It seems like we just finished working on the 2016 NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, but the deadline to submit public inputs for the 2019 edition was June 29. I am on the protected premises and correlating committees and thought it would be good to write a preview of some of the more significant proposed changes. Keep in mind that, until suggested changes go through the entire process, they are not guaranteed to be in the next edition.

First, one of the biggest changes is the transition of NFPA 720, Standard for the Installation of Carbon Monoxide (CO) Detection and Warning Systems, into NFPA 72. Since a great majority of NFPA 720 is excerpted language from NFPA 72, the consensus was that the two should merge, so NFPA 720 will not continue in 2019. 

Bringing NFPA 720 into 72 presented numerous challenges. First, its location in NFPA 72 had to be decided. Second, NFPA 72 committee membership needed to be reviewed to allow current NFPA 720 committee members the opportunity to participate in the development and transition.

The system CO detection requirements will be in Chapter 17, Initiating Devices. The stand-alone CO alarm requirements will be in Chapter 29, Household. There will be some new language in almost all of the chapters when the transition is complete to include documentation, power requirements, notification appliance activation, monitoring and testing. Numerous correlating issues will need to be addressed as we proceed to ensure the requirements are clear. The building and fire codes have many requirements for CO detection now, so it is important to have clear requirements for installation and testing.

Class N (Network) circuitry is arguably the biggest change to NFPA 72 since the introduction of mass-notification-system requirements in 2010. It was added primarily to include requirements for power over ethernet (PoE) circuits; however, Class N is not limited to ethernet. (I will write about Class N in the near future.) For the 2019 edition, there is a proposal to move the Class N requirements from Chapter 12 to its own Chapter 15. I have not heard the final decision on this, but based on the actions of the protected premises chapter I serve on, I don’t think it will happen. Many of the public inputs were not accepted, but a task group was formed to work on the proposed issues. This topic is definitely a work in progress, so expect many changes during the comment stage.

On a related topic, a proposal was accepted to allow a building system information unit (BSIU) to monitor building functions, such as air handlers, security, mass notification systems and the fire alarm system. The BSIU will be allowed to perform some fire alarm functions, such as acknowledge, silence and reset. One requirement will be to have the fire alarm control unit in the same room as the BSIU. This is one step closer to allowing a building computer to control the fire alarm system.

Another significant change is the addition of requirements for occupant evacuation operation (OEO) of elevator systems. The proposals include adding requirements for the interface between the fire alarm system and the elevator controllers and will include information—such as the messaging to the fire floor, two floors above and two floors below—to notify occupants if the elevator can be used for evacuation. It will significantly affect fire alarm system design. At this time, it is proposed to only affect buildings more than 420 feet high (39 floors). 

As an example of how voice messaging will operate, if you have an alarm on the 20th floor, messages would be sent to floors 18–22. If a second alarm comes in on the 15th floor, the messages would then be sent to floors 13–22. It can be rather complex. Most of the public inputs regarding OEO were accepted, so I expect this one to make it into the 2019 code.

There is also the usual language cleanup we see each cycle. Metric units are being verified for accuracy, terms such as “strobes” are being changed to “visible notification appliances” and speakers will become “loudspeakers” (to distinguish them from humans speaking) instead of “audible notification appliances.”

I have not heard the results from a number of committees yet, but there should be many changes to share from them as well. I will continue this discussion in December.