Agenda Technical Committee on Supervising Station Fire ... … · Agenda Technical Committee on...

Agenda Technical Committee on

Supervising Station Fire Alarm and Signaling Systems June 23-24, 2014

La Jolla, CA

Item No. Subject 14-6-1 Call to Order (8:00 A.M) 14-6-2 Roll Call 14-6-3 Approval of Agenda 14-6-4 Approval Meeting Minutes – June 2013 [Enclosure] 14-6-5 Staff Remarks & Using the New Process [Staff] 14-6-6 Task Group Reports 14-6-7 Public Comments and Second Revisions [Enclosures] 14-6-8 Review of Committee Inputs [Enclosure] 14-6-9 Other Business 14-6-10 Adjournment

NFPA 72 Supervising Station Fire Alarm Systems SIG-SSS Chapter 26

SSS FD Meeting June 24, 25, & 26, 2013 St. Louis, MO

Page 1 of 4

Minutes Prepared by: Tony Mucci Tyco Integrated Security

1501 Yamato Rd Boca Raton, FL 33431

Meeting Minutes Technical Committee on

Supervising Station Fire Alarm Systems SIG-SSS First Draft Meeting

June 24, 25, & 26, 2013 St Louis, MO

Day 1 – Monday June 24, 2013 Meeting called to order at 8:08AM Monday June 24, 2013 by Warren Olsen. Introductions: Members, alternates, and guests introduced themselves. Committee approved the meeting Agenda and the meeting minutes for ROC Oct 12 & 13, 2011 Richmond, VA, and Nov 17, 2011 teleconference. NFPA Staff Remarks: Lee Richardson - Reviewed FD participation and rules for principals and alternates. - Attendance sheet was passed around with request to review contact info for correctness. - Safety review for the event of a fire or fire drill. - All upcoming dates for cycle were presented. Dates can be found on NFPA.org. - Covered Robert’s Rules of Order and a review of the meeting process and rules - Overview of the “New Process”, change in terms, First Draft voting, - Covered Anti Trust and Legal requirements and rules - Information can be found on the NFPA Document Information Page www.nfpa.org/72 - Slide presentation “Working in the New Process” that compares the new to old with using

4 examples with the TerraView system. The TerraView pages will be available from the online Document Information pages during Public Input period (PI), TC Ballot time, and when appropriate as controlled by NFPA.

- Reviewed the Strategy to improve Correlation to improve process efficiency. - Reviewed Assignment of TC Responsibility for items in chapters other than SSS that we

affect. - The final First Draft after committee balloting will be posted March 7, 2014 Break 9:15 – 9:30 AM Task Group Reports: - none Industry Round Table: AFAA – none NEMA – none



Page 2 of 4

CSAA – Lou Fiore presented slides. Working to reopen and revise standards for Enhanced Called Verification and CO response, currently working on a video standard that introduces “Video Only” Central Station. (Slide presentation attached) AICC – Lou Fiore presented slides about the AICC (part of CSAA), and what they do, and the member list. Discussed some of the activities, including; 2G Sunset, FirstNet (D-Block 10MHz for first responders), Progeny location service interference with 902 to 928 MHz alarm wireless sensors, Nationwide Monitoring License Bill, and NG911 issues for device/detector notification directly to emergency responders. Verizon and Sprint will be presenting at upcoming meetings. (Slide presentation attached) ESA – none FM – none ETL – none UL – Steve Schmit: UL 827 is out for review and revision FSSA – none IMSA – none Chair remarks: No additional remarks. Begin proceedings to process 71 Public Inputs using TerraView. Review of Public Input began 10:00AM Break 11:15 AM to 11:30 AM - Public Input No. 97 ; Resolution to be moved to the Correlating Committee Lunch 12:20 AM to 1:40 PM Break 2:30 PM to 2:40 PM Break 3:50 PM to 4:00 PM Two Task Groups were assigned to resolve and propose a Committee Input (CI) - Individual point, zone, and grouped identification - 5 Public Inputs for alarm pre verification Day 1 recessed at 5:08 PM to reconvene tomorrow 6/25/13 at 7:30AM. Day 2 – Thursday June 25, 2013 Meeting called to order at 7:30 AM Tuesday June 25, 2013 by Chairman Olsen. Meeting resumed with Task Group reports. - Individual point, zone, and grouped identification - 5 Public Inputs for alarm pre verification



Page 3 of 4

Break 8:40 to 8:50 AM Continued with Task Group reports Task Group Reports concluded 9:20 AM - Individual point, zone, and grouped identification - CI created with committee consensus - 5 Public Inputs for alarm pre verification – FR created with committee consensus Resumed review of Public Input 9:20 AM Break 10:00 AM to 10:10 AM Lunch 12:20 AM to 1:30PM Break 2:35 PM to 2:50PM Break 4:15 PM to 4:25 PM - A task group will be assigned to address the FRs for Pre-Verification, Verification, and

the maximum time allowance for each. Work will begin outside of this FD meeting and will be completed in advance of the SD meeting middle of next year.

Day 2 recessed at 6:30 PM to reconvene tomorrow 6/26/13 at 7:30 AM. Day 3 – Wednesday June 26, 2013 Meeting called to order at 7:30 AM June 26, 2013 by Chairman Olsen. - Warren Olsen stepped down as Chair so that he could participate in the review and

discussion for Remote Station Municipal and Remote Station Public covered by PI #150, 151, 152, 153, and 172. Donald Panell substituted as Chair.

Break 8:55 AM to 9:05AM - Resumed discussion with PIs 150, 151, 152, 153, 172 for Remote Station Municipal and

Remote Station Public. A motion and second was made to resolve all these PIs by dismissing them because they do not provide indented clarity. A vote was taken with a majority agreeing with the motion. Bob Boyer requested to be noticed in the minutes as abstaining from the vote.

