field emergency services communications networks.


NFPA 1891 specifies the minimum requirements for the selection, care, and maintenance of hazardous materials, CBRN, and emergency medical operations protective ensembles, ensemble elements, and clothing [i.e., hazardous materials (hazmat) personal protective equipment (PPE)] that are used for protection during hazardous materials emergencies and CBRN terrorism incidents. Also, NFPA 1891 specifies requirements for hazmat PPE manufactured to previous editions of NFPA 1991, NFPA 1992, NFPA 1994, and NFPA 1999.


To view the preliminary drafts and submit pubic inputs for NFPA 1802 and NFPA 1891, go to: https://www.nfpa.org/1802next or https://www.nfpa.org/1891next and select the "Submit a Public Input" link to begin the process. You will be asked to sign-in or create a free online account with NFPA before using this system. If you have any questions when using the online submission system, a chat feature is available; you can email us at mailto:custserv@nfpa.org or call 1-800-344-3555.


The closing date for submission of public inputs for both documents is January 3, 2019.

 

Essential electrical systems are intended to ensure that when facilities lose normal power there is a reliable source of backup power that can quickly restore power to circuits and equipment needed for life safety purposes and those that affect the well-being of patients or are essential to the clinical functionality of the facility.
 
In my recent NFPA live session I discussed different branches of essential electrical systems, generator requirements, and their required testing and maintenance.

I received this follow-up question from a member. I hear this question a lot so I wanted to share it here. I hope you find some value in it.

 

NFPA Live is an interactive video series in which members of NFPA staff address some of the most frequent topics they receive through the Member's Only Technical Question service. If you are currently an NFPA Member you can view the entire video by following this link. If you're not currently a member, join today!

The First Draft Report for NFPA 855, Standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems, is available. Review the First Draft Report for use as background in the submission of public comments.


To submit a public comment using the online submission system, go directly to the NFPA 855 document information page or use the list of NFPA codes & standards. Once on the NFPA 855 page, select the link "Submit a Public Comment" to begin the process. You will be asked to sign-in or create a free online account with NFPA before using this system. If you have any questions when using the system, a chat feature is available, or email us at mailto:custserv@nfpa.org or call 1-800-344-3555.
The deadline to submit a public comment through the online system is July 12, 2018.


The First Draft Report serves as documentation of the Input Stage and is published for public review and comment. The First Draft Report contains a compilation of the First Draft of the NFPA Standard, First Revisions, Public Input, Committee Input, Committee Statements, and Ballot Results and Statements. Where applicable, the First Draft Report also contains First Correlating Revisions, Correlating Notes, and Correlating Input.

Upon adjournment of NFPA’s Technical Meeting in Las Vegas, the requirements of NFPA 720, Standard for the Installation of Carbon Monoxide Detection and Warning Equipment are one step closer to issuance by the Standards Council as incorporated into the 2019 edition of NFPA 72®, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code®. NFPA 720, which has worked to minimize occupant risk to carbon monoxide in homes and other occupancies since it was first issued in 2003, will be withdrawn once the 2019 edition of NFPA 72 is issued by the Standards Council this August.


Several NFPA task groups and technical committees have diligently worked over the past three years to integrate the requirements of NFPA 720 into NFPA 72, with the goal of providing smoke alarm and carbon monoxide alarm requirements in a single, comprehensive document.


Some 38 states currently adopt or reference NFPA 720, which requires carbon monoxide detection in homes. Some states only require that carbon monoxide alarms be installed in new home construction, while others only require carbon monoxide alarm installations when there is an attached garage or similar construction. Some of these requirements are the result of state statute, while others are amendments to a state’s building code.


All stakeholders who adopt or reference NFPA 720 need to know about the upcoming changes so they can make the necessary adjustments and continue delivering carbon monoxide protection to the states and/or jurisdictions they serve.

 

An article in the May/June 2018 issue of NFPA Journal, “Smarter About Smoke,” provides a complete overview of key changes to the 2019 NFPA 72, including the integration of NFPA 720.

