ROC TC Circulation Cover Memo - NFPANational Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park,...

National Fire Protection Association

1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471

Phone: 617-770-3000 • Fax: 617-770-0700 • www.nfpa.org

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: NFPA Technical Committee on Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems

FROM: Elena Carroll, Administrator, Technical Projects

DATE: February 12, 2015

SUBJECT: NFPA 130 FD TC Ballot Circulation (A2016 cycle)

The February 11, 2015 date for receipt of the NFPA 130 First Draft ballot has passed.

The preliminary First Draft ballot results are shown on the attached report.

29 Members Eligible to Vote

3 Ballots Not Returned (Grizard, Mao, Weng)

In accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards,

attached are reasons for negative votes for review so you may change your ballot if you wish.

Abstentions and affirmative comments are also included. Ballots received from alternate members

are not included unless the ballot from the principal member was not received.

If you wish to change your vote, the change must be received at NFPA on or February 19, 2015.

Members who have not returned a ballot may do so now. Such changes should be submitted

through the NFPA Vote.net Ballot Site.

The return of ballots is required by the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA

Standards.

http://www.nfpa.org/my-profile/my-committees?action=vote

NFPA 130 (A2016) FKT-AAA First Draft Ballot Circulation Report

Vote Selection Votes Comments

Affirmative 26

Affirmative with Comment 0

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 25


Negative 1

Harold A. Locke

In the 2014 edition, this term is used only once in the text (12.5.1). Rather that include this definition, the

term should be deleted in 12.5.1 as it is unnecessary.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 26


Negative 0

Abstain 0

TRUE

FR-1, Section No. 3.3.6, See FR-1

TRUE

FR-45, New Section after 3.3.5, See FR-45

Results by Revision

TRUE

FR-39, Chapter 2, See FR-39

Page 1 of 27

http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/FormLaunch?id=/TerraView/Content/130-2014.ditamap/2/C1416233219823.xml&viewmode=nfpa/xslt/nfpaviewmode.xsl





Affirmative 26


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 26


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 23


Pierre Laurin Affirmative for definitions of decibel and dBa, definition for dBz may not be required, subject to FR-38

Jarrod Alston This definition will only become necessary if FR 38 is approved.

Negative 1

Harold A. Locke

This term relates only to proposed Annex material and, if needed, should be located there (similar to

references).

Abstain 0


Affirmative 24


John F. Devlin

I believe the intent of these changes not fully realized because the term "design fire scenario" is not

defined. Accordingly, I recommend adding the definition "Design Fire Scenario: A fire scenario selected for

evaluation of a proposed design". This definition from NFPA Glossary of Terms.

Negative 1

Harold A. Locke These terms relate only to Annex material and should be located there (similar to references).

Abstain 0

TRUE

FR-57, New Section after 3.3.20.2, See FR-57

TRUE


TRUE


TRUE


Page 2 of 27







Affirmative 25


Harold A. Locke

The revised language is acceptable, but this term relates only to Annex material and should be re-located

there (similar to references).

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 25


Negative 1

John F. Devlin See comments to FR-3.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 25


Harold A. Locke

Revise to delete the words 'fixed guideway transit and passenger rail' before 'system', which is a defined

term in NFPA 130 that already includes those descriptors. Consider including 'trainway' to tie the terms

together while explaining the differentiation between the two terms.

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 24


Luc Martineau KW must be added at the ehd of this FR

Harold A. Locke

This change in terminology should be reconciled with the use of 'heat release rate' elsewhere in the text

(e.g., Chapter 5). Also, the sub-definitions are not used in the text and should therefore be deleted or

moved to an Annex if they are used there.

Negative 0

Abstain 0

TRUE

FR-7, Section No. 3.3.27.2, See FR-7

TRUE


TRUE


TRUE


Page 3 of 27






Page 4 of 27



Affirmative 23


Pierre Laurin May not be required , subject to FR-38


Negative 1

Harold A. Locke


references).

