Aroused unexpected interest our last article in which it appeared in a nutshell, the new standard (Code) NFPA 72.
The reason is probably linked to the considerable technical and editorial gap that exists between the American standard, solid and complete, and the European equivalent, EN 54-14. The latter has only the rank of a guideline and not a rule (which is why there is the UNI 9795), and is dated November 2004.The continued lack of a European agreement on the identification of a rule of common project has therefore given birth to a mouse This standard practically unapplied everywhere, in Europe and beyond.
Rest assured, soon will come the 2016 version of TS 54-14, that will go the same way as the previous version: oblivion. With the result, already stated, with a net loss of competitiveness of European companies that they stepped out of the national border to sell systems in geographic areas in which the pair NFPA-UL / FM is winning. You go on to explain the Authority Having Jurisdiction for any country that the products are compatible with EN NFPA 72. In nine cases out of ten will answer spades, because it is much more automatic and less empowering for those who must approve a system of fire alarm accept products with a certificate conforming to one standard cited in the bibliography of NFPA 72, which engage in a comparative exercise. Because it is not always favorable, indeed.
The clear message, then, is as follows: in the absence of a provision of credible European project, the attractiveness of the products EN 54 is therefore limited to their respective national borders.
I add: the suggestion to pursue the path of European Technical Assessment (ETA) for products not covered by a standard EN 54 is so interesting but weak, very weak. Thinking of transferring the responsibility to standardize products from the technical bodies of the European Commission to the builders apparently equivalent to believe self-redemption of evildoers as a criterion to defeat crime, instead of producing good laws and their implementation.
The shortcomings in the standards is resolved by writing good standards, not delegating the manufacturer to request a European Assessment Document (EAD), when it is known that in the absence of rule is more befitting continue as-it-is-always-done rather than invest money in product certification. The example cable thermosensitive not restorable, which still do not exist product standard, is indicative. Like the one of the modules addressed used for all-and-the-opposite-of-round.


The request for the European Technical Assessment (ETA) based on a European Assessment Document (EAD) raises a number of problems:
  1. Absence of a TAB (technical assessment body) for Italian products of fire alarm. Check for yourself.                                                             
  2.  Annex II to Regulation CPR requires the establishment of a working group for the preparation of an EAD. But as members would be appointed by the TAB for this pseudo-standard ?? The same parties involved in drawing up standards EN 54; then the use EAD seems to be only a short-cut to solicit a European position on a product voluntarily not covered by a harmonized standard.                                    
  3.  It is difficult to understand how the EAD would be applied by all manufacturers of the same product, to avoid unfair competition between those who would subject the product certification according to the EAD and who would avoid.