final results memo 2013 - nfpa · 2016-03-28 · gene monaco, jeffrey a. betz vote selection votes...

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 Supervising Station Fire Alarm and Signaling Systems

From: Jenny Depew, Administrator, Technical Projects

Date: December 23, 2013

Subject: NFPA 72 First Draft TC FINAL Ballot Results (A2015)

According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass ballot.

27 Members Eligible to Vote 2 Ballots Not Returned (J. Betz, G. Monaco) 17 Affirmative on All Revisions 3 Affirmative with Comment on one or more Revision (D. Blanken, W. Olsen, I. Papier) 5 Negative on one or more Revision (A. Black, D. Blanken, L. Coveny, W. Olsen, I. Papier)

0 Abstentions on one or more Revision The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the explanation of the vote for each first revision.

There are two criteria necessary for each first revision to pass ballot: (1) simple majority and (2) affirmative 2/3 vote. The mock examples below show how the calculations are determined.

(1) Example for Simple Majority: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members, 11 affirmative votes are required to pass ballot. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligible to vote ÷ 2 = 10 + 1 = 11)

(2) Example for Affirmative 2/3: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members and 1 member did not

return their ballot and 2 members abstained, the number of affirmative votes required would be 12. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligble to vote – 1 not returned – 2 abstentions = 17 x 0.66 = 11.22 = 12 )

As always please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

NFPA 72 (A2015) First Draft TC Ballot FINAL

Eligible to Vote: 27

Not Returned : 2

Gene Monaco, Jeffrey A. Betz

Vote Selection Votes Comments

Affirmative 25

Affirmative with Comment 0

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0

FR-1, Section No. 3.3.189, See FR-1



Election:72_A2015_SIG-SSS_FD_ballot

Results by Revision

FR-5, Section No. 3.3.43.2, See FR-5

1

http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/FormLaunch?id=/TerraView/Content/72-2013.ditamap/2/C1372086378153.xml&viewmode=nfpa/xslt/nfpaviewmode.xsl






Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0

FR-13, New Section after 26.2.1, See FR-13




2







Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 21


Warren E. Olsen While I agree with the work of the committee related to FR-17 I am not certain,

after further review of the proposed changes, that the new 26.2.3.1 is needed. This

additional sub-section appears to be repeating what is being said in 26.2.3. I will

likely submit a Public Input to remove it during the 2nd Draft session.

David A. Blanken Section 26.2.3.1 is redundant. It just repeats what is already stated in section

26.2.3.

Negative 2

Isaac I. Papier The concept of "Preverification" was never contemplated when the alarm

verification proposal was made for the 2013 edition of the code. When the alarm

verification proposal was originally made particularly by the IAFC the intent was

and remains that the verification process be completed within the 90 second time

window for alarm retransmission at the central station. There was no intent or

provision for this time period to be extended beyond the 90 seconds. The concept

of the central station calling the emergency dispatch center informing them of an

alarm verification in process is a disruption of a vital resource. The individual

receiving the call at the dispatch center will not stay on the line waiting for the

verification. Further after verification when the second call is made by the central

station it is unlikely that the same operator at the emergency dispatch center will

answer. There is no provision for the second operator to know what the first

operator said or did. The IAFC membership is on record as being totally opposed to

the concept of "preverification".

Lawrence E. Coveny 26.2.3.1 is already being stated in 26.2.3

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0


FR-17, Sections 26.2.2, 26.2.3, See FR-17

3





Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 24


Isaac I. Papier Why was the word "all" removed from this requirement?

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 24


Isaac I. Papier Why was the word "all" removed from this requirement? Just having the word

zones is confusing as it does not specify which zones.

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0




4






Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0


FR-23, Section No. 26.4.6.6.1, See FR-23




5








Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 21


Negative 4

Art Black This provision is not enforceable because the AHJ can determine where remote

station signals may be permitted to be received. If this section moves forward, it

will undoubtedly be reversed at the 2nd draft meeting.