Abstain 0


Affirmative 26


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 23




Negative 1

Harold A. Locke


references).

Abstain 0


Affirmative 25


Negative 1

Harold A. Locke This term relates only to Annex material and, if needed, should be located there (similar to references).

Abstain 0

TRUE


TRUE


TRUE


TRUE


Page 5 of 27







Affirmative 25


Negative 1

Harold A. Locke This term relates only to Annex material and, if needed, should be located there (similar to references).

Abstain 0


Affirmative 24


Harold A. Locke

The revisions are acceptable, but this term relates only to Annex material and should be re-located there

(similar to references).

Negative 1

Pierre Laurin Refer to FR-43

Abstain 0

TRUE


TRUE


Page 6 of 27





Affirmative 23




Negative 1

Harold A. Locke


references).

Abstain 0


Affirmative 26


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 23



Jarrod Alston

This definition will only become necessary if FR 38 is approved. Also, the wording 'Time Weighted Average'

has wider application and usage than just pertaining to sound levels.

Negative 1

Harold A. Locke


references).

Abstain 0

TRUE


TRUE


TRUE


Page 7 of 27






Affirmative 26


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 26


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 23


Neil E. Nott

Regarding Committee Statement #6, it would seem to be an overstatement, and ultimately false

assumption, that the other materials are "never" covered.

Richard D. Peacock Reference in item (1) is listed as section 4.7. In balloted draft, it should be section 4.6

Jarrod Alston

The concept of providing multiple material testing criteria for interior finish materials is appropriate and

generally consistent with the building industry. However, the order of criteria is not consistent with that

found in the IBC or similar wherein the base test protocol is ASTM E84 with NFPA 286 as an acceptable

alternative test method with specific acceptance criteria.

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 23


Jarrod Alston The word 'appropriate' should be removed from 5.3.3.3 unless 'appropriate' is classified and defined.

TRUE

FR-43, Sections 5.3.3.3, 5.3.3.4, See FR-43

TRUE


TRUE


TRUE


Page 8 of 27






Harold A. Locke

Add Annex A examples that encapsulate previous information (e.g., "In an aboveground station where the

platform is above the concourse, that concourse would usually constitute a point of safety. For

underground stations where a mechanical smoke control system impedes the spread of fire effects to the

concourse, that concourse would usually constitute a point of safety.")

Negative 1

Pierre Laurin

The proposed change is interpreted to mean that distance, geometry, fire separation or a fire ventilation

system, with no confirmation by engineering analysis, are sufficient to define a concourse as a point of

safety. Unless a station meets the definition of an Open Station, an engineering analysis shall be required,

particularly if the concourse is not below platform level. For enclosed stations, the engineering analysis

needs to confirm that the ventilation system provides protection.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 26


Negative 0

Abstain 0

TRUE


Page 9 of 27




Affirmative 24


Thomas P. Kenny

The added annex language conflicts with the requirements of the American Disability Act Accessibility

Guidelines (ADAAG) which does not have a minimum height requirement before tactile warning must be

installed along the trainway side of platforms. Recommend Annex A.5.3.10 be rewritten as follows:

A.5.3.10 tactile and visual warning should be provided along the trainway side of except where such edges

are protected by platform edge screens or doors.

Harold A. Locke

"Acceptable except: - The new asterix after 5.3.10 should be underlined to indicate new annex A material,

and - The 'Response Message' should include reference to PI 108 as well as 106 & 111."

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 24


Negative 2

John F. Devlin

NFPA 72 is an application, installation, testing and maintenance standard. NFPA 72 does not define "what

is needed" but rather defines how is shall be applied and installed. If the committee believes a fire alarm

system shall be provided in an open station then the committee must define the system design: "what"

fire alarm initiating devices and alarm indicating appliances shall be provided and "where" they shall be

provided.

Harold A. Locke

This requirement does not provide sufficient direction for the numerous variations in systems and

stations. It would be preferable to develop annex language to indicate the intent of the TC.

