Two motions that override new language in NFPA 72-2016 to specifically allow listed central stations to provide remote supervising station monitoring service were fiercely debated by membership in Chicago at a recent NFPA Technical Committee meeting.
Specifically at issue was language changed in Section 26.5.3.1.3 of the code to read: “Alarm, supervisory, and trouble signals shall be permitted to be received at a listed central supervising station.” However, the previous version of the code added the prerequisite: “When permitted by the Authority Having Jurisdiction,” which gives local governments the ability to choose who can and cannot provide fire alarm monitoring in their area.
After a long exchange of information on both sides of the issue, the first of these motions on the agenda was called for a vote, which ultimately passed 142-80 — effectively maintaining the status quo. Motion 72-9, which would have removed mention of “central stations” from this part of the code, was then withdrawn.
“We are certainly disappointed that motion 72-8 passed, which overturned the language the Technical Committee proposed to automatically qualify listed central stations as acceptable locations to provide remote supervising station service,” Kevin Lehan, Illinois Electronic Security Association Executive Director, said in a statement.
Robert Morris, executive director of the Illinois Fire Inspectors Association, told SecurityInfoWatch.com that from their perspective, they didn’t see anything wrong with the way the code was previously written and didn’t think the change was needed in the first place.
“Certainly in the Chicagoland area it had been working well for over 50 years and we have had no problems with it,” Morris said. “We also think that as the Authority Having Jurisdiction, we should have some say so as to what goes on in our own community.”
Lehan said that fire officials in Illinois see the proposed code changes enabling private entities to compete against them as a threat to a revenue stream that they have either grown accustomed to or would like to tap into at some point.
“This is only proliferating in the Chicagoland area — it is a group of fire folks in Illinois who have pushed these motions,” explained Lehan. “The technical committee is comprised of folks nationwide. They thought it was progress to change the language to allow central stations; but there are a few fire officials in the Chicagoland area that see this as a threat to their monopolies.”
Lehan points out that the vote was not a total loss, however. For the first time, the words “listed central supervising station” are included in 26.5.3.1.3 —which makes it clear for any AHJ that listed central supervision stations are permissible under the code to provide this service.
“This was not the outcome we had collectively hoped for but the alarm industry did mobilize key stakeholders,” Lehan said. “The opposition was persuasive in delivering voters to the meeting, but this was a good learning experience for our industry and an example of why it is important for the alarm industry to be active in the NFPA and code issues. Our remaining concern is that the final language does nothing to curtail the conflict of interest where the Authority Having Jurisdiction is both a market participant and the arbiter of the code.”
