By Bill Adams
Both the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the Insurance Services Office (ISO) have promulgated lists of ancillary equipment for the various types of fire apparatus each organization recognizes.
Depending on the organization or commentator conversing about it, ancillary equipment is also referred to as minor, loose, and auxiliary equipment. Simply put: It includes everything that is loaded on a fire truck before it is put in service. The lists are not necessarily the same, but they are directly and indirectly interconnected. How so is the topic of this article.
Numerous articles about the recent consolidation of multiple NFPA fire apparatus standards into a single document have led some in the fire service to believe the NFPA no longer requires specific quantities and types of ancillary equipment. That belief is not 100% accurate. It could be a misunderstanding or a misconception of actuality. Readers should realize who the players are.
NBFU, ISO, AND VERISK
The National Board of Fire Underwriters (NBFU), the forerunner of the ISO and the NFPA, began collaborating on fire trucks more than 100 years ago. They still are today. On page 349 of the current NFPA 1900, Standard for Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Vehicles, Automotive Fire Apparatus, Wildland Fire Apparatus and Automotive Ambulance, is Annex G–History of NFPA 1900.
Annex G says the NFPA began addressing fire apparatus in the early 1900s in conjunction with the International Association of Fire Engineers and the NBFU. It notes the NBFU adopted and published the NFPA’s specifications for motorized service ladder trucks and motorized combination chemical and hose wagons in 1920. Applicable from Annex G is: “In 1948, the Committee on Fire Department Equipment was organized. The scope of the committee was broadened to include fire department tools and appliances as well as motorized fire apparatus for both municipal and rural service.”
The mid-1960s saw the NBFU transform itself from what old timers called the oft-dreaded “underwriters” to the Insurance Services Office, which has been referred to as commercial (for profit) insurance companies that inspect and rate all aspects of a municipality’s fire protection assets. That is probably when some in the fire service, whether right or wrong, referred to the ISO as the insurance people and the NFPA as the fire people.
In 2001, the ISO was acquired by Verisk Analytics. According to its Web site (www.isomitigation.com/verisk-community-hazard-mitigation-services/), “Verisk, ISO’s parent company, is unifying all its insurance businesses—including our Community Hazard Mitigation services—under the Verisk brand. Our Community Hazard Mitigation services will also be part of this new Verisk branding.” I am not disparaging the business decisions of the NBFU, ISO, or Verisk.
NFPA equipment lists have historically been more extensive than the ISO’s. Why or when the NFPA, the NBFU, and later the ISO had different requirements for loose equipment to be carried on fire apparatus is not pertinent. The amount and type of equipment that is actually mandated to be carried are important because that changed on January 1, 2024, with the implementation of NFPA 1900.
MISINTERPRETATION AND MISCONCEPTION
The NFPA appears to be explicit in its terminology—ostensibly to prevent misunderstanding its written word. However, there can be misconceptions on the part of readers such as misreading a statement or having a preconceived bias. Misreading a statement is an error—it could be a costly one.
Elder members of the fire service can be biased. One example is believing, “Whatever the NFPA says is gospel.” When evaluating similar ISO and NFPA equipment requirements, another prejudicial belief is, “The NFPA are fire people and the ISO are just insurance people.” Concurrently, today’s societal constraints may limit the time newer fire service members can devote to understanding and self-educating themselves on ISO and NFPA requirements. They should find the time.
COMPARING 1901 AND 1900
Both the former NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus, and NFPA 1900 under their respective Chapter 3s, say “shall indicates a mandatory requirement” and “should indicates a recommendation or that which is advised but not required.” All underlining is mine for emphasis. To me, “shall” means you have to, and “should” means you ought to.
NFPA 1901 Chapter 5-Pumper Fire Apparatus detailed minor equipment under Section 5.9.1. It stated, “The equipment listed in 5.9.3 and 5.9.4 shall be available on the pumper fire apparatus before the apparatus is placed in service.” The equipment listed in 5.9.3 and 5.9.4 included all ancillary equipment.