Abstain 0

TRUE


TRUE


Page 10 of 27





Affirmative 26


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 25


Negative 1

John F. Devlin

I understand the intent of the proposed change however I do not believe the revised wording improves or

provides clarity to the intent of the current language in the standard. Also, proposed the revisions to

6.1.2.2 are more appropriate in Chapter 9.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 26


Negative 0

Abstain 0

TRUE


TRUE


TRUE


Page 11 of 27






Affirmative 24


Harold A. Locke

Revise Sentence 1 to read "6.2.9.1 The use of green track shall be permitted where the type and design

has been approved." Delete 6.2.9.2. (not enforceable as no parameters are provided to judge acceptance).

Negative 1

John F. Devlin

I appreciate the intent of the code change however specifically requiring green track design to include a

fire hazard analysis implies that green track design is a fire hazard. This does not seem reasonable. I

believe the standard does now provide the authority having jurisdiction latitude in requiring the design

team demonstrate a proposed system design, be considered non-typical at the time, provides a

reasonable degree of fire safety for the system's intended performance.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 25


Negative 1

John F. Devlin

Section 6.2.8.1 clearly state the intent of the requirement for Section 6.2.8 apply to "Rail ties used in

enclosed locations". Specifying materials a transit agency can must use when the material construction

does not affect fire and life safety, e.g., when used outdoors, is beyond the scope of this standard.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 26


Negative 0

Abstain 0

TRUE


TRUE


TRUE


Page 12 of 27






Affirmative 25


Negative 1

Luc Martineau

Blue light stations are the means of communication along the trainway and there's no need for other

equipments like PA system for example. And we have to keep in mind that the train operators and/or the

OCC can communicate with passengers with the train PA system.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 24


Pierre Laurin Should be 6.4.6, not 6.4.5 ?

Luc Martineau This chapter refer to 6.4.6 and not 6.4.5 as stated in the FR.

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 25


Negative 1

Luc Martineau

The proposed annex do not adress the problem submit in the committee statement and therefore must be

rejected.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 24


John F. Devlin

I recommend the committee delete the first sentence of the proposed annex language "This is an

equipment exposure duration requirement, not a tenability requirement." because this not a true

statement. A mechanical emergency ventilation system must maintain its intended performance for a

minimum of 1 hour or tenability is not ensured.

Negative 1

TRUE

FR-79, Section No. 7.2.1 [Excluding any Sub-Sections], See FR-79

TRUE


TRUE


TRUE


Page 13 of 27






Luc Martineau The proposed annex do not bring any clarity to the actual chapter.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 26


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 26


Negative 0

Abstain 0

TRUE


TRUE


Page 14 of 27





Affirmative 23


Negative 3

John F. Devlin

This standard requires many features be incorporated into the mechanical emergency ventilation system's

design for the purpose of ensuring operational availability and reliability. If the committee believes that

the current edition of the standard does not provide reasonable guidance and safeguards for "the loss of a

fan" then I believe a special task group should be formed to analyze this matter and return to the

committee a detailed analysis assessment, findings, and recommendations for improvement.

Jarrod Alston

The practice of assuming one fan out of service or unavailable speaks to system reliability and availability.

Alternative means exist for addressing risks and hazards associated with equipment availability including

redundancy, maintenance and testing to reduce MTBF, or increased system-wide capacity as would be

called for by assuming fans out of service. Design criteria should instead simply call for consideration of

system availability.

Harold A. Locke

An "industry trend" is not offering a technical basis for making this change which will have significant cost

implications for tunnel systems. This level of redundancy should not be required except where supported

by risk analysis that suggests fan failure coincident with a train fire is probable.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 24


Jarrod Alston The proposed section 7.2.6 contains two 'shall' statements which is in conflict with the NFPA style guide.

Harold A. Locke

Revise to: "7.2.6.1 The criteria for tenability for stations and trainways shall be established and approved.

7.6.2.2 For stations, the time of tenability shall be greater than the calculated egress time used to

establish egress capacity in 5.3.3."