70e
Just like statistics can be presented in ways to prove different points, sometimes including completely opposite conclusions, the arc-flash risk assessment process can be skewed to one’s advantage. NFPA 70E®, Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace® is not pushing the industry to the incident energy analysis method over the PPE category method. You may benefit by reading my blog, A preference between the PPE Category Method and the Incident Energy Analysis Method.
Not too long ago I was an observer listening to a consultant who performs risk assessments and applies the labels required by NFPA 70E. The sales pitch went into the fact that either the PPE category or the incident energy (IE) analysis method could be used. The “facts” became fuzzy after that. It was pointed out that although both methods could be used, it is better to only use one within a facility. Since a single method is better, and not all equipment meets the PPE category method, the IE analysis method was the preferred choice. I sat there thinking there are many ways to successfully mingle both methods within a facility with no confusion by the employee. I also thought most of the equipment within the facility could be evaluated quickly under the PPE category method.
To illustrate the point that the PPE category method would be a problem, it was portrayed that employees need to use the PPE category tables each time they worked on equipment. It was pointed out that the tables rely on the clearing time of the overcurrent device and the available fault current. Not only would the employee have no way of knowing this information, they may not be able to find where to get it. How would the employee know if the equipment complied with the table parameters without this information? I am not sure why the labels would be incorrect. The sales pitch led one to believe that the employee would not have this problem with the IE analysis method. I waited to hear the reason why this was true but it did not come.
The fact that equipment maintenance plays a big part of electrical safety was presented. How it affects the arc flash hazard was illustrated. At no point was it mentioned that this is required for both risk assessment methods. It was alluded that this is only a benefit for the IE analysis method and not the PPE category tables. Based on the presentation I would have concluded that the IE analysis method was the “safer” choice because PPE category equipment might not be maintained or would no longer comply with the table parameters. After this point the PPE category method was no longer mentioned. Everything else presented was based on using the IE analysis method. I almost forgot there was another method as the presentation went on.
What the consultant failed to point out was that the risk assessment and label are necessary before the employee performs any task on the equipment regardless of the method used. The method used and details necessary to get to the information necessary for the label are often not the employee’s concern. The employee needs to be qualified for their task on that equipment and must know how to protect themselves from the hazards indicated. The affixed label, work permit and work procedure for the task provide the necessary information. 
One method may have an advantage over the other for a piece of equipment or portion of the distribution network. The category method was developed to aid in PPE selection for common equipment without the need for an extensive calculation. The IE analysis method covers many more pieces of equipment. Before you make a decision remember these facts. 
  • There is no preference for a risk assessment method. 
  • Either method can be used within a facility but not on the same piece of equipment. 
  • Some of the same information is necessary to use either method. 
  • Whoever you consider should be knowledgeable in both methods and offer the use of either as applicable. 
  • Either method results in the correct label information and the necessary protection of the employee. 
  • If the IE analysis method is used be aware that one equation may not be applicable for all of your equipment. If a computer program is used, know what equation is used, were it came from and that it is the correct equation. Ask the right questions when making your selection of a consultant. 
  • Determining the incident energy or PPE category for a piece of equipment is only a portion of conducting a risk assessment. Make sure you know what needs to be addressed in a risk assessments. 
  • Risk assessments and equipment labeling have become a business of their own. After an employee injury or fatality is not the time to find out that the applied risk assessment or labelling method was flawed. 
You are responsible for providing a safe work environment for your employees. Your employees trust that you are doing what is necessary for that safe environment to exist. This includes having competent and qualified people, whether your own employees or an outside organization, perform the required risk assessments. 
For more information on 70E, read my entire 70E blog series on Xchange
Next time: Four different ways to work on electrical equipment.

The 2018 NFPA Conference & Expo (C&E) came to a close last week as the Technical Meeting finished Thursday afternoon at the Mandalay Bay Convention Center in Las Vegas. The meeting lasted about eight hours, with "no high energy controversies or excessively passionate debate," according to Dawn Bellis, NFPA's director of standards administration. 
Each year, the Technical Meeting immediately follows C&E and gives NFPA members the opportunity to voice their opinions and vote on the certified amending motions proposed for upcoming editions of NFPA codes and standards before the documents are passed on to the Standards Council for final approval. A total of 23 motions were presented to members this year on 11 different NFPA codes and standards; 18 motions passed, five failed, and six were not pursued, meaning the submitter of the motion chose not to make their case to the over 500 members in attendance. 
The most actively debated documents this year were NPFA 13, Installation of Sprinkler Systems, and NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code. NFPA 13 passed after members approved six amending motions, and NFPA 72 passed with five amending motions accepted. 
At the beginning of the Technical Meeting, awards were given to 17 individuals for outstanding service to NFPA in the development of codes and standards. In the days preceding the meeting, individuals were also recognized as winners of the 2018 NFPA Standards Medal, Shannon Advocacy Medal, Educator of the Year Award, Industrial Fire Protection Section Fire Prevention Week Award, Research Foundation Medal, and Bigglestone Award
The 2018 NFPA Conference & Expo featured dozens of education sessions on topics ranging from active shooter preparedness to solar panels; keynote speakers who are focused on ways in which technology can help save lives; and NFPA President Jim Pauley's unveiling of a concept known as the Fire and Life Safety Ecosystem.
More information on the 2018 NFPA Technical Meeting—as well as past tech sessions—can be found at nfpa.org/techsession, and will also appear in the July/August issue of NFPA Journal, along with detailed descriptions of select award winners from this year's C&E.
ctuttle

