Sprinkler Age A Publication of the American Fire Sprinkler Association
If there is one thing the NFPA standards development process proves year after year, it is that deadlines have a remarkable ability to inspire productivity. The public comment period has closed for the 2028 editions of NFPA 13, NFPA 13R, NFPA 13D, NFPA 20, NFPA 24, and NFPA 291, while the public input stage has wrapped up for the 2029 edition of NFPA 25. These milestones mark an important checkpoint in the standards development cycle and provide a glimpse into the level of industry engagement on each document.
The final tally of public comments submitted for the sprinkler installation standards was impressive:
- NFPA 13 – 142 Public Comments
- NFPA 13R – 26 Public Comments
- NFPA 13D – 9 Public Comments
- NFPA 20 – 56 Public Comments
- NFPA 24 – 3 Public Comments
- NFPA 291 – 1 Public Comment
Not surprisingly, NFPA 13 once again attracted the lion’s share of attention. As the industry’s flagship installation standard, it affects nearly every sprinkler contractor, engineer, manufacturer, and authority having jurisdiction. The volume of comments reflects both the complexity of the document and the broad range of stakeholders invested in its requirements.
NFPA 20 also generated significant activity. Fire pumps continue to be one of the more debated topics in the water-based fire protection world, particularly as the industry works through questions related to driver sizing, testing requirements, and practical application of performance criteria.
Meanwhile, the residential standards saw more modest participation. While NFPA 13R and NFPA 13D affect a large number of projects, the scope of those documents is comparatively narrow, resulting in fewer proposed revisions during a typical cycle.
The next step is for the technical committees to review each comment and determine whether revisions to the First Draft are warranted. Some proposals will become Second Revisions while others will be rejected. Regardless of the outcome, well-crafted committee statements should provide additional clarification. Even if no change is made, every comment becomes part of the official record and contributes to the development of the final document.
On the inspection, testing, and maintenance side, the public input stage closed for NFPA 25. At the time this column was written, AFSA’s Technical Advisory Council submitted 51 Public Inputs for committee consideration. The remaining inputs from the public had not yet been posted to NFPA’s TerraView platform.
Those inputs cover a broad range of topics, including clarification of inspection terminology, consolidation of signage requirements, obstruction investigation criteria, internal assessment requirements, testing procedures, and coordination between various chapters of the document. The goal of many of these proposals is not to create new requirements but to improve consistency, eliminate ambiguity, and make the standard easier to apply in the field.
Just a few weeks before the deadlines, AFSA’s Technical Advisory Council (TAC) met at General Air Products in Exton, Pa. The agenda was packed with standards development activities, including creation of public inputs and comments for NFPA 13, 13R, 13D, 20, 24, 291, and 25; review of NFPA 22 proposals; NFPA 14 ballot discussions; committee appointment approvals; and task group reports. The meeting demonstrated just how much work occurs before a proposal ever reaches an NFPA technical committee.
TAC members reviewed dozens of potential revisions, debated technical substantiation, refined language, and established association positions on key issues. By the conclusion of the meeting, AFSA had developed and vetted a substantial package of proposals and comments that will influence multiple documents over the next several revision cycles. The productivity of the group continues to validate the decision to reestablish the TAC and expand contractor participation from across AFSA’s regions.
June also marked the NFPA Conference & Expo and NFPA Technical Meeting in Las Vegas. AFSA once again had a strong presence throughout the event, participating in committee meetings, educational sessions, and technical discussions that help shape the future of the industry. I presented alongside Steve Leyton and Terin Hopkins on the significant changes contained in the 2027 edition of NFPA 14, providing attendees with a detailed look at the latest developments affecting standpipe system design and installation.
As always, the standards development process works best when industry professionals remain engaged. Be sure to watch for AFSA’s Voting Guide identifying Certified Amending Motions (CAMs) of interest to sprinkler contractors and industry stakeholders. The guide will help members navigate the Technical Meeting process and understand the issues that may have the greatest impact on our industry.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Kevin Hall, M.Eng., P.E., ET, CWBSP, PMSFPE, is the Director of Engineering for the American Fire Sprinkler Association (AFSA). He is a member of several National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) technical committees responsible for developing the model codes and standards, including, NFPA 1 Fire Code, NFPA 13/13R/13D Installation of Sprinkler Systems, NFPA 20 Installation of Stationary Fire Pumps for Fire Protection, NFPA 25 Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems, and NFPA 200 Hanging, Bracing, and Anchorage of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems. He also represents AFSA on numerous UL technical committees responsible for revising and maintaining the product standards used in the sprinkler industry. He is a registered professional engineer in Delaware and Maryland, NICET III certified in water-based system layout, a certified water-based system professional through NFPA, and a professional member of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE). He earned his Bachelor of Science and Master of Engineering degrees from the University of Maryland College Park in fire protection engineering. In 2021, he was recognized as one of SFPE’s “5 Under 35” award recipients. Prior to his association and committee work, he worked for Reliance Fire Protection in Baltimore, Maryland as a project manager overseeing projects of various sizes and complexity.