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 26


Negative 0

Abstain 0

TRUE

FR-26, Section No. 7.3.2 [Excluding any Sub-Sections], See FR-26

TRUE


TRUE


Page 15 of 27






Affirmative 26


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 24


Jarrod Alston

The use of electrical appliances on rolling stock should addressed in the course of a vehicle hazard

assessment whether for existing rolling stock or as part of vehicle procurement.

Negative 1

Joseph B. Zicherman

I appreciate the addition of the corresponding appendix section, the proposed text for the standard does

not address the nuanced differences between potential ignition sources that have been treated by

installation with a barrier separating them from passenger spaces (battery boxes, power conditioning

equipment, distribution equipment) and the separate class of equipment which - if there were a fire

occurring - would indeed by intimate with passengers and crew. This class includes items such as ovens,

information displays, coffee makers, point off sale equipment and other items. These need to be

addressed specifically for the reasons stated in the original proposal.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 25


Steven W. Roman

In reviewing the changes to Chapter 8 I noticed a new sub-section 8.4.1.16 which was not discussed at the

last Technical Committee meeting. It appears that the last two sentences were broken out from 8.4.1.15.

These two sentences must be associated with the text in 8.4.1.15 if they are to have any meaning. If this

new section is to remain then “ASTM E19” needs to change to “ASTM E119” and this Chapter reference

needs to be added beneath Table 8.4.1 and assigned letter “p”. Then the letter “p” must be added to the

Table in the Structural Components category. It appears this duplication is an error.

Negative 0

Abstain 0


TRUE

FR-20, New Section after 8.5.1.2.2, See FR-20

TRUE


TRUE


TRUE


Page 16 of 27






Affirmative 24


Kevin M. Lewis

LRVs on which a pantograph is the only roof-mounted equipment operating at voltages higher than 600v

should be exempt from roof fire testing, due to a lack of combustible material on the roof.

Harold A. Locke

Revise or provide Annex A material to clarify intent re: configuration and orientation of assembly during

testing and what is meant by "loading".

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 25


Richard D. Peacock ASTM standard referenced in section 8.4.1.16 should be ASTM E119, not ASTM E19

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 26


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 26


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 25


TRUE

FR-22, Section No. 8.5.1.3.2, See FR-22

TRUE

FR-74, Section No. 8.5.1.3.1.1, See FR-74

TRUE

FR-73, Section No. 8.5.1.3 [Excluding any Sub-Sections], See FR-73

TRUE

FR-21, New Section after 8.5.1.2.2, See FR-21

Page 17 of 27






Kevin M. Lewis

LRVs on which a pantograph is the only roof-mounted equipment operating at voltages higher than 600v

should be exempt from roof fire testing, due to a lack of combustible material on the roof.

Negative 0

Abstain 0

Page 18 of 27



Affirmative 26


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 26


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 25


Negative 1

John F. Devlin

The proposed change eliminates minimum features and performance capabilities that are essential for a

functional OCC.

Abstain 0

TRUE

FR-64, Section No. 9.6, See FR-64

TRUE


TRUE


Page 19 of 27






Affirmative 23


Luc Martineau

The content of this FR brings clarity and have to be include in a modify chapter 9.6, not in a new chapter

9.10

Jarrod Alston

The proposed language for section 9.10.3 is awkward. 'The command post and OCC shall cooperate to

provide for efficient and coordinated emergency response operations.'

Negative 1

John F. Devlin

The proposed language is defining requirements that might not be appropriate for all transit systems. I

believe the intent of the code change is already address by existing requirements in Chapter 9.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 24


David M. Casselman

I support the overall revision, however in proposed Section 10.2.9, it is important to retain the prior

wording from Section 9.6.10, "Alternative location(s) shall be provided in the event the OCC is out of

service for any reason and shall be equipped or have equipment readily available to function as required

by the authority." When originally developed, the wording of that section was carefully chosen to avoid

prescribing an alternative OCC if not required by the authority. In smaller systems, solutions other than an

alternative OCC are often used. The preferred alternative may be to shut down the system and operate

buses until the OCC is restored, or some fully automated systems can be operated from several regional

locations or zones. The additional wording, "OCC" and "primary", in the first line prescribe an alternative

OCC as the only solution, which may not be appropriate for the system.