Similar “shall-be-available” minor equipment requirements were also mandated for initial attack apparatus, mobile water supply apparatus, aerial apparatus, quint apparatus, special service fire apparatus, and mobile foam fire apparatus.
The minor equipment requirements and where to find them in NFPA 1901 were modified by NFPA 1900. It does not list equipment under specific headings (chapters) for each type of apparatus like NFPA 1901 did. You have to hunt for it. NFPA 1900 Chapter 8* Fire Apparatus–Requirements by Type, Section 8.1* states: “Apparatus shall meet the minimum requirements in Table 8.1 based on the apparatus type.” The only ancillary equipment required in Table 8.1 includes wheel chocks, traffic vests, traffic cones, illuminated traffic warning devices, traffic warning triangle kit, tire tools if a spare tire is provided, and ladder belts for aerial safety. All other loose equipment is recommended—or optional—if that is how you interpret the standard. And, it is found in Annex A.
NFPA 1900 Section 8.4 Equipment states: “A detailed list of who is to furnish the equipment to be carried on the apparatus and the method for organizing and mounting these items shall be supplied by the purchasing authority.” Annex A–Explanatory Material–Section A.8.4 states the items in Tables A.8.4(a), A.8.4(b) and A.8.4(c) “are lists of equipment by apparatus type for the purchaser to consider.” Tables (a) and (b) say they contain, “Equipment that Should be Considered on Fire Apparatus” and Table (c) says it contains “Additional Equipment that Might Be Considered on Structural Fire Apparatus.”
LITIGIOUS OR LEGAL?
My presumption is there are only seven items of equipment listed in Table 8.1 that shall be carried. The rest of the loose equipment listed in the Annex’s Tables A.8.4(a), A.8.4(b) and A.8.4(c) should or might be considered by the purchaser. Regardless of who writes the purchasing specifications, the purchaser ultimately is the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ).
It may not be advisable to tell City Hall that it can choose how much and what type of ancillary equipment the new apparatus has to carry. It is questionable if the AHJ’s legal department would want to answer this hypothetical question: If an injury occurs because an AHJ failed to provide a piece of equipment the NFPA went on record saying should or might be considered, is the fire department or the AHJ liable?
ISO AND NFPA INTERFACE
To the NFPA’s credit, NFPA 1900 Annex A-Section 8.4 notes the recommended loose equipment may not meet the needs of a community and a purchaser ought to do a needs assessment. Very important is the recommendation the purchaser should check with its insurance rating authority for “information on what tools and equipment should be carried to maximize their community’s grading.”
This is consequential. Besides the equipment required on its own list, the ISO states it will follow the NFPA’s guidelines for loose equipment. On page 26 of the 2012 Edition of the ISO’s Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS), section 512 Equipment on Existing Engine Companies under 512C, it states: “Evaluate pumper equipment and hose carried for fighting structure fires by referring to NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus.”
Another statement substantiating ISO’s referencing—if not following—NFPA criteria is in the ISO 2012 FSRS on page 64 addressing Class 9 Fire Protection under 1310-C: “Evaluate the fire service equipment in accordance with the general criteria of NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus.”
I presume the ISO has made amendments to the FSRS to denote NFPA 1900 and possible updates to the 2012 Schedule. It could be possible that ISO field inspectors have leeway in determining what equipment will be evaluated. No interviews were conducted with ISO or NFPA personnel for this article. Interpretations are mine alone.
- The NFPA still says seven items of ancillary equipment shall be carried.
- The NFPA says all other listed ancillary equipment should be—or might be—considered.
- The ISO appears to be in agreement with the NFPA’s former equipment lists.
- It is unknown if the ISO will evaluate ancillary equipment no longer required by the NFPA.
- There should be established rules or guidelines describing what equipment will be evaluated.
BILL ADAMS is a member of the Fire Apparatus & Emergency Equipment Editorial Advisory Board, a former fire apparatus salesman, and a past chief of the East Rochester (NY) Fire Department. He has 50 years of experience in the volunteer fire service.