- A motion with a second was made to add a new paragraph under Remote Station

Systems Facilities to include alarm, supervisory, and trouble signals shall be permitted to be received at a Listed Central Station. A vote was taken with 10 in favor and 9 opposed. Bob Boyer and Steve Schmit requested to be noticed in the minutes as abstaining from the vote.

9:35 AM - Donald Panell substitute Chair stepped down and Warren Olsen returned as Chair. - Review resumed with next PI.



Page 4 of 4

- A task group will be assigned to address PI #8 for retransmission using the ASAP-to-

PSAP service. The PI as written addresses only Remote Station, but PSAP is intended to be used with all service types that notify the communication center (PSAP). A motion and second was made to resolve the PI by dismissing it. CI # 39 was created as a place holder for a task group to be assembled to resolve the CI outside of this FD meeting. Work will begin outside of this FD meeting and will be completed in advance of the SD meeting middle of next year.

Break 10:05 AM to 10:15 AM - The Committee reviewed definitions provided by Jack McNamara, the committee decided

to keep our definitions as is. - The committee reviewed reference documents for correct edition numbers and dates. The

committee agreed that we could handle changes at the SD meeting mid next year. UL will present the changes that exist at that time IN UL documents as part of the meeting’s Industry Round Table review.

NEW BUSINESS: none OLD BUSINESS: none Meeting adjourned at 10:48 AM Wednesday June 26, 2013 Attachments: CSAA & AICC Industry Round Table Report (.pptx) Attendance List Respectfully Submitted, Tony Mucci Tyco Integrated Security, LLC

ATTENDANCE LIST FD June 24, 25, & 26, St Louis, MO

Attended Name Organization Status

x Lee Richardson NFPA Staff x Olsen, Warren IL Fire Inspectors Association Chair Aus, Geoffrey Menlo Park Fire Protection Dist. P x Bigelow, Raymond Town of Needham, MA FD / IMSA P x Black, Art Carmel FD P x Blanken, David Keltron Corp. P x Bonifas, Edward Alarm Detection Systems P x Boyer, J. UTC / Edwards / NEMA P x Brown, Thomas The RJA Group, Inc P x Buckley, Robert Signal Communications P x Carroll, Paul Central Signal Corp . P Connaughton, Thomas Intertek Testing Services P x Coveny, Lawrence Chicago Metro Fire Prevention Co P x Crews, James Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co P x Egan, Patrick Select Security P x Elliott, Bob FM Approvals P x Fiore, Lou L.T. Fiore, Inc P Hu, Xianxu Insurance Services Office, Inc. P x Kleinman, Richard AFA Protective Systems P Monaco, Eugene Monaco Enterprises P x Mucci, Tony Tyco Integrated Security P x Pannell, Donald Memphis Fire Department P x Papier, Isaac Honeywell Life Safety P x Schmit, Steve UL P x Silva, Paul CSAA P x Titus, Sean Fike Corporation / FSSA P x Vaughn, Allyn JBA Consultants P Aiken, Douglas International Municipal Signal Associates A x Betz, Jeffrey AT&T Corp A (Voting) x Dwyer, William Germantown Fire Department A Farraher, Martin Fire Supression Systems A Gagliardi, Cheryl FM Approvals A x Hope, Gordon Honeywell Inc. A

Johnson, Michael The RJA Group, Inc. A x Lowery, Kenneth Insurance Services Office, Inc. A x Mann, Larry Central Station Inc. / AFAA A x May, Scott Bosch Security Systems / NEMA A Miesch, Arnold Intertek A Mitchell, Robert Bay Alarm / CSAA A x Olson, Paul UL A x Reiswig, Rodger Tyco/Simplex Grinnell A Sargetnt, Steven Keltron A

Scholes, Robert Fireman’s Fund Insurance A Tokarz, Frank Monaco Enterprises A

Guests

x McCarver, Randall Telcordia Technologies G x Rauter, Steve Wescom 9-1-1 G

NFPA 72NFPA 72First Draft MeetingCSAA & AICC Report

June 24, 2013June 24, 2013St Louis, MO

T iTopics

• CSAA Standards

• AICC ActivityGSM “S t”GSM “Sunset”

CSAA Standards ActivityCSAA Standards Activity

Standards Under RevisionStandards Under Revision

ANSI/CS V 01 2008• ANSI/CS-V-01-2008

codifies Enhanced Call Verification

mentions the use of Audio and Video Verification

• ANSI/CS CO 01 200x• ANSI/CS-CO-01-200x

carbon Dioxide

Reopen CS-V-01Reopen CS V 01

• to add additional types of video

• to add a methodology to allow for listing of “Video Only” Central Stations

AICC MembersAES Intellinet

CSAA

ESA

SIA

AES Intellinet

Alarm.com

Axesstel, Inc.

Axis Communications

BoschSIA

ADT

AFA Protective Systems

Alarm Detection

Bosch

DMP

DSC

Encore NetworksAlarm Detection

ASG Security

Bay Alarm

COPS Monitoring

DGA S it

Honeywell

Interlogix

Inovonics

Linear CorpDGA Security

Security Network of America

Security Networks

Select Security

LogicMark

Napco Security

Numerex (Uplink)

RSI-VideofiedTyco Integrated Security

United Central Control

Universal Atlantic Systems

Vector Security

Telular

Tyco Security Products

Wyless, Inc.

