Security Dealer & Integrator

SEP 2018

Find news and information for the executive corporate security director, CSO, facility manager and assets protection manager on issues of policy, products, incidents, risk management, threat assessments and preparedness.

Issue link: https://sdi.epubxp.com/i/1029017

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 10 of 84

10 Security Dealer & Integrator / www.SecurityInfoWatch.com September 2018 Read more on this issue: www.SecurityInfoWatch.com/12426327 Hauhn TOP STORY which read, "Alarm, supervisory, and trouble signals shall be permitted to be received at a listed central super- vising station," without adding the prerequisite, "When permitted by the Authority Having Jurisdiction." However, at the NFPA's 2016 annual conference (which just so happened to be held in Chicago), Hauhn says there was a large contin- gent of fire professionals that showed up to defeat the industry language change amendment once again. "There are people who say The Monitoring Association is trying to fix a local issue in the national code... the fact is this was put in the national code in 2013 to fix a local issue, so we're just trying to override what they did by putting a local issue in a national code," Hauhn says. During the Technology Meeting at this year's NFPA conference in Las Vegas, the industry's amendment, known as Certified Amending Motion (CAM) 72-6, was overwhelming approved once again; however, when the amendment was sent back to the NFPA Technical Committee – which requires a two-thirds majority for final passage – it was rejected. "It's really ridiculous, because what you are asking is for all of the mem- bers of the Technical Committee to agree that they were wrong in the first place," Hauhn says. Hauhn says they should know the Standards Council's decision on the amendment by the end of the August and that their decision on the mat- ter will be final. Look for updates on SecurityInfoWatch.com. ■ In August, members of the alarm industry personally appeared before the National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA) Standards Council as part of a last ditch effort to appeal denial of a change to a section within NFPA 72 that would essentially require privately-owned and operated NRTL-listed central monitoring stations to gain approval from local municipalities in order to receive fire alarm signals. According to Jay Hauhn, Executive Director and CEO of The Monitoring Association, this battle began in 2013, when terminology of NFPA 72 Section 26.5.3.1.3 was modified to say that a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories (NRTL)-listed central supervising station requires AHJ approval (Authority Having Jurisdiction) to receive alarm signals. The code as currently written allows for remote stations, which are not required to meet the stringent NRTL standards to receive alarm signals. "The requirements to be a remote station are minimal, whereas the requirements to be a listed central supervising sta- tion are signifi- cant and (include) Underwriters Laboratories (UL) approval," Hauhn explains. "We know of nowhere else in any NFPA code where a service that exceeds a lesser standard is specifically called out as needing special approval." In a letter to NFPA Standards Council Secretary Dawn Michele Bellis, TMA Standards Chair and Vector Security VP of Technical Services Richard Simpson also ques- tioned the validity of the changes. "NFPA allowing standards language Monitoring Industry Fights NFPA 72 Changes TMA, other industry officials make final appeal to on central monitoring rule Photo: Bigstock ■ The alarm industry is nearing the end of a five-year long battle to have disputed language changed in the latest version of NFPA 72. that disregards a core competency of the crucial NRTL function establishes a destabilizing precedent," Simpson wrote to NFPA. Back-and-Forth Battle The alarm industry came out in full force to oppose the code changes when they were originally proposed in 2013 and have been engaged in a back-and-forth battle primarily with the NFPA's fire service members ever since then. Hauhn says the roots of this strug- gle stem from the alarm industry's ongoing battle with several munici- palities in Illinois that have sought to establish their own central monitor- ing stations – effectively cutting the private monitoring industry out of the picture. Although the courts have predominantly come down on the side of the private sector in much of this litigation, many cities and their fire service leaders remain steadfast in their desire to operate their own monitoring centers. In 2015, the alarm industry was successful in getting the code lan- guage reverted back to the original, SECURITY WATCH BY JOEL GRIFFIN, EDITOR, SECURITYINFOWATCH.COM

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Security Dealer & Integrator - SEP 2018