How to Respond to Unlisted/Unrecognized Tech?

4/13/2026

As an AHJ, how do we respond to someone that wants to use new technology that is not recognized by Code / Standard?

Such as Sonic Fire Tech?

https://www.sonicfiretech.com/

Do we recognize it or require UL / FM / "Approval" before allowing it as an approved system?

In other words, what would be the basis for saying "no" at this stage?

Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

12 Comments

M. Newell

4/13/2026 08:08:59 am

If you read through the definitions in NFPA approved does not mean approved by a listing agency. The definition for listing is what normally constitutes UL, FM, or other national recognized testing laboratories. The authority having jurisdiction a lot of time has the option for approval. If you do not feel comfortable with whatever technology is being utilized as “approved”. Then you do not need to allow it. You could also ask for it. It’s equivalency method to show how it would be as effective and not lower the standard based on the standard you are applying to your project.

Sean

4/13/2026 08:21:03 am

Below is general info shared as an example from NFPA 13 as well as enhanced content (sorry for the length) when it comes to performance based alternatives or equivalency. Unsure if this addresses the specific concern with the technology.

“NFPA 13. 1.5 Equivalency: Nothing in this standard is intended to prevent the use of systems, methods, or devices of equivalent or superior quality, strength, fire resistance, effectiveness, durability, and safety over those prescribed by this standard.”

Enhanced Content:
“Section 1.5 provides the user with an option to submit documentation that the proposed alternative or equivalent method of protection meets the equivalent method of design. There are no blueprints on how to submit an equivalency statement; however, it is generally best to start with solid data. Knowledge of the history of current protection criteria is always a plus in making the case for equivalency. The following are some of the documents (not all are required) to submit when making a case for equivalency:

A statement of why (if known) the proposed method is not currently in the standard
Test data and a report, preferably from a recognized laboratory
Historical data on limitations of or assumptions regarding existing criteria in the standard
A report on why the proposal provides equivalent or superior protection to that prescribed in the current standard
Special listings or approvals from recognized laboratories
Data or supporting documentation from a manufacturer
The authority having jurisdiction has the right of approval for all equivalent methods. It is advisable that an authority having jurisdiction reach out to industry experts for opinions and support on equivalency proposals outside its level of expertise.

ASK THE SYSTEM DESIGNER

When a sprinkler contractor provides a unique or creative solution to a problem, the authority having jurisdiction sometimes asks, “Where does it say you can do that in NFPA 13?” Is this a valid approach?

This approach to address compliance issues within the standard is not realistic and is not consistent with how the standard is written. NFPA 13 cannot list every conceivable arrangement of equipment that is acceptable. Instead, NFPA 13 is written to describe what is not allowed. If there is no section in NFPA 13 that prohibits a specific installation or practice, it does not mean that the practice is not acceptable or is unsafe in some way.

For example, because there are concerns over water getting trapped in dry pipe systems where certain types of sprinklers are used on the branch lines, 8.2.2 limits the type of sprinklers that can be used in dry pipe systems. But there is no similar concern with wet pipe systems, so Section 8.1 is silent on what type of sprinkler can be used in wet pipe systems. If a sprinkler contractor were to propose using upright sprinklers on a wet pipe system and the authority having jurisdiction were to ask, “Where does it say that you can do that in NFPA 13?” the answer would be that it does not say that anywhere. Yet it is unquestionable that upright sprinklers can be used on wet pipe systems and that their use is supported by the manufacturer’s listing.”

I do think it’s a good idea as an AHJ to ask the system designer what objectives and level of performance can be expected from the technology, and the backup for it. It may be addressing emerging hazards for which there may not be current NFPA guidance. There may also be other bodies/guidance/standards that could offer guidance where NFPA may not have some, which could be referenced to provide protection against said hazard.

Todd Wyatt

4/13/2026 08:23:44 am

To determine the Code Compliance of materials, designs or methods of construction and equipment, the Building Official (e.g. AHJ) has (3) methods …

1. Listed Compliance,
2. Technical Assistance, and/or
3. Alternative Materials, Design and Methods of Construction and Equipment

... as outlined in IBC-2024 104.2 Determination of Compliance :

IBC-2024
Chapter 1 Scope and Administration
Section 104 Duties and Powers of Building Official
104.1 General
104.2 Determination of Compliance
104.2.1 Listed Compliance
Where this code or a referenced standard requires equipment, materials, products or services to be listed and a listing standard is specified, the listing shall be based on the specified standard. Where a listing standard is not specified, the listing shall be based on an approved listing criteria. Listings shall be germane to the provision requiring the listing. Installation shall be in accordance with the listing and the manufacturer's instructions, and where required to verify compliance, the listing standard and manufacturer's instructions shall be made available to the building official.
104.2.2 Technical Assistance
To determine compliance with this code, the building official is authorized to require the owner or owner's authorized agent to provide a technical opinion and report.
104.2.2.1 Cost
104.2.2.2 Preparer Qualifications
104.2.2.3 Content
104.2.2.4 Tests
104.2.3 Alternative Materials, Design and Methods of Construction and Equipment
104.2.3.1 Approval Authority
An alternative material, design or method of construction shall be approved where the building official finds that the proposed alternative is satisfactory and complies with Sections 104.2.3 through 104.2.3.7, as applicable.
104.2.3.2 Application and Disposition
104.2.3.3 Compliance With Code Intent
104.2.3.4 Equivalency Criteria
104.2.3.5 Tests
104.2.3.5.1 Fire Tests
104.2.3.6 Reports
104.2.3.6.1 Evaluation Reports
104.2.3.6.2 Other Reports
104.2.3.7 Peer Review

Dan Wilder

4/13/2026 08:33:56 am

So many questions....but kuddos for the forward thinking. As there is no recognized exterior fire protection within 13D, it would be a tough sell in my mind.