Vivint FM Approvals

Intertek Testing

Underwriters Laboratories

Major Topics

The 2G Sunset and FirstNet

Progeny: 902 to 928 MHz interferenceProgeny: 902 to 928 MHz interferenceDebaters: NextNav v Part 15 CoalitionInterference to short range devices: Innovonics, DMP,

RSI-Videofied, LogicMark, Z-Wave, Zigbeeg g

Nationwide Monitoring License Bill passage into Law

Co-Chairs Jim McMullen and Pat Egan

Verizon Wireless to present at our next meeting

S i t t t t D b tiSprint to present at our December meeting

Devote more time to our FirstNet interests

NG911 Issues

GSM Sunset … Less Than 4 Years Away

• an incredible challenge facing the alarm industry: on Jan 1, 2017 AT&T will shut down their 2G GSM/GPRS cellular2017, AT&T will shut down their 2G GSM/GPRS cellular network.

• This requires replacing an estimated 4 to 5 million GSM alarm d i b f 2G GSM i i d d th d dlidevices before 2G GSM service is removed—and the deadline is now less than four years away!

• Many alarm companies have started dealing with the replacement, but others have not yet begun to address this issue.

Mobile Data Traffic Growth

What Does The Future Hold?• We have experienced one technology sunset recently (the

AMPS Sunset in 2008) and will undergo another one soon (the 2G GSM Sunset in 2016).2G GSM Sunset in 2016).

• Even other current cellular technologies are likely to change in time – 3G HSPA will work through the end of this decade at least and 2G CDMA will exist to the early years of the nextleast, and 2G CDMA will exist to the early years of the next decade.

• Once fully deployed, LTE will last a long time, but we should h hi i i h C inot assume that this is permanent either. Carriers must

continue to enhance performance. For example, in time, LTE will be followed by a new standard currently in development, ll d LTE Ad dcalled LTE Advanced.

The real story – 2G (GPRS/1XRTT)y ( )

2016 sunset really means starting now and gone by end 20162016 sunset really means starting now and gone by end 2016

Guaranteed allocation of 25%-30% of 1900 Spectrum for 2G through end 2017 earliest but projecting no sunset date as of yet (safe to assume 2020 earliest)

Commitment for 1xRTT through 2019 anecdotallyCommitment for 1xRTT through 2019, anecdotally

No sunset for 1xRTT, saying ‘Network Vision’ will extend 1xRTT “indefinitely”

ALL 4 major operators each cover >300 million POPs with 2G

The real story – 3G (EVDO/HSPA)y ( )

No commitment for HSPA longevity but expected through 2020No commitment for HSPA longevity but expected through 2020

HSPA longevity committed through 2020

EVDO longevity committed till 2019

No sunset for EVDO, saying ‘Network Vision’ will extend EVDO “indefinitely”

The real story – 4G LTEy

237 markets deployed covering 288 Million People237 markets deployed covering 288 Million People

LTE Advanced (10), fastest LTE available, but not fully deployed till mid ’14200 Million POPs by EOY

Most aggressive LTE Deployment yet, fully deployed at “every EVDO Tower” by end ’13, >90% of US POPs by EOY

LTE Rev 10, fastest LTE available, but not fully deployed till end ‘14

FirstNetFirstNet

New Band Plan - Adopted by FCC on July 31, 2007

746 763 768 769 772 775 776 793 798 799 802 805 806

D5

PSBB5

A1

C11

B1

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

B1

C11

A1

GB1

PSNB6

PSNB6

GB1

PSBB5

D5

746 763 768 769 772 775 776 793 798 799 802 805 806

Single NationwidePublic Safety Broadband License

(Licensed to the Public Safety Spectrum Trust)

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

Allocated to the Nationwide PSBLBy Congressional Action

Advantages to Alarm SystemsAdvantages to Alarm Systems

• PriorityPriority

• Negotiated rates probably lower than on• Negotiated rates probably lower than on the public networks

• Hardened Network

• Longevity of Technology

M-MLSM MLS

The Location and Monitoring Service (LMS) is a locationing technology optimized for use in urban environments and in buildings, where other technologies, such as GPS, may not work well or at all. Two different types of LMS are defined:

Multilateration LMS (M-LMS) and non-multilateration LMS. The respective FCC definitions are: Multilateration LMS system: A system that is designed to locate vehicles or other objects by measuring the difference of time of arrival, or j y g ,difference in phase, of signals transmitted from a unit to a number of fixed points or from a number of fixed points to the unit to be located.

Non-multilateration LMS System. A system that employs any of a number of non-multilateration technologies to transmit information to and/or from vehicular units. LMS shares the band with a variety of users.

MultilaterationMultilateration

A navigation technique based on theA navigation technique based on the measurement of the difference in distance to two or more stations at known locations thattwo or more stations at known locations that broadcast signals at known times.

CSRIC

The Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability y y

Council

Progeny Test ResultsProgeny Test Results

AICC will be collecting interference information allegedl ca sed binformation allegedly caused by Progeny from industry and g y yforwarding this information to the FCCFCC.

Questions?

Thank you!

Public Comment No. 93-NFPA 72-2014 [ Section No. 26.1.2 ]

26.1.2

The requirements of Chapters 7, 10, 12, 14, and 23 shall also apply unless they are in conflict with thischapter.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment

CC NOTE: The following CC Note No. 27 appeared in the First Draft Report.

The correlating committee makes reference to 26.1.2 and the phrase ", unless they are in conflict with this chapter." Requirements should not conflict. Where deviations from the requirements of other chapters are warranted they should be identified and addressed through appropriate allowances in the code language. The correlating committee directs the SIG-SSS committee to review the requirements in Chapter 26 with consideration to resolving any identified conflicts with other chapters. Where changes are made they should be done without introducing new material in the second draft phase. In addition the committee should consider rewording 26.1.2 to positive language. For example: The requirements of chapters x, y and z shall apply unless otherwise noted in this chapter.

