Security Sales & Integration

November 2012

SSI serves security installing contractors providing systems and services; surveillance, access control, biometrics, fire alarm and home control/automation. Coverage in commercial and residential product applications, designs, techniques, operations.

Issue link: https://securitysales.epubxp.com/i/90752

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 29 of 83

(see box for list of such documents). T e majority of documents produced within the ANSI/NFPA process are handled by a single TC. T ere are, however, a number of large documents or similar multiple documents that have a Correlating Committee (CC). A CC may also be responsible for several documents. In both cases, the CC assures there are no correlation issues between chapters or documents within its control. T e term "technical" was removed as a CC is not supposed to be making technical changes to a document. T us, if in one article of say NFPA 70, "red" is "red" but in another "red" is "green," it would be up the CC to make certain that this is supposed to be this way, or to make a change within one of the articles so that it correlates with the other. T e CC, however, could not on its own change "red" to "green" throughout the document. After the TC has voted on the Second Draft document, if there is a CC it would then go to those members for their review and vote. As with the TCs, a simple majority will prevail during the meeting to move an item, but a two-thirds acceptance is required in the letter ballot. Following the conclusion of letter ballot voting by those two committees, the Second Draft Report is released. T is document should be reviewed by those who are interested in the results. As mentioned, there is a set of rules specifying who may submit a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion. T is process was set up by the Standards Council eight years ago to streamline the process at the Association Technical Meeting when NFPA went from annual and fall meetings to a single annual session. T is procedure allows everyone to know what items are going to come before the membership and which will not. T at way one may decide whether they need to attend the Association Technical Meeting. MAKING MOTIONS MORE THAN A NOTION All NITMANs (see box for a simplifi ed summary of who may submit) are reviewed and voted on by the Motions Committee, which is made up of members of the Standards Council and overseen by the chair of the Standards Committee. T ose that are accepted become Certifi ed Amending Motions (CAMs), and are published prior to the NFPA Annual Meeting and the Association Technical Meeting. T is report should be DOCUMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH CORRELATING COMMITTEES NFPA 70, National Electrical Code NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code NFPA 99, Health Care Facilities Code NFPA 101, Life Safety Code NFPA 5000, Building Construction and Safety Code reviewed prior to an Association Technical Meeting if there is concern a document to be voted on still has unresolved issues. During the "Tech Session," the maker of a motion is given three minutes to state their case. T e chair of the Technical or Correlating Committee then has three minutes to state the committee's position. At this point, anyone may get up, for or against, to speak for up to three minutes. T e members present usually allow about 30 minutes of discussion before the question is called if the debate has not concluded by then. T e vote is then taken via an electronic device given to each NFPA member attending the Tech Session. A simple majority of members present is required to pass or defeat a motion. However, this is not the end of the process. If a motion passes, it goes back to the TC and CC. A two-thirds vote is required for the amending motion to be accepted. T us, while the general membership may feel a motion has merit, the committee still has a fi nal say in the matter. T e Standards Council that oversees the rules awards preference to a committee due to its greater familiarity with the subject matter as compared to general membership. If the committee does not accept the amending motion, the language of the standard reverts to that of the previous published edition for the section that was debated. For some, this in itself is an acceptable outcome. T e actions at the Tech Session may be appealed to the Standards Council. T e Standards Council is not a TC and does not look at the technical merits of a code change in most cases. Rather it examines whether there was a violation of the process during any part of the code development cycle for a given section. In most cases, an appeal will be denied by the council. Appellants who argue their appeal on strictly technical matters do not understand the function of the council. T e ANSI/NFPA process can be a bit of a mystery to understand at fi rst, but for the most part in the end it does produce a consensus-based document. A key to success in the process is getting involved during the First Draft stage and not waiting until the Association Technical Meeting or Standards Council appeal to make a change to a document. In that regard, the Second Draft is the most important segment in the process to make comments on proposed changes to a document. Further information on the NFPA standards development process and documents that are undergoing review can be found at nfpa.org. I wrote this article while overseas attending the Essen The ANSI/NFPA process is tricky but produces a consensus-based docu- ment. Key is involvement in the First Draft stage, not waiting until the Association Technical Meeting or Standards Council appeal for a change. 28 / SECURITYSALES.COM / NOVEMBER 2013 (Germany) Security 2012 Expo and a NFPA Technical Committee meeting in Venice, Italy. Next month, we will explore some of the technology that was on display in Essen.

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Security Sales & Integration - November 2012