# Visible Notification Devices [2003 IFC 907.10.1.1 907.10.1.2]



## TimNY (May 26, 2010)

Just checking to see if anybody has a different interpretation of these sections.

907.10.1.1 - visible alarm devices are only required in public and common areas.  Easy enough.. hallways, meeting rooms, etc.  They are not required in private offices.

907.10.1.2 - You must provide wiring for visible notification devices in employee work areas that have audible notification _coverage_.

So visible notification devices are not required in private offices.  However, since private offices are an employee work area that will have audible alarm coverage, you must provide wiring in the office for a visible notification device... that is not required?

I guess they are mandating the wiring be in place so that you can comply with ADA, even though I don't know of anyplace in the IBC that would require you to install the visible notification device if an individual is hearing impaired.

I don't have any problem with this; I think it's a great idea.  But am I interpreting this correctly?

Thanks,

Tim


----------



## FyrBldgGuy (May 26, 2010)

You have to consider public and common use, and common use includes two or more.  Employee work areas include many areas such as aisles, cubicles, etc.  After submitting an interpretation question to Kim Parlberg of the ICC (she is responsible for accessibility requirements) and reviewing all in the information from various agencies (state and federal) I have found the terms used in the 2006 or later codes pretty much require installation of visible devices in all areas.  If there is an office where only one person is present.  Then it might not need the visible device, but it has to be capable of having one installed.  There has been tremendous economic pressure placed on individuals who are hearing impaired by building owners who do not want to install devices.  The code is attempting to reduce the ecomomic pressure and force the building owner to respond to the hearing impaired.

Private is a term that is greatly abused.  Right now there are at least 9% of the occupants of any building that are hearing impaired.  Audible standards are based on the ability of a 25 year old individual with perfect hearing.  The predominant range of hearing loss includes the 3000 Hz frequency that is used for audible alarms.

I will pass along the bottom line from Kim, Put visible devices everywhere with few exceptions like stairwells, because that could cause injury.


----------



## Gene Boecker (May 26, 2010)

Yes, who is requiring wiring to all offices?  That's not in the standard or the code.

If the office is a single use space, it does not need alarm devices.  And, because it is an employee use area, if a person with a disability is hired, then the office must be altered as is appropriate for the disability.  If that means that the individual has a hearing impairment, then a visual device is necessary.  It's not required now.  The system must be capable of expansion to address this need.


----------



## TimNY (May 28, 2010)

Gene Boecker said:
			
		

> Yes, who is requiring wiring to all offices?  That's not in the standard or the code.If the office is a single use space, it does not need alarm devices.  And, because it is an employee use area, if a person with a disability is hired, then the office must be altered as is appropriate for the disability.  If that means that the individual has a hearing impairment, then a visual device is necessary.  It's not required now.  The system must be capable of expansion to address this need.


[Well, I just had a nicely written reply, but when I hit 'Post Reply' it gave me a new screen with a blank message box.  Lets try again.]

The question pertains more to:

907.10.2 Employee work areas.  Where employee work areas have audible alarm coverage, the wiring system shall be designed so that visible alarm notification appliances can be integrated into the alarm system.

All offices will have audible alarm coverage, so all offices must have visible notification capability.

I see what you are saying Gene, but what is "designed"?

Is "designed" electrically designed-- a wire of sufficient gauge and capacity such that visible notification devices may be added?

Is "designed" physically designed-- the wire routed such that visible notification devices may be added in all employee work areas?

Is it correct to require that the wire be routed such that visible notification devices may be added in the future without undue expense?

Or is a wire that is electrically capable of supporting the devices, but requires trenching across 20' of GWB ceiling to access, acceptable?

Thanks for the replies, really appreciate it!


----------



## cda (May 28, 2010)

I believe this question has been discussed before, maybe in the old time forum, and thought the feeling was that

1. depends on ahj what they read

2. is the system able to be expanded, no wire run, to accomodate the needs in the future.

I feel you  do not have to run extra wire, when a new system is installed


----------



## FM William Burns (May 28, 2010)

Not to jump Gene's reply:

What we are seeing is the installing contractor providing additional wire loops so future renovations will allow easy access to run the wire (if necessary) and they don't have to box it in which adds to the cost.  What we are hearing is that other jurisdictions are requiring boxes and coverplates which add to the cost and drastically affects their equal bidding potentials regionally.  The way we look at it is if the wire is provided and power supplies can support it, let them provide additional wire loop as long as the ceiling tiles will support the weight.


----------



## Mac (May 28, 2010)

You could check with Cheryl Fisher's office at DOS - I believe alarms are communications elements and ANSI 117 wants them in all spaces.


----------



## TimNY (May 28, 2010)

FM William Burns said:
			
		

> Not to jump Gene's reply:What we are seeing is the installing contractor providing additional wire loops so future renovations will allow easy access to run the wire (if necessary) and they don't have to box it in which adds to the cost.  What we are hearing is that other jurisdictions are requiring boxes and coverplates which add to the cost and drastically affects their equal bidding potentials regionally.  The way we look at it is if the wire is provided and power supplies can support it, let them provide additional wire loop as long as the ceiling tiles will support the weight.


This is how I look at it.  I have drop ceilings in offices but interrupted by GWB ceilings.  I have two spaces at either end where the fire alarm wiring does not extend.  Implementation of visibles would not be an easy chore.  I don't need a box and plate, but I want to see the wiring reasonably easy to access in the future.  Like you said, a loop above the drop ceiling is fine.

I put a note "design wiring for future visible notification in this room 907.10.2" on the plans where it applied.  I'll let them propose it.  If they propose box and plate, fine with me.  Not my job to design it.


----------



## Gene Boecker (May 29, 2010)

We just went through the process of beating up on this at the code hearings.

I offered a proposal top indicate one thing with the hopes that testimony would open up an answer somehow.  You're right, the language is not really clear.  What was the consensus after discussion was that the panel needed to be sized for additional devices and that conduit as necessary was provided so that when wiring is added you don't need to tear up the whole building.  With lay-in ceilings and a single story, only the larger panel was required.  That is what the disabled community was after when they argued fro this to be added.  Unfortunately we've seen everything from a larger panel to a fully wired system with a bunch of extra wires hanging out next to the panel behind an access panel in the wall so that a person only has to pick the right wire and connect it, take the cover off the junction box in the office and hang a strobe.  Obviously, different costs are involved.

One can only hope that this will make it's way into the commentary.  the code system is broke with only one shot at a code change per three year edition - and the interp system is worse.

(I should know, it sit on both)


----------



## TimNY (May 29, 2010)

Thank you for the insight, Gene.  The commentary led me to believe that the purpose was to avoid undue expenses in the future to make them compliant.  Conduit would be acceptable, but I think maybe the wire is cheaper and easier in this situation.  I would not deny it if they wanted to go that route (conduit, that is).


----------



## peach (May 29, 2010)

You need to be able to hear the alarm everywhere; IFC 907.10.1.2 requires the 20% spare capacity to account for the potential of adding visible notification appliance in the future.  ANSI A117 boots you to NFAP 72, which doesn not address the location of the devices, but does provide a performance-based alternative.


----------



## TJacobs (Jun 11, 2010)

I like it when they design the system to take more devices than they install so when there is expansion or renovation = less indigestion...


----------