Related Item

Correlating Committee Note No. 27-NFPA 72-2014 [Section No. 26.1.2]

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: CC on SIG-AAC

Organization: CC on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Thu May 08 12:54:09 EDT 2014

National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...

97 of 346 5/19/2014 11:24 AM


26.2.2 * Alarm Signal Verification.

26.2.2.1

For applications other than those addressed under the scope of 29.7.9.2, supervising station personnelshall attempt to verify alarm signals prior to reporting them to the communication center where all thefollowing conditions exist:

(1)

(2) Documentation of the requirement for alarm signal verification is provided by the responsible firedepartment to the supervising station and the protected premises.

(3) If the requirement for verification changes, the responsible fire department shall notify the supervisingstation and the protected premises.

(4)

(5) Verification of a true fire is received from anyone on premises or verification of an unwanted alarmsignal is received only from a pre-assigned list of authorized personnel within the protected premises.

(6)

(7)

(8)


This proposal resolves any confusion about the time allocated for Verification. We represented the International Association of Fire Chiefs (original proponents) when this section was added in the 2013 NFPA 72 process. It was unquestionably our intent to allow an extra 90 seconds for the Verification process. The logic is simple: If we require an extra function, we must allow extra time for it to be accomplished.

This was captured in our testimony and in our outreach information, such as excerpt from the IAFC – NFPA 72 Fact Sheet: Concept One: 90-Second Verification Delay The IAFC is proposing language that would allow a 90-second delay in notification in order for those monitoring a central station alarm in a commercial environment to determine if the alarm is false. It was our goal to essentially duplicate the extra 90-seconds allowed in the household section.

This intent was captured accurately in the annex material, which states: A.26.2.3.1(4) The 90-second allowance for a supervising station to call the protected premise to verify the validity of the received alarm signal is independent from the time allowed for the supervising station to initiate the retransmission to the communications center. However, there is some confusion in the industry about whether the annex material is consistent with the requirements in the body.

This proposal modifies the wording in the body of the standard to clarify that it allows an extra 90-seconds. This would be additionally reinforced by the existing Annex language to make the intent quite clear. This newly proposed language was written to be nearly identical that found in 29.7.9.2 for household systems, which is well accepted and understood to provide an additional 90-seconds.

While there are differing views about over the role of delays in alarm signals, it is critical to remember that this is an “Opt-in” requirement. Only those that purposely choose Verification will experience a delay. Those who do not “opt-in” are not affected.

* Alarm signal verification is required by the responsible fire department for a specific protectedpremises.

* The verification process does not take longer delay the reporting by more than 90 seconds fromthe time the alarm signal is received at the supervising station until the time that retransmission of theverified alarm signal is initiated .

* Verified alarm signals are immediately retransmitted to the communications center and includeinformation that the signal was verified at the protected premises to be an emergency.

* Alarm signals where verification is not conclusive are immediately retransmitted to thecommunications center.

* Alarm signals that are verified as unwanted alarms shall be reported to the responsible firedepartment in a manner and at a frequency specified by the responsible fire department.


145 of 346 5/19/2014 11:24 AM

For departments that do choose to “opt-in”, a local decision is being made that the benefit of Verification is worth the delay.

For example, some departments dispatch a single apparatus, Code 1 (non-emergency) on an automatic alarm incident. In this case, a 90-second delay is virtually inconsequential – and a reasonable decision could be made that the benefit of potentially confirming a working fire is well worth the trade-off. This typically upgrades the incident to a full first alarm assignment with 16-25 firefighters traveling Code 3 (based on effective firefighting force analyses conducted per NFPA 1710, etc.). This would dramatically increase both the speed and the size of the response force, and actually results in units arriving SOONER than they would without the Verification delay.

The challenge associated with automatic fire alarm dispatches continues to grow, making it important to address this issue. The following examples were pulled in a quick literature search:

A recent report by Roseville (CA) Fire Department looked at 10-years’ worth of automatic alarms (3,942 calls) and quantified the number of alarms that resulted in a hazard (fire, smoke, water flow, or hot object) that did not have a water flow or grill hood alarm, a reporting party at scene giving an update on conditions, or an otherwise reliable indicator that a fire was in progress. “The total number of alarms meeting these criteria in a period of ten (10) years was found to be two a total of two (2) incidents that meet the criteria.” In both cases, the incidents were small and were mitigated by the first company at the scene. Roseville Fire Dept., Fire Alarm Response Study, Feb 12, 2014.

Henderson, NV eliminated responses to unverified automatic fire alarms after a 2007 study found that 99.994 percent of 4,019 automatic alarm calls were false. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/feb/18/fire-alarm-doesnt-mean-fire-department-coming/

Las Vegas Fire & Rescue eliminated responses to unverified automatic alarms after an analysis looked at 3,700 automatic alarms. After pulling out incidents where other callers contacted 911 on the same incident, there were 3,400 incidents with an automatic alarm dispatch only. Not a single one of those 3,400 automatic alarm incidents involved a fire. http://www.riskinstitute.org/peri/component/option,com_bookmarks/Itemid,44/catid,29/navstart,0/task,detail/mode,0/id,779/search,r/

Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, found only 2 working fires upon arrival out of more than 10,000 commercial automatic alarm dispatches. http://www.etnews.org/docs/TVFR_Alarm_Verification.pdf

A study by the Charlottesville, Virginia, Fire Department concluded that less than 1% of fire alarm calls per year actually involve hazardous or emergency conditions upon the arrival of the fire department. http://www.cfdonline.org/CFD_FireAlarmPolicyFINAL.pdf

We urge the Committee to support this proposal which improves the clarity and usefulness of NFPA 72.

