# NFPA 72 2013 edition



## cda (May 31, 2016)

We are still under 2010 edition for a few more months.

I keep hearing that starting with the 2013 edition that the "two phone line" monitoring is no longer allowed?

I was given chapter 26, but not finding it.

Or, it is worded so that you have to read between the lines.

Anyone hear this and if so can you site the section of 72 it is in.

Thanks


----------



## Builder Bob (May 31, 2016)

look at NFPA org, first TIA for the 2013 edition. Although it might not give you the answer, it should point you into the right direction. 


IDK for sure, but I believe that a two line phone system may still be allowed , they are trying to keep up with technology to allow more options than the old hardwired two -line system.


----------



## Builder Bob (May 31, 2016)

Sorry typo - Should have been TIA 13-3 where it takes about DACTs.


----------



## IJHumberson (Jun 1, 2016)

Per NFPA 72 ('13 ed.), Sect. 26.6.3.2.1.4, one phone line is allowed, but the second transmission means needs to be either 1-way private radio alarm system, 2-way RF multiplex system, or any means complying with Sect. 26.6.3.1 (Performance-based Technologies).

It is my understanding that this change was brought about due to the FCC not requiring phone companies to maintain the old copper-wired systems after this year.


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 2, 2016)

Single communication pathways has been in the 2010 NFPA 72 [26.6.3.1.4.1] as referenced by Chapter 9 of IBC.  The 2010 edition included the AHJ and time allowance to try to clean up some of the supervisory stuff in the Fundamentals.  One must remember especially if your state law is "Mini/Maxi" that...... one can't enforce anything above the minimum requirements of the charging code (IBC) for "new" buildings.  The 2013 edition provision allows a state, local or other AHJ to prohibit the single pathway.  They would have to show cause though since the single pathway or communication method is a "designer choice" not a code officials and the official must only assure that the method is permitted by the referenced code.  The same would hold true for "maintenance" since one will not get another bite at the apple and make the customer upgrade just because they added a new room/area requiring S or H/S.  The single pathway means was developed stemming from the old 2007  future view of growing technologies like we now have with "permitted" GSM's and IGSM's using cellular and Ethernet capabilities. I have been teaching a class to our state alarm industry for the CEU's on successful relationships and code conflict resolution and I'm amazed we still live in Dodge City in many areas....smiles.


----------



## cda (Jun 2, 2016)

FM William Burns said:


> Single communication pathways has been in the 2010 NFPA 72 [26.6.3.1.4.1] as referenced by Chapter 9 of IBC.  The 2010 edition included the AHJ and time allowance to try to clean up some of the supervisory stuff in the Fundamentals.  One must remember especially if your state law is "Mini/Maxi" that...... one can't enforce anything above the minimum requirements of the charging code (IBC) for "new" buildings.  The 2013 edition provision allows a state, local or other AHJ to prohibit the single pathway.  They would have to show cause though since the single pathway or communication method is a "designer choice" not a code officials and the official must only assure that the method is permitted by the referenced code.  The same would hold true for "maintenance" since one will not get another bite at the apple and make the customer upgrade just because they added a new room/area requiring S or H/S.  The single pathway means was developed stemming from the old 2007  future view of growing technologies like we now have with "permitted" GSM's and IGSM's using cellular and Ethernet capabilities. I have been teaching a class to our state alarm industry for the CEU's on successful relationships and code conflict resolution and I'm amazed we still live in Dodge City in many areas....smiles.




Ok so for my simple mind are you saying 2013 or better NFPA 72 HAS. to cannot use two phone lines?


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 2, 2016)

No simply, a single pathway has been acceptable for a while,

A (DACT -Digital Alarm Communicator Transmitter) a type of off site communicator still has the capability of using two phone lines.  It can still be installed in compliance with NFPA 72 as referenced by IBC. If a jurisdiction decides to develop an ordinance prohibiting the allowance of a single path of communication permitted by NFPA 72 presently and the 2013 and 2016 editions they would have to show cause as to do so if the customer doesn't want to pay for another phone line in addition to the off premise monitoring fees.


----------



## cda (Jun 2, 2016)

FM William Burns said:


> No simply, a single pathway has been acceptable for a while,
> 
> A (DACT -Digital Alarm Communicator Transmitter) a type of off site communicator still has the capability of using two phone lines.  It can still be installed in compliance with NFPA 72 as referenced by IBC. If a jurisdiction decides to develop an ordinance prohibiting the allowance of a single path of communication permitted by NFPA 72 presently and the 2013 and 2016 editions they would have to show cause as to do so if the customer doesn't want to pay for another phone line in addition to the off premise monitoring fees.




I keep hearing two phone line monitoring is no longer accepted under 2013 or 2016???


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 3, 2016)

Until the NFPA 72 takes out a DACT from an approved means of communication the phone line technology will remain an option.  Once someone says you can't use an approved (being in the code) method is when guys like me earn our play money   Off to a lake to fish, so have a great weekend.


----------