Negative 1

John F. Devlin

I believe the current requirements in of Chapter 10 provide a reasonable degree of guidance on the scope

and installation requirements for emergency communications systems. The proposed change is too

prescriptive and does not provide appropriate guidance on the minimum intended performance

requirements of the communications systems specified.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 26


Negative 0

Abstain 0

TRUE


TRUE

FR-75, Chapter 10, See FR-75

TRUE

FR-66, New Section after 9.9, See FR-66

Page 20 of 27






Affirmative 25


Negative 1

John F. Devlin

Eliminating the requirements of NFPA 70 there is now no minimum performance requirements which

define the expected minimum performance of moisture and heat resistance. Also, by making specific

reference that this section does not apply to communications cables the standard does not guidance on

the minimum performance requirements for these cables.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 25


Negative 1

Luc Martineau The use of MI cable is self sufficient and must not comply with chapter 12.4.1 and 12.4.2

Abstain 0

TRUE


TRUE


Page 21 of 27





Affirmative 25


Negative 1

John F. Devlin

I agree with the proposed changes in 12.5.1 and 12.5.2 referencing ANSI/UL 2194. I do not agree with

12.5.3(1) requiring the cables be tested in both the vertical and horizontal orientation because this is not a

criteria of ANSI/UL 2194 and has no bearing on the cable fire resistance properties when subjected UL

2194.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 24


Negative 2

Luc Martineau Chapter 4.4.1 doesn't exist and this text refer to chapter 4.4

Joseph B. Zicherman

The language proposed is insufficient to address the subject matter in terms of both content and level of

formality. It is also consistent with the language proposed in the change FR-11 which in proposed section

1(a) on refers to incendiary acts.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 24


Luc Martineau Chapter 4.4.2 doesn't exist. This text must be include in A4.4

Joseph B. Zicherman

This proposed section is a worthwhile effort but needs to be coordinated with the content of proposal FR-

10 inasumuch as they are in disagreement as written currently regarding illegal acts. Otherwise, FR-10

should be eliminated.

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 24


Harold A. Locke

The proposed additional changes in PI #110 should be reconsidered. The alternative is that the stipulated

required egress times (4 minutes for platform clearance and 6 minutes to a point of safety) are

meaningless.

TRUE

FR-42, Section No. A.5.3.3.1, See FR-42

TRUE

FR-11, Section No. A.4.6, See FR-11

TRUE

FR-10, Section No. A.4.4, See FR-10

TRUE

FR-44, Section No. 12.5, See FR-44

Page 22 of 27






Negative 1

Luc Martineau The proposed text do not had clarity to the actual text and must be rejected.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 25


Pierre Laurin

The proposed change should apply only for escalators which already allow for double file circulation. For

smaller width escalators (e.g. 600mm and possibly even 800mm), which physically permit only single file

circulation, allowing to increase the width by 228 mm will yield higher calculated egress capacity, when in

reality the egress capacity would remain the same due to the physical limitations of the escalator.

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 25


Harold A. Locke The revised cross-reference is inaccurate. A.5.3.5.4 should be deleted entirely.

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 26


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 25


Negative 1

TRUE

FR-32, Section No. A.7.2.5, See FR-32

TRUE


TRUE


TRUE


Page 23 of 27






Pierre Laurin

The proposed text pushes the agency to establish the operation plans and to analyse all emergency

scenarios upfront in the design phases, which is not always practical or feasible. The existing text allows

the agency to continue revising and adjusting the operating and emergency procedures based on lessons

learned and changing circumstances.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 26


Negative 0

Abstain 0

TRUE


Page 24 of 27




Affirmative 26


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 26


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 24


Negative 2

Pierre Laurin

Noise levels currently outlined in B.2.1.5 are below the general noise level limits stipulated by ISO 1999,

EU directive 2003/10/EC, and Canada Occupational Safety and Health Regulations SOR/86-304 Part VII.