Respectfully submitted,

Stephen A. ForsterDivision Chief / Fire MarshalTualatin Valley Fire & Rescue

Jeffrey D. JohnsonChief (Ret.); Chief Executive Officer Western Fire Chiefs Association

Related Item

Public Input No. 95-NFPA 72-2013 [Section No. 26.2.1]

First Revision No. 36-NFPA 72-2013 [Section No. A.26.2.3.2]


Submitter Full Name: STEVE FORSTER

Organization: Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue

Affilliation: Western Fire Chief's Association

Street Address:


146 of 346 5/19/2014 11:24 AM

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Tue May 13 15:53:03 EDT 2014


147 of 346 5/19/2014 11:24 AM

Public Comment No. 198-NFPA 72-2014 [ Section No. A.26.2.2.1(4) ]

A.26.2.2.1(4)

The 90-second allowance for a supervising station to call the protected premise to verify the validity of thereceived alarm signal is independent from the time allowed for the supervising station to initiate theretransmission to the communications center. A time line would show an alarm signal received at asupervising station at 0.0 seconds. The verification process covered by 26.2.2.1 could take from 0.0seconds up 90 seconds afterwhich the retransmission of the alarm signal to the communications centercould take an additional 90 seconds (0.0 secs plus 90 seconds plus 90 secs) for a total of 180 seconds.


The added text to the annex attempts to further clarify that the 90 seconds permitted to carry out verification occurs before the 90 seconds permitted for alarm signal retransmission. Public Comment #238 was submitted to address the removal of Preverification. Should Preverification be retained in th code the committee should address the time necessary for this act and whether it falls within or outside the 180 seconds permitted for verification and alarm signal retransmission.

Related Item

First Revision No. 17-NFPA 72-2013 [Sections 26.2.2, 26.2.3]


Submitter Full Name: Warren Olsen

Organization: Fire Safety Consultants, Inc.

Affilliation: Illinois Fire Inspectors Association

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



294 of 346 5/19/2014 11:24 AM


26.2.3 Alarm Signal Preverification.

Where alarm signal verification is required by other governing laws, codes, or standards, or by other partsof this code, by the authority having jurisdiction, or by the responsible fire department in accordance with26.2.2 , the supervising station shall immediately notify the communications center that a fire alarm signalhas been received and verification is in process.

26.2.3.1

Where alarm signal verification is required by the responsible fire department in accordance with 26.2.2 ,the supervising station shall immediately notify the communications center that a fire alarm signal has beenreceived and verification is in process.


This proposed change resolves eliminates the Pre-Verification and the variety of problems associated with it. We were part of the International Association of Fire Chief’s (IAFC) working group who proposed Verification when it was added in the 2013 NFPA 72 process; it was never our intent to require Pre-Verification or the delays associated with it.

Pre-Verification is simply a bad idea. 911 centers are not equipped to handle “possible calls”. CAD programs are generally not set up to take calls that are FYI only, then deleted later. This is simply not practical, and it increases call volumes at overworked 911 centers.

Most importantly, a simple analysis of necessary functions reveals that Pre-Verification will delay automatic alarm dispatching by at least 6-7 minutes. It will take time for alarms to be retransmitted by the monitoring center; A26.2.1 acknowledges 90 seconds. Then the call needs to be answered at the PSAP (911 center); the national standard NFPA 1221 prescribes 95% of calls be answered in 15 seconds, and 99% of calls in 40 seconds. After the phone is answered, alarm and address information must be provided; NFPA 1221 prescribes 95% of this information to be processed in 106 seconds. Then 90 seconds is allocated for Verification, and a subsequent 90 seconds for another “immediate” retransmission back to the PSAP after Verification is complete. Adding this sequence up:

90 seconds for “immediate” Pre-Verification retransmission to PSAP15-40 seconds for PSAP to answer the phone106 seconds for PSAP to process the call90 seconds for Supervising Station Verification90 seconds for subsequent retransmission back to PSAP= 391 to 416 second delay (6.5 - 7minutes).

A 6 to 7 minute delay is inappropriate, is not good for the fire service or the public, and was never the intent of the proponents. This section should be eliminated in its entirety. If it is not, then the Committee should revise the section to acknowledge all of the above delays in the standard, allow time for each, and justify how or why such a requirement is prudent.

There was a public input (PI-166) to allow for a jurisdiction to "opt-out" of Pre-Verification; however this is not an adequate solution. The standard should not have such a poorly thought out concept included as the "base" requirement, then force an AHJ to "opt-out" of it. If the committee still believes that Pre-Verification is warranted under any condition given the significant delay and PSAP problems it causes, then it should make it an "Opt-in" function. But if it does so, then the Committee needs to recognize and specifically allow the long delay that it will entail.

Respectfully submitted,

Stephen A. ForsterDivision Chief / Fire MarshalTualatin Valley Fire & Rescue


271 of 346 5/19/2014 11:24 AM

Jeffrey D. JohnsonChief (Ret.); Chief Executive Officer Western Fire Chiefs Association

Related Item


Public Input No. 166-NFPA 72-2013 [Section No. 26.2.2]

Public Input No. 143-NFPA 72-2013 [Section No. 26.2.2.1]


Submitter Full Name: STEVE FORSTER

Organization: Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue

Affilliation: Western Fire Chief's Association

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



272 of 346 5/19/2014 11:24 AM


26.2.3 Alarm Signal Preverification.

Where alarm signal verification is required by other governing laws, codes, or standards, or by other partsof this code, by the authority having jurisdiction, or by the responsible fire department in accordance with26.2.2 , the supervising station shall immediately notify the communications center that a fire alarm signalhas been received and verification is in process.