#WCW at #NFPAconf

Posted by ctuttle Employee Jun 18, 2018

Did you know that NFPA has a Women in STEM group? One of our own engineers, Val Ziavras (vboutin ), presented at the NFPA booth on Wednesday about our internal group, our mission, and what kinds of activities we do. One of these activities is the annual Women in STEM (previously Women in Engineering) Reception. Every year this event tries a new format and covers different topics, which seems to gain more interest and set the bar higher for the next one. This year, Val worked with leaders from Jensen Hughes to assemble a panel of women who work in the fire protection field around the world. They called this powerhouse of experience The International View. The panelists were:

 

  • Marisol Arrocha with the Panama Fire Department delegation, located in Panama City, Panama
  • Ozlem Emgen with Riskonet Danışmanlık ve Eğitim Ltd. Şti., located in İstanbul Province, Turkey
  • Birgitte Messerschmidt formerly with Rockwool International, located in Denmark (currently an Applied Research Director at NFPA in Quincy, MA)
  • Shamim Rashid-Sumar with Jensen Hughes, Inc, located in Dubai, UAE

 

From left to right: Usha Tyson, Julie Brown, and Moriel Kaplan of Jensen Hughes, Birgitte Messerschmidt, Marisol Arrocha, Val Ziavras of NFPA, Shamim Rashid-Sumar, and Ozlem Emgen

[From left to right: Usha Tyson, Julie Brown, and Moriel Kaplan of Jensen Hughes, Birgitte Messerschmidt, Marisol Arrocha, Val Ziavras of NFPA, Shamim Rashid-Sumar, and Ozlem Emgen]

 

The International View gave audience members (both male and female) the opportunity to hear about the different experiences of women in male-dominated careers in cultures other than our own. They shed light on work-life balance, what it’s like to collaborate with professionals from other countries, if and how the #metoo movement impacted their societies, what kinds of questions they would ask before relocating abroad, and much more. The ongoing Q&A was peppered with a fun audience poll where we took a guess at some eye-opening international statistics. While it was enlightening to hear about our cultural differences, it was also comforting to learn about our similarities. Some commonalities that emerged were that all women were thankful for the use of technology in their lives (thank you, FaceTime!) and that all put their families first when given the chance to move abroad (i.e. making sure they felt safe and had opportunities). My favorite part of the Q&A was hearing about their challenges with working across cultures. The women shared humorous stories about things getting lost in translation, sarcasm falling flat in another country, and the unique obstacle of not being able to understand someone speaking your own language because of accents and dialects.

 

A packed room for The International View

[A packed room for The International View]

 

I was grateful to have the following hour to get to know these women better during the networking reception. They are each inspirational in their own way, and as a whole they are so intelligent, driven, selfless, and strong. Hence why they were all my #WomanCrushWednesday! This reception is just one of the things that makes the NFPA Conference and Expo different from other industry events.  I hope to see you there next year!

 

Some of NFPA's Women in STEM

[Just some of NFPA's Women in Engineering]

Today’s post is from NFPA staff, Jacqueline Wilmot (@JWilmot_NFPA). Jacqueline is a Fire Protection Engineer in the Building and Life Safety Department where she serves as Staff Liaison to multiple NFPA Technical Committees, including Commissioning and Integrated Testing responsible for the development of NFPA 3 and NFPA 4. Most recently, Jacqueline co-presented an education session, along with NFPA's Shawn Mahoney, at NFPA’s Conference and Expo on integrated system testing (session T23, handouts are available to download if you attended the conference!) Special thanks to Jacqueline for her contribution!

With the latest edition of NFPA 1 (2018) referencing NFPA 4, Standard for the Integrated Fire Protection and Life Safety System Testing (2018) it is important to recognize what this standard addresses. The most common misconception about integrated system testing is that it is already being done. Many people assume that when they enter a building, all the fire protection and life safety systems have been tested. This is true, individually. The fire protection and life safety systems that are installed in a building are required to pass an acceptance test in accordance with the corresponding design and installation standard in order for the owner to receive a certificate of occupancy (C of O). What many people may have not considered is that most fire protection and life safety systems in today’s world are designed to work together.