Is the homeowner asking to use this in lieu of another recognized fire protection method (lesser ratings, construction type, defensible spaces)? If not, I don't see any reason to deny the request...no different than a rainbird system" installation on the peaks and under the eaves or other methods for exterior protection. Does the AHJ even have a permitting method for this or does it fall under electrical (the unit) and structural (attaching to the eaves) or other adoption scheme like NFPA 1144?

I would think, at a minimum, this would need to carry some sort of listing or approval prior to allowance by an AHJ or have some very strong testing methods and results available.

Having all the technical info available up front would be a huge help..what's the battery life, how is it tested, what's the ITM, what about obstructions to the detectors or within the tubing itself, any fire test data available, what is the protection of exterior wires since animals like to gnaw...

Glenn Berger

4/13/2026 08:36:26 am

Learn more about the technology. Understand if there are current installations. Are there any listings anywhere in the world?

Strong chance that it will be a no-go for now.

Chad

4/13/2026 08:48:13 am

Nothing says they cannot try something new, that is not required.

Is someone inferring this would replace something that is code required... Specifically?

Chris Nelson

4/13/2026 09:27:47 am

As an AHJ FPE, two words: demo burn.

And then an internal discussion with my Fire Marshals.

No amount of curated videos would do it for me. Like the one on the promotional video. It was a very small cookie sheet pan fire. If youre being touted as a WUI fire fighting system, that is what I would need to see fought,

Christopher

4/13/2026 09:33:14 am

Edit: even the backpack on the bush was 1 ft away and the shrub was right under the cone. I would need to see one in a less opportune spot than directly under. Build up of leaves from a lazy homeowner etc etc.

Anthony

4/13/2026 10:44:46 am

For any new system I'd like to see a preponderance of evidence that the performance goals the system is intended to replace as an alternative is met.

In no way would I suggest its not allowed as an additional protection measure. Go crazy with addons, but it doesn't meet base level of equivalency for a water or gas based comparison - IMHO.

If the seller was serious about providing this technology they'd go to a listing agency to develop a testing protocol. It's probably their next step or its in the works. But not having it is a red flag for me.

What I'd need to approve it as an equivalency - a near university/listing agency lab set up with live fire tests and tons of data on the back end. Full burns of the environments that the system was intended to protect. I'd also like to understand obstruction rules for this particular device, sound obvious go around objects but will that bend or effect the pressure waves?
Is this product effective on large area fires or only small fires? pooling fires? how do various accelerants effect efficacy? Answer all that and the 10 other questions I come up with as i try and sleep on allowing this device then MAYBE.

Jose R Figueroa

4/13/2026 12:09:48 pm

I found this information online:

“The concept of using sound waves to fight fires isn’t entirely new (earlier experiments used audible frequencies around 30-60 Hz), but Sonic Fire Tech sets itself apart with deeper infrasound for better range, silence, and fewer side effects. Media coverage considers it innovative science rather than a gimmick, highlighting its potential for water-scarce or eco-friendly uses. Fire departments have tested it, and there’s interest from insurers and homeowners for possible discounts or increased home value. However, as a relatively new company (with a commercial rollout expected around late 2025), it’s still in development—long-term performance data from real wildfires will be important to watch.”

I also know they received an innovation award at CES 2026.

The bottom line: Since this is a product intended for residential use in wildfire-prone areas, I doubt it will ever receive FM approval or UL listing.

California will require more testing before they grant state approval.

I would ask if they’ve approached FM Approvals or UL.

The main issues in California are the wind, combustible building materials, and the fact that PG&E is allegedly responsible for many fires.

People tend to live in areas where dead trees and overgrown bushes are not cleared. Fire barriers should be at least 100 yards in all directions.

It's too early to make definitive statements, and I would be cautious due to liability concerns. The technology is very new and needs testing under controlled conditions in a lab. Installing metal roofs or ceramic tiles might be a better option against flying embers. Additionally, some homes with large glass panels can start fires internally due to radiation.

More validation is needed.

PS: What are the side effects?

Mark Harris

4/13/2026 09:50:46 pm

Great discussion. Being from Midwest I don't know if CA requires exterior wildfire protection but as Dan notes not part of NFPA 13D. As far as UL or FM as a new technology there may not been a testing standard.

My experience AHJ looks at what their adopted Code requires. Example if the IBC requires 100% NFPA 13 sprinkler protection it usually means other systems need to be supplemental to the required code protection. Examples are water mist or clean agent in data rooms still requiring NFPA 13 system in the special system protected area. But have seen oxygen reduction systems in freezers that FM now has a data sheet on design Was not personally involved but my understanding is there have been United States installs.

Don't recognize the detectors. Comment about wiring being rodent compromised if not in conduit is real. Just saw it on a flood light on my daughter's house and friend had car wiring rodent snack issues.

Sorry for long response do want to see industry benefit from new technology but not if it compromises safety or standards.

ramya link

6/22/2026 08:58:03 am

that's a great idea. Thanks a lot

How to Respond to Unlisted/Unrecognized Tech?

Leave a Reply.

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

COMMUNITY

YOUR POST

PE EXAM

FILTERS

ARCHIVES

PE PREP SERIES