26.2.3.1



The process of preverification which was added to the 2013 edition of the code adds a cumbersome and confusing step to the verification process. The fire service input during the First Draft phase called for the removal of this requirement. It was pointed out in substantiation from the fire service that this step adds another 90 seconds to the retransmisison process. I am not certain that this is the case as the committee has not clearly spelled out how much is time alotted for preverifcation. Some feel that an additional 90 seconds is permitted for this step and others feel it is part of the 90 seconds for verification. Using either possibility would mean either 270 seconds or 180 seconds, respectively, when you include the 90 seconds already included for basic alarm signal retransmission. The task group chair for the group that worked on the original verification requirement has indicated that his group had never intended verification and retransmission to take longer than 90 seconds total. It was commented at the First Draft meeting that preverification and verification by the supervising station would take longer than the 90 seconds permitted for verification. So do we clarify the code to indicate 270 seconds of total time is permitted. As a fire service professional I would argue that this time is too long given the typical development of a fire. I recommend that the committee eliminate preverification from NFPA 72.

Related Item






Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Fri May 16 15:52:50 EDT 2014


344 of 346 5/19/2014 11:24 AM

Public Comment No. 195-NFPA 72-2014 [ Section No. 26.2.3.1 ]

26

.

2.3.1



It appears that Sections 26.2.3 and 26.2.3.1 indicate the same requirement. 26.2.3.1 would be redundent and should be eliminated for code clarity.

Related Item






Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



282 of 346 5/19/2014 11:24 AM

Public Comment No. 80-NFPA 72-2014 [ Section No. 26.5.3.1 [Excluding any

Sub-Sections] ]

Alarm systems utilizing remote supervising station connections shall transmit alarm and supervisory signalsto a facility meeting the requirements of either 26.5.3.1.1, 26.5.3.1.2, or 26.5.3.1.3, or 26 . 5.3.1.4.


Undo the first revision change because new paragraph 26.5.3.1.3 will be deleted.

Related Public Comments for This Document

Related Comment Relationship

Public Comment No. 76-NFPA 72-2014 [Section No. 26.5.3.1.3]



Related Item

First Correlating Revision No. 33-NFPA 72-2014 [Section No. 26.5.3.1 [Excluding any Sub-Sections]]


Submitter Full Name: David Blanken

Organization: Keltron Corporation

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Mon May 05 16:04:03 EDT 2014


82 of 346 5/19/2014 11:24 AM

Public Comment No. 140-NFPA 72-2014 [ Section No. 26.5.3.1.3 ]

26.5.3.1.3

Alarm, When permitted by the Authority Having Jurisdiction, alarm, supervisory, and trouble signals shallbe permitted to be received at a listed central supervising station.


Remote station fire alarm systems were originally established to allow the public sector to monitor fire alarm signals at a public entity. Until recently, private sector monitoring was permitted only by an exception in the Code. Where the public sector requires monitoring at a public entity such as a police or fire station or 9-1-1 communications center, there should be no conflicting allowances in NFPA 72. To allow the existing language to stand would not achieve the desired effect, because a jurisdiction can simply overrule the allowance to monitor at a central station. This change does not prohibit such monitoring, but would require the permission of the AHJ in order to do so.

Related Item

First Revision No. 37-NFPA 72-2013 [New Section after 26.5.3.1.2]


Submitter Full Name: Art Black

Organization: Carmel Fire Protection

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Wed May 14 06:29:13 EDT 2014


167 of 346 5/19/2014 11:24 AM


26.5.3.1.3

Alarm, supervisory, and trouble signals shall be permitted to be received at a listed central supervisingstation.


During the First Draft technical committee meeting a proposal was made from a committee member to permit signals to be received at a listed central supervising station under the rules of 26.5, Remote Supervising Station Service. There was no technical substantiation provided during committee discussion to warrant this change to a section of Chapter 26 that has historically dealt with requirements affecting first: Communication Centers, Fire Stations and Governmental Agencies; and then second: Alternate receiving locations where permitted by the AHJ. Discussion on this change seemed to center around a specific legal case which went in favor of plantiffs who successfully challenged an AHJ's ability to mandate that alarm signals be sent directly to the AHJ's communications center. Not discussed was a previous case argued several years before where another judge's ruling went the opposite way in favor of the AHJ. The committee seems to have based this revision on a specific legal case and not on any technical merit related to why the remote station rules should be changed to permit listed central station monitoring without AHJ approval.

National model codes specifically permit monitoring by an approved supervising station in accordance with NFPA 72. Depending on several factors, some AHJ's may be able to specifically name their approved supervising station of choice and others can not. NFPA 72 requirements should not be changed based on local contentious issues or modified to benefit one side of a legal argument.

Section 26.5 (and previous like sections in prior editions of the code) has long as established requirements for governmental monitoring in sections 26.5.3.1.1, and 26.5.3.1.2, except where an alternate location is permitted by the AHJ (26.5.3.1.3). Listed central stations provide a valuable service and the language of the 2013 edition, as well as previous editions, of NFPA 72 would allow their use in the Remote Supervising Station monitoring process where approved by the AHJ.

Listed central stations are also an element of Central Station Service where no other type of supervising station is permitted.

I urge the committee to remove this section or provide technical substantiation of why it has been added to the code.

Related Item






Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



277 of 346 5/19/2014 11:24 AM


26.5.3.1.3



The new paragraph is inconsistent with paragraph 26.5.3.3 of the existing code. Paragraph 26.5.3.3 mandates the AHJ to set and enforce requirements restricting access to receiving equipment. The new paragraph permits any listed central station to provide remote station service regardless of AHJ approval, which effectively bypasses any AHJ requirements established by paragraph 26.5.3.3.