However, reference to NFPA 4 in multiple NFPA and ICC codes is working to change all that: the 2018 editions of NFPA 1, NFPA 101, and NFPA 5000 all include a reference to NFPA 4. The latest edition of NFPA 101 now requires where two or more fire protection or life safety systems are integrated, and where required by chapters 11 through 43 in NFPA 101, integrated system testing must be conducted to verify the proper operation and function of such systems in accordance with NFPA 4. NFPA 1 extracts this language from NFPA 101 into Section 13.1.3.

 

NFPA 4 does not provide a prescriptive lists of test scenarios, or testing frequencies based on the occupancy classification or the types of systems installed inside a facility. Since the level of testing varies from one building to another, NFPA 4 provides a protocol that will verify the integrated fire protection and life safety systems perform as intended.

The major items outlined in NFPA 4 include identifying the people on an integrated system testing team who are responsible for writing the test plan, developing test scenarios and test frequencies, and documenting this information in a final test report to submit to the owner.

TEST TEAM: The standard outlines who could be on the integrated system testing team and lists the required qualifications and responsibilities associated with the specific position on the team.

TEST PLANS: The required test plans are project dependent and will vary in length, but 11 specific items are required to be included in the test plan in accordance with NFPA 4. The concept of writing a test plan is to have a document which the Integrated Test Team can use to conduct the test without having to ask any questions.

TEST SCENARIOS: The test scenarios required by NFPA 4 are not prescriptive to the type of system, but are very common scenarios to conduct for most buildings and require events and combination of events, including but not limited to the loss of normal power, water flow, and presence of smoke. The scalability of a project, the number of systems installed in a facility, the complexity of those systems, the number of zones for each system, and several other factors need to be analyzed to determine how integrated system testing will be conducted and which scenarios will make sense to test.

TESTING FREQUENCIES: Typically testing is required when (1) a new system is installed and integrated into an existing system, (2) existing systems are modified to become part of an integrated system, or (3) changes are made for an individual system that is part of an integrated system. It’s important to recognize the purpose of this testing is not to require testing every time a strobe is replaced, but rather to test the portions of the integrated system that are affected by the modification.

AHJs needs to be involved early in the process to communicate the types of scenarios they would like included in the test plan. For example, if a recent tragedy occurred, the AHJ might want to make sure that if this incident happened again, all the systems would perform in accordance with their intended design criteria. If an AHJ does not feel comfortable reviewing the test plans, a third party review, also known as an Integrated Testing Agent (ITa) can be hired. It would be prudent for the AHJ to accompany the ITa, if possible, to continue learning from an expert who knows the systems.

For more information on NFPA 4, please visit www.nfpa.org/4

 

Thanks again to Jacqueline for this post.

(To view the 2018 edition of NFPA 1 visit www.nfpa.org/1. Follow along on twitter @KristinB_NFPA for further Fire Code news and fire safety stories)

The June 2018 issue of NFPA News, our free monthly codes and standards newsletter, is now available.

 

In this issue:

  • Proposed Tentative Interim Amendments seeking comments on NFPA 1, NFPA 10, NFPA 13, NFPA 25, NFPA 68, NFPA 72, NFPA 260, NFPA 1906, NFPA 1982, NFPA 1994, and NFPA 1999
  • Public input extended for NFPA 921
  • Annual 2018 Motions Committee Report
  • Call for applications for Fire Investigations Committee
  • New project being explored on Spaceports
  • Committees seeking members
  • Committees seeking public input and public comment
  • Committee meetings calendar

 

Subscribe today! NFPA News is a free, monthly codes and standards newsletter that includes special announcements, notification of public input and comment closing dates, requests for comments, notices on the availability of Standards Council minutes, and other important news about NFPA’s standards development process.

During today's NFPA Technical Meeting in Las Vegas, the following action has taken place on NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code.

 

  • 72-1 Group Amending Motion to Accept Public Comment Nos. 386 and 387 passed. 
  • 72-2 Motion to Accept Public Comment No. 388 passed. 
  • 72-3 Motion to Accept Public Comment No. 389 failed. 
  • 72-4 Group Amending Motion to Accept Public Comment Nos. 155 and 156 passed. 
  • 72-5 Motion to Accept Public Comment No. 458 passed. 
  • 72-6 Motion to Accept Public Comment No. 6 passed. 

 

NFPA 72 was passed with 5 amending motions. NFPA 72 COMPLETED.