Sound levels generated and present in trains, tunnels and stations during normal operation exceed these

proposed sound level limits for emergency response conditions. The proposed sound level criteria may not

be practically achievable nor necessary during emergency in subway ventilation system emergency mode.

Jarrod Alston

Although only proposed as Annex language, the implications of the proposed annex material has not been

fully vetted in terms of what the design requirements and cost implications are for achieving the proposed

sound levels. Further, the intent is for alarm signals to be audible, intelligible, or otherwise

comprehended. Alternative means for achieving those ends are likely possible rather than placing

limitations on sound generation. The NFPA 72 technical committee ought to be conferred with regarding

alarm and notification options in noisy environments.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 25


Negative 1

TRUE

FR-49, Section No. B.2.2, See FR-49

TRUE

FR-38, Section No. B.2.1.5, See FR-38

TRUE

FR-76, Section No. B.2.1.1, See FR-76

TRUE


Page 25 of 27






John F. Devlin

I appreciate the intent of the proposed language and the fact that this information would be Annex

material however a majority of information provide is based upon the premise of voice intelligibility.

Communications with passengers in the tunnel trainway during emergency evacuation can be

accomplished by many means beyond voice communication. Many transit systems are in cities where

many different languages are spoke (There are more than 50 different languages spoken in New York City).

The intent of this standard is to provide guidance on providing minimum requirements for effective

communications; this code change proposal places too much emphasis on voice communications when

there are many other effective means that could be used in a tunnel environment.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 25


Harold A. Locke

The editorial corrections are correct, except that the last equation is not represented (refer to the last

equation on the 2nd page of the attachment:" 3.26 + 2.05 + 0.00 + 0.54 = 5.85 minutes").

Negative 0

Abstain 0

TRUE

FR-78, Section No. C.1.4, See FR-78

Page 26 of 27




Affirmative 26


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 23


Pierre Laurin

Need clarification whether any of the vehicles subjected to full-scale fire testing were compliant with

NFPA-130.

Harold A. Locke

Proposed material is beneficial but could be expanded. Also, it would be beneficial to provide language

that correlates the several different Annexes addressing fire and ventilation.

Negative 1

Jarrod Alston

The proposed Annex material implies that the scenarios listed in section H.2 are exhaustive and the only

ones that may require consideration. Discussion of 'CFD Modeling of Fire Profiles with Cone Calorimeter

Tests of Train Materials' implies that only CFD-based models are capable of predicting fire growth and

development. Alternative form (zone) models exist for this work as well. The limited data presented in

'Full Scale Fire Tests' provides no context (vehcile characteristics, test configuration, etc.) or background

information on any of the test results mentioned. The result is a very confusing outlook on potential heat

release rate. Then, language is included to essentially discredit the test data for a variety of reasons,

calling into question the purpose of including it in the first place. It would be more appropriate to provide

guidance that combustible materials, no matter how well they perform relative to ASTM E162 and ASTM

E663 or ASTM E1354 testing, can be ignited and contribute to vehicle fire development. Therefore, it is

important to develop a system-wide risk profile with respect to potential initiating fire events and to

evaluate the vehicle response from a fire growth and development perspective to thos initiating fires.

However, this risk profile does not necessarily address the design heat release rate for ventilation design

criteria.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 26


Negative 0

Abstain 0

TRUE

FR-40, Chapter H, See FR-40

TRUE

FR-29, New Section after G.1, See FR-29

TRUE

FR-71, Section No. D.3.4, See FR-71

Page 27 of 27




ROC TC Circulation Cover Memo - NFPANational Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park,...

Documents

Transcript of ROC TC Circulation Cover Memo - NFPANational Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park,...