Johns Hopkins Center for Injury Research and Policy

Johns Hopkins Center for Injury Research and Policy SMOKE ALARM SUMMIT Update on Legislation Bruce E. Johnson

Overview of Legislation States – 17 states have passed laws: Ø Specifying a technology (photoelectric; ionization or “dual sensor”) alarm = 6 Ø Requiring a “hush” button = 2 Ø Requiring “ 10 -year” or “long life” “sealed or tamper resistant” batteries = 14 Ø Specifying installation location (reference NFPA 72) = 3 Ø Requiring replacement at 10 years = 6 Ø Some states “enforce” through home sales affidavit Johns Hopkins Center for Injury Research and Policy SMOKE ALARM SUMMIT

Overview of Legislation Cities – at least 11 Cities have passed laws: Ø Specifying a technology (photoelectric; ionization or “dual sensor”) alarm = 1 Ø Requiring “nuisance resistance” = 1 Ø Requiring “ 10 -year” or “long life” “sealed or tamper resistant” batteries = 10 Ø Requiring replacement at 10 years = 2 Ø Some cities “enforce” through home sales affidavit Johns Hopkins Center for Injury Research and Policy SMOKE ALARM SUMMIT

Discussion about Concerns • What will smoke alarm technology be after May 2020? • How do we update and educate stakeholders: v Fire Service v Designers and Builders v Consumers Johns Hopkins Center for Injury Research and Policy SMOKE ALARM SUMMIT

Discussion about Concerns • How do we transition current model codes and laws? v Photoelectric, ionization and dual sensor being replaced with multi-criteria/nuisance resistance technology v Power source ? v Interconnection ? v Useful life v Other features? Johns Hopkins Center for Injury Research and Policy SMOKE ALARM SUMMIT

Discussion - Next Steps • How do we change state and city laws to permit new smoke alarms coming to market? • Should requirements for smoke alarms be through model codes or enacted laws? • If jurisdictions enact laws, what incentives can be offered to increase the number of working smoke alarms in homes? Johns Hopkins Center for Injury Research and Policy SMOKE ALARM SUMMIT