Related Item





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



78 of 346 5/19/2014 11:24 AM


26.5.3.1.3



The new paragraph is inconsistent with paragraph 26.5.3.2 of the existing code. Paragraph 26.5.3.2 states that trouble signals shall be permitted to be received at an approved location. The new paragraph permits any listed central station to receive trouble signals regardless of AHJ approval. In particular, only locations that have personnel on duty who are trained to handle remote supervising station trouble signals shall be approved locations. But, the new paragraph permits any listed central station to receive remote supervising station trouble signals without regard to the training of the personnel on duty.

Related Item





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



80 of 346 5/19/2014 11:24 AM


26.5.3.1.3



The new paragraph is inconsistent with paragraph 10.3.1 of the existing code, which states that equipment shall be listed for the purpose for which it is used. Receiving equipment used to receive remote supervising station signals shall be listed to receive remote supervising station signals. The new paragraph permits any listed central station to receive remote supervising station signals without any oversight by the AHJ to ensure that the receiving equipment is properly listed. Receiving equipment listed only to receive central supervising station signals is not permitted to receive remote supervising station signals according to paragraph 10.3.1.

Related Item





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



81 of 346 5/19/2014 11:24 AM

Public Comment No. 166-NFPA 72-2014 [ Section No. 26.6.4.1.4(B) ]

(B)

The following requirements shall apply to all combinations listed in 26.6.4.1.4(A):

(1) The means for supervising each channel shall be in a manner approved for the method oftransmission employed.

(2) If a signal has not been processed over the subject channel in the previous 6 24 hours, a test signalshall be processed.

(3) The failure of either channel shall send a trouble signal on the other channel within 4 minutes.

(4) When one transmission channel has failed, all status change signals shall be sent over the otherchannel.

(5) The primary channel shall be capable of delivering an indication to the DACT that the message hasbeen received by the supervising station.

(6)

(7) Simultaneous transmission over both channels shall be permitted.

(8) Failure of telephone lines (numbers) shall be annunciated locally.


Referring to PI 335, I am submitting the following input.

The DACT technology was originally approved with 24 hour test. It has been effectively used since the early 1980’s and there is no body of evidence showing any poor performance, even though the PSTN has seen radical changes. For some time, the PSTN has had only 8 hours backup power with no adverse effects to DACT.

While the 24 hour requirement is not in line with the 6 hour requirement for newer technologies, the reasons stated below should convince the committee of reverting back to the 24 hour requirement.

Subsidiary station loading is built for the 24 hour test, increasing the test period by four times could overwhelm the current lines and equipment.

Middle of the night test timer failures will rarely generate a repaired system before the next business day. Coordination is required between subsidiary station, service company (if separate), customer and phone service provider.

The addition of three additional tests will ensure test signals during business “open” periods, creating customer dissatisfaction.

Except for extra ordinary and very rare exceptions, the current edition of NFPA 72 does not allow a DACT to be used without another technology. As such, there is assurance of communications integrity by having the extra path and also having the extra path supervise the DACT path.

Without doubt, DACT is a dying technology. POTS lines are being eliminated at record pace. It is likely that the 2019 NFPA code could eliminate it as an acceptable technology. To increase the test time in its waning life is an expense with little benefit and will create financial issues for subsidiary stations with no benefit to the subsidiary station or the protected premises system.

Related Item

Public Input No. 335-NFPA 72-2013 [Section No. 26.6.3.2.1.5]


* The first attempt to send a status change signal shall use the primary channel.

Exception: When the primary channel is known to have failed.


230 of 346 5/19/2014 11:24 AM

Submitter Full Name: Louis Fiore

Organization: L. T. Fiore, Inc.

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Wed May 14 14:22:17 EDT 2014


231 of 346 5/19/2014 11:24 AM

Public Comment No. 51-NFPA 72-2014 [ Section No. 26.6.4.1.4(B) ]

(B)

The following requirements shall apply to all combinations listed in 26.6.4.1.4(A):

(1) The means for supervising each channel shall be in a manner approved for the method oftransmission employed.

(2) If a signal has not been processed over the subject either channel in the previous 6 hours, a testsignal shall be processed.

(3) The failure of either channel shall send a trouble signal on the other channel within 4 minutes.

(4) When one transmission channel has failed, all status change signals shall be sent over the otherchannel.

(5) The primary channel shall be capable of delivering an indication to the DACT that the message hasbeen received by the supervising station.

(6)

(7) Simultaneous transmission over both channels shall be permitted.

(8) Failure of telephone lines (numbers) shall be annunciated locally.


There would likely be financial impact on manufacturers, the industry at large and users of a disappearing technology if a rules change regarding DACT operation is incorporated into the code. Another UL LISTING round for already 9th edition listed DACT’s would make the ones remaining available more costly and some manufacturers could drop needed models completely rather than further invest in a product facing certain decreasing sales. It would not seem to make sense to further restrict operational parameters of a disappearing technology soon to disappear from the code completely in the next couple of cycles. Now is the time to reverse the change in 2013 before its incorporation into UL 864 next edition.

A successful test signal transmission provides the same assurance of communications integrity as any other type of signal transmission. If any other type of signal transmission within a 6-hour period shall fulfill the requirement to verify the integrity of the reporting system, then a single test signal with the same 6-hour period should fulfill the requirement to verify the integrity of the reporting system. It should not be necessary to complete a test signal transmission on each transmission means every 6 hours.

Related Item

First Revision No. 33-NFPA 72-2013 [Section No. 26.6.3.2.1.4(B)]


Submitter Full Name: Steven Sargent


Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Fri Apr 25 11:37:45 EDT 2014

* The first attempt to send a status change signal shall use the primary channel.

Exception: When the primary channel is known to have failed.


50 of 346 5/19/2014 11:24 AM


26.6.4.1.5 DACT Transmission Means.

The following requirements shall apply to all DACTs:

(1) A DACT shall be connected to two separate means of transmission at the protected premises so thata single point of failure on one means of transmission shall not affect the second means oftransmission.