 

During today's NFPA Technical Meeting in Las Vegas, the following action has taken place on NFPA 110, Standard for Emergency and Standby Power Systems

 

  • 110-1 Motion to Accept Committee Comment No. 3 passed. 
  • 110-2 Motion to Accept Committee Comment No. 4 passed. 

 

NFPA 110 was passed with 2 amending motions. NFPA 110 COMPLETED.

 

During today's NFPA Technical Meeting in Las Vegas, the following action has taken place on NFPA 1730, Standard on Organization and Deployment of Fire Prevention Inspection and Code Enforcement, Plan Review, Investigation, and Public Education Operations

 

  • 1730-1 Accept Public Comment No. 3 was not pursued. 
  • 1730-1 Accept Public Comment No. 1 passed.

 

NFPA 1730 was passed with 1 amending motions. NFPA 1730 COMPLETED.

 

During today's NFPA Technical Meeting in Las Vegas, the following action has taken place on NFPA 1001, Standard for Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications

 

  • 1001-1 Motion to Accept Public Comment No. 66 passed. 
  • 1001-2 Motion to Accept Public Comment No. 42 was not pursued. 
  • 1001-3 Motion to Accept Public Comment No. 17 passed. 

 

NFPA 1001 was passed with 2 amending motions. NFPA 1001 COMPLETED.

 

During today's NFPA Technical Meeting in Las Vegas, the following action has taken place on NFPA 1981, Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) for Emergency Services

 

  • 1981-1 Motion to Reject Second Revision Nos. 4, 17, and 22, Second Correlating Revision No. 3 and any related portions of First Revision No. 18, which returns Section 6.6 to previous edition text failed. 

 

NFPA 1981 was passed with 0 amending motions. NFPA 1981 COMPLETED.

 

During today's NFPA Technical Meeting in Las Vegas, the following action has taken place on NFPA 13D, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One-and Two-Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes

 

  • 13D-1 Motion to Reject Second Revision No. 7 passed. 

 

NFPA 13D was passed with 1 amending motions. NFPA 13D COMPLETED.

 

During today's NFPA Technical Meeting in Las Vegas, the following action has taken place on NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems

 

  • 13-1 Motion to Accept Public Comment No. 54 passed.
  • 13-2 Motion to Accept Public Comment No. 53 passed.
  • 13-3 Motion to Accept Public Comment No. 55 passed. 
  • 13-4 Motion to Accept Public Comment No. 22 was not pursued. 
  • 13-5 Motion to Reject Second Revision No. 386 and any Related Portions of First Revision No. 751 passed. 
  • 13-6 Motion to Reject Second Correlating Revision No. 9 passed. 
  • 13-7 Motion to Accept Public Comment No. 203 was not pursued. 
  • 13-8 Multiple Notices for a Single Motion to Reject Second Revision No. 429 and any Related Portions of First Revision No. 658 passed. 

 

NFPA 13 was passed with 6 amending motions. NFPA 13 COMPLETED.

 

During today's NFPA Technical Meeting in Las Vegas, the following action has taken place on NFPA 101A, Guide on Alternative Approaches to Life Safety

 

  • 101A-1 Motion to Accept Public Comment No. 12 was not pursued. 

 

NFPA 101A was passed with 0 amending motions. NFPA 101A COMPLETED.

 

During today's NFPA Technical Meeting in Las Vegas, the following action has taken place on NFPA 289, Standard Method of Fire Test for Individual Fuel Packages

 

  • 289-1 Group Amending Motion to Reject an Identifiable Part of Second Revision No. 6 and any related portions of First Revision Nos. 7 and 10 failed. 
  • 289-2 Motion to Reject an Identifiable Part of Second Revision No. 2 and any related portions of First Revision No. 19 passed.

 

NFPA 289 was passed with 1 amending motions. NFPA 289 COMPLETED.

 

During today's NFPA Technical Meeting in Las Vegas, the following action has taken place on NFPA 241, Standard for Safeguarding Construction, Alteration, and Demolition Operations

 

  • 241-1 Motion to Reject Second Revision No. 1 failed. 
  • 241-2 Motion to Reject an Identifiable Part of Second Revision No. 4 was not pursued.

 

NFPA 241 was passed with 0 amending motions. NFPA 241 COMPLETED

 

During today's NFPA Technical Meeting in Las Vegas, the following action has taken place on NFPA 400, Hazardous Materials Code

 

  • 400-1 Motion to Accept Public Comment No. 4 failed.

 

NFPA 400 was passed with 0 amending motions. NFPA 400 COMPLETED.

 

Filter Blog

By date: By tag: