Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
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
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
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
FR-1, Section No. 3.3.189, See FR-1
FR-11, Section No. 3.3.80, See FR-11
FR-6, Section No. 3.3.65, See FR-6
Election:72_A2015_SIG-SSS_FD_ballot
Results by Revision
FR-5, Section No. 3.3.43.2, See FR-5
1
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
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
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
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
FR-13, New Section after 26.2.1, See FR-13
FR-4, Section No. 3.3.249, See FR-4
FR-3, Section No. 3.3.226, See FR-3
FR-2, Section No. 3.3.204, See FR-2
2
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 21
Affirmative with Comment 2
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
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
FR-16, Section No. 26.2.7.1, See FR-16
FR-17, Sections 26.2.2, 26.2.3, See FR-17
3
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 24
Affirmative with Comment 1
Isaac I. Papier Why was the word "all" removed from this requirement?
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 2
Gene Monaco, Jeffrey A. Betz
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 1
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
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
FR-20, Section No. 26.3.3, See FR-20
FR-19, Section No. 26.2.7.3, See FR-19
FR-18, Section No. 26.2.7.2, See FR-18
4
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
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
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
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
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
FR-24, Section No. 26.4.7.3, See FR-24
FR-23, Section No. 26.4.6.6.1, See FR-23
FR-22, Section No. 26.3.8.3, See FR-22
FR-14, Section No. 26.3.8.1.1, See FR-14
FR-21, Section No. 26.3.4.7, See FR-21
5
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 21
Affirmative with Comment 0
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
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
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
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
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
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
FR-12, Global Input, See FR-12
FR-10, Section No. 26.6.2.4, See FR-10
FR-27, Section No. 26.6.2.3.2, See FR-27
FR-26, Section No. 26.6.1.1, See FR-26
FR-25, Section No. 26.5.6, See FR-25
7
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
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
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
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
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
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
FR-28, Section No. 26.6.3.1.3, See FR-28
FR-29, Section No. 26.6.3.1.2, See FR-29
FR-30, Section No. 26.6.3.1.15.1, See FR-30
8
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
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
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 2
Gene Monaco, Jeffrey A. Betz
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
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-34, Section No. 26.6.3.2.1.5, See FR-34
FR-33, Section No. 26.6.3.2.1.4(B), See FR-33
9
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
FR-40, Section No. A.26.6.3.1.7, See FR-40
11