(2) The DACT shall be capable of selecting the operable means of transmission in the event of failure ofthe other means.

(3) The primary means of transmission shall be a telephone line (number) connected to the publicswitched network.

(4)

(5) Each DACT shall be programmed to call a second receiver when the signal transmission sequence tothe first called line (number) is unsuccessful.

(6) Each transmission means DACT shall automatically initiate and complete a test signal transmissionsequence to its associated receiver at least once every 6 hours. A successful signal transmissionsequence of any other type, within the same 6-hour period, shall fulfill the requirement to verify theintegrity of the reporting system, provided that signal processing is automated so that 6-hourdelinquencies are individually acknowledged by supervising station personnel.

(7)


There would likely be financial impact on manufacturers, the industry at large and users of a disappearing technology if a rules change regarding DACT operation is incorporated into the code. Another UL LISTING round for already 9th edition listed DACT’s would make the ones remaining available more costly and some manufacturers could drop needed models completely rather than further invest in a product facing certain decreasing sales. It would not seem to make sense to further restrict operational parameters of a disappearing technology soon to disappear from the code completely in the next couple of cycles. Now is the time to reverse the change in 2013 before its incorporation into UL 864 next edition.

A successful test signal transmission provides the same assurance of communications integrity as any other type of signal transmission. If any other type of signal transmission within a 6-hour period shall fulfill the requirement to verify the integrity of the reporting system, then a single test signal with the same 6-hour period should fulfill the requirement to verify the integrity of the reporting system. It should not be necessary to complete a test signal transmission on each transmission means every 6 hours.

Related Public Comments for This Document

Related Comment Relationship

Public Comment No. 51-NFPA 72-2014 [Section No. 26.6.4.1.4(B)]

Related Item

First Revision No. 33-NFPA 72-2013 [Section No. 26.6.3.2.1.4(B)]


Submitter Full Name: Steven Sargent


Street Address:

* The first transmission attempt shall utilize the primary means of transmission.

* If a DACT is programmed to call a telephone line (number) that is call forwarded to the line(number) of the DACR, a means shall be implemented to verify the integrity of the call forwardingfeature every 4 hours.


51 of 346 5/19/2014 11:24 AM

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Fri Apr 25 11:42:14 EDT 2014


52 of 346 5/19/2014 11:24 AM

Committee Input No. 60-NFPA 72-2013 [ New Section after 3.3.285.3 ]

3.3.286 Supervising Station Signal Identification.

3.3.286.1* Grouped Signals (Zoned) Identification. Signals that are grouped as alarm, trouble,supervisory or other types of grouped signals that are transmitted as the grouped identifier to thesupervising station.

3.3.286.2 Point Identification. Individual devices within a protected premises with discrete identificationthat transmits that identification to the supervising station.

A.3.3.286.1 Grouped Signals (Zoned) Identification. A defined group of devices within a protectedpremises that can include device types, areas, floors or other commonalities in order to convey informationto a supervising station.


Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ]

Organization: [ Not Specified ]

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Mon Jul 15 08:52:37 EDT 2013

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

NFPA 72 does not address how individual point identification signals are to be handled versusgrouped signal (zoned) identification. More and more systems are being installed with individualpoint identification monitoring and the supervising station needs direction on how to handle thesesignals. Further, first responders have noted that more information aids them in assessing asituation and formulating an emergency response plan. See also CI 61.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results

This item has not been balloted


8 of 68 5/29/2014 9:03 AM

Committee Input No. 61-NFPA 72-2013 [ New Section after 26.2.1 ]

26.2.1.5 Alarm signals that are required to be transmitted shall be identified either by grouped signals(zoned) or individual point identification.

26.2.1.5.1* Subsequent grouped alarm signals (zoned) or individual point signals shall be immediatelyretransmitted to the communications center.

A.26.2.1.5.1 Some first responders have found that more information provided to them before arriving onscene is vital to understand and help develop their response plan. For example, if a fire has occurred andspreads to bio-hazardous material, explosive materials etc. the response plan will be dramatically modified.By provided details regarding subsequent signals, fire responders can utilize the details to assist them beingmore efficient in their response to threats.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Wed Jul 17 13:14:26 EDT 2013

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

NFPA 72 does not address how individual point identification signals are to be handled versusgrouped signal (zoned) identification. More and more systems are being installed with individualpoint identification monitoring and the supervising station needs direction on how to handle thesesignals. Further, first responders have noted that more information aids them in assessing asituation and formulating an emergency response plan.

The proposed new material is intended to be added after the material proposed in FR 13.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results



46 of 68 5/29/2014 9:03 AM

Committee Input No. 39-NFPA 72-2013 [ New Section after 26.2.8 ]

26.2.9 Retransmission of Signals.

The methods of retransmitting alarm, supervisory and trouble signals from a supervising station to acommunications center shall include any of the following methods:

(1) A dedicated circuit that is independent of any switched telephone network. This circuit shall be permittedto be used for voice or data communications.(2) A one-way (outgoing only) telephone at the remote supervising station that utilizes the public-switchedtelephone network. This telephone shall be used primarily for voicetransmission of alarms to a telephone at the communications center that cannot be used for outgoing calls.(3) A private radio system using the fire department frequency, where permitted by the fire department.(4) Other methods accepted by the authority having jurisdiction.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Wed Jun 26 10:56:51 EDT 2013

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The proposed change allows for a single section in the general requirements to address themethods of retransmission of signals.

It is not intended that this replace existing 26.2.9.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results



47 of 68 5/29/2014 9:03 AM

Agenda Technical Committee on Supervising Station Fire ... … · Agenda Technical Committee on...

Documents

Transcript of Agenda Technical Committee on Supervising Station Fire ... … · Agenda Technical Committee on...