Warren E. Olsen By the narrowist of margins, FR-37 was passed at the First Draft meeting and

makes a significant change to the long-standing concept of Remote Supervising

Station Alarm Systems by removing the AHJs ability to permit remote station

monitoring at an alternate location such as a listed central station when the AHJ

does not have the ability to, nor desires to, monitor signals. The proposed

language would remove the AHJs ability to require signals (under 26.5) to be sent

to a communications center or other governmental agency, when the AHJ can or

desires to monitor those signals, by allowing signals to be sent to a listed central

station without an AHJ's approval. There are definite benefits provided to the AHJ

when he/she has signals directly sent to a communication center or other

governmental agency which would not be required by the current language simply

by sending signals to a listed central station. Under the proposed language the

listed central station is not under any obilgation to report the status of alarm

systems in a jurisdiction to the local AHJ as would occur when the signals are being

received directly at the communication center or other governmental agency.

Comments in the committee session indicated that the proposed language would

address a restraint of trade issue but the existing code language clearly allows the

use of listed central stations when Central Station Service (26.3) is provided and

the model building and fire codes also allow for this option. I would recommend

that existing language in the 2013 edition of the code be retained as there was no

clear concensus within the committee that this change was necessary and there is

no evidence that there is a wide-spread problem with the language.

David A. Blanken Implicit in this seemingly innocuous addition to the code is the assumption that

central station service is equal to remote station in every performance metric one

cares to measure. On the contrary, the response time for remote stations with

current technology is faster than central stations because there are fewer

intermediary delays. Also, many with knowledge of the facts have stated in

committee hearings that false alarms are significantly reduced with the use of

remote station services. The truth is that central station does not meet the

performance of remote station for some critical metrics that many LAHJ's consider

to be of paramount importance. This FR will take away the LAHJ's right to decide. If

on the other hand, an LAHJ is willing to allow central stations to serve as remote

stations, the code already permits that decision via section 26.5.3.1.4

Lawrence E. Coveny This proposal eliminates the ability of an AHJ to choose to have signals sent to a

PSAP or other governmental agency.

Abstain 0

FR-37, New Section after 26.5.3.1.2, See FR-37

6




Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0

FR-12, Global Input, See FR-12





7








Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0

FR-32, Section No. 26.6.3.2.1.1, See FR-32

FR-31, Sections 26.6.3.1.6, 26.6.3.1.7, See FR-31




8








Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 22


Negative 3

Warren E. Olsen This change conflicts with FR-59 which allows for "routine handling" to take 90

seconds. When alarm verification is utilized, FR-35 allows the 90 seconds of

"routine handling" to begin following the permitted 90 seconds of verification

which would result in a sum of up to a possible of 180 seconds. The intended

maximum total time for alarm processing was hotly debated in committee and it

was clear that there was disagreement among committee members and NFPA staff

what the maximum time was really suppossed to be. In speaking to the Task Group

chair for the alarm verification project, he confirmed that the original task group

never intended alarm processing to take more than 90 seconds with, or without,

verification. Given the current state of building materials in use including light-

weight construction, delaying an alarm signal retransmission by more than 90

seconds could have very detrimental consequences to responding firefighters.

Lastly, leaving FR-35 and FR-59 as proposed would provide confusing code

requirements as they conflict in the meaning of "immediately".

Lawrence E. Coveny The idea that this code would allow upwards of a 3 minute delay in retransmission

of an activated fire alarm is preposterous. I am sure this was not the intent of the

committee when alarm verification was accepted into the 2013 code.

David A. Blanken This annex material confuses rather than clarifies the 90 second requirements for

retransmission. It allows an additional 90 seconds for verification, i.e. 180 seconds

total, which was not the intent of the comittee.

Abstain 0

FR-35, New Section after A.26.2.1, See FR-35


FR-33, Section No. 26.6.3.2.1.4(B), See FR-33

9






Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0

FR-9, New Section after A.26.4.6.5, See FR-9

FR-8, Section No. A.26.3.4.6, See FR-8

FR-7, New Section after A.26.2.7, See FR-7

FR-36, Section No. A.26.2.3.2, See FR-36

FR-59, Section No. A.26.2.1, See FR-59

10








Not Returned : 2



Affirmative 25


Negative 0

Abstain 0

FR-40, Section No. A.26.6.3.1.7, See FR-40

11


final results memo 2013 - nfpa · 2016-03-28 · gene monaco, jeffrey a. betz vote selection votes...

Documents