provided by: 
We sometimes struggle to understand state and local fire alarm codes/standards, but when it comes to federal bills and local legislation, the public can easily be misled and our industry maligned. There are some issues that are already causing a devastating impact on our industry and the safety of the American public. The industry can help, so read on.
During the revision cycle of the of the 2006 edition of the International Residential Code (IRC), the National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB), Washington, D.C., proposed wording, which was subsequently adopted, that made new installations of residential fire alarm systems non-code compliant. The NAHB introduced language that added technical restrictions on the function and operation of residential fire alarm systems that are impossible to comply with. One such restriction was that smoke detectors would still have to operate if they were disconnected from the fire alarm control panel. To put it another way, the code change meant that smoke alarms—not system smoke detectors—are the only way to meet code if and when your state adopts the 2006 IRC.
Bad idea
It is clear from their wording that their change was disguised as a fix to an industry practice that has never existed, that of alarm companies removing all the alarm equipment from a subscriber's home if the customer doesn't make payments on their monitoring contract. I have personally asked several national companies if their policy was ever to go into homes that had cancelled their $18 to $24 per month monitoring contract to remove the alarm equipment. No one I ever talked with said this was ever their practice and, in fact, all agreed that such a policy would not make good business sense. First, the equipment is not worth the cost of the labor to remove it (even if the homeowner lets you inside to do it) since used alarm equipment has little value and is not worth the liability associated with re-using it. Secondly, leaving it in place allowed the next homeowner the option of having the system monitored again. Another 'problem' the NAHB language tried to address, was the implication that our industry is using the monitoring (phone line) connection to disable ex-customer's smoke detectors. Is this actually occurring anywhere? This ignorance was passed along to the IRC committee who bought it hook, line and sinker.
While one small group noticed the proposal, it did nothing to challenge it or alert the National Burglar and Fire Alarm Association (NBFAA), Irving, Texas. At that time, a lot of attention was being given to the commercial amendments proposed for the next International Building Code and we neglected to keep tabs on the Residential Code. (I'm guilty too, because I paid no attention to the IRC since it is not a standard adopted in Ohio, my home state.) However, I have since witnessed the network of misinformation that lets an Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) point to other state's IRC adoption and then reason, "If smoke detection systems are bad for that state, then they must be bad for my jurisdiction, too. 'No panels for you!'"
My trust in the International Code Council process that allowed something so ludicrous to enter our codes has been tarnished. Unfortunately, their particular code development process affords no way of correcting such a blunder, such as NFPA's Tentative Interim Amendment (TIA). The only relief they could offer was to allow us input into the IRC "commentary" edition and to amend the bad language in three years. I see this as too little too late.
We've learned a great lesson in all this, but somehow that doesn't seem enough. As an industry, we need to be at the forefront of our profession and stop allowing those who are not actually in the alarm business to create laws from half-baked ideas that wind up adversely affecting our livelihoods. The NBFAA is 60 years old this year and their members represent over 70 percent of the market, employ more than 500,000 industry professionals and service millions of residential and commercial accounts, protecting many citizens. It is through our individual or company membership that we gain the power and financial strength to protect our trade and as a result, the public. (Visit their newly updated Web site at www.alarm.org.)
We have an advantage over other trades in that when we promote ourselves, we are also representing the public's interest in life safety. The NAHB wants more home buyers to save their money for home construction, not the sub-contractors, so the NAHB promotes their interests by voting against all IBC/IFC/IRC attempts to require residential sprinkler systems and now, by eliminating a superior monitored residential fire alarm and detection system over multiple station smoke alarms. My own company is reconsidering our membership in our local NAHB association. I sure don't want to help in any way supply them with the financial means to help put me out of business.
Take aim and do something
In addition to national legislative issues there are also pockets of legislation, which can spread to neighboring areas when those in power hear what their neighbors have done. For example, the Security Industry Alarm Coalition (SIAC) Web site lists 68 cities in the U.S. where the fire alarm control panel must be separate from the security alarm panel. Twenty-two of these cities are in Massachusetts making that state the 'winner' in legislating themselves into outdated technologies. Nashville's fire marshal recently decided that all companies installing fire alarm systems must now be Underwriters Laboratories (UL) listed. This decision came out of the blue to surprise even the most industry-active fire alarm installing companies in that state. (Warning: Since the NFPA 72 proposal to be UL was publicly defeated after two consecutive code cycles, UL has since decided that they could avoid the regular code adoption process and sell their Fire Alarm Certification program to individual states—yours?—and local fire marshals.) This has made it tough to offer counter proposals to these decision makers. North Carolina's fire marshal has just re-interpreted an existing engineering seal law to mean that the alarm industry can no longer make their own shop drawings of buildings on which they layout fire alarm systems. Everyone was fine with fire alarm companies performing the "layout of fire alarm systems," but the fire marshal doesn't think they should be "engineering" the floor plan. Stay tuned for more on this. The city of Henderson, Nevada recently adopted a non-response ordinance for fire alarm systems, stating they will only respond to calls from an eyewitness, at the scene, or to fire alarms activated by a waterflow switch. Excluded from this new ordinance are hospitals, schools, nursing homes and their own municipal buildings. It's been reported that Henderson based their justification for their new ordinance on a law adopted by nearby Las Vegas. However, the law Henderson cited as argument didn't exist. It actually turned out to be an old Las Vegas fire department policy that wasn't enforced.
We must be vigilant and challenge any and all ill-conceived and misguided legislation before any of it can gain a local foothold. At the first whiff of trouble, let someone know. Don't assume that everyone else already knows. Don't assume it is too late. I, too, assumed the 2006 IRC wording had to be just a rumor. The adoption of the IRC is currently being challenged in New Jersey and that challenge may prove useful for the rest of us when the 2006 IRC is proposed in our states.
The Security Industry Alarm Coalition has begun tracking new fire alarm ordinances and can be contacted at www.siacinc.org. False alarm issues with fire alarm systems? The False Alarm Reduction Association has recently added a Model Fire Alarm ordinance to their site: www.faraonline.org.
Greg Kessinger, SET, CFPS, is the chair of the NBFAA's Fire and Life Safety Committee. He can be reached at Greg@firealarm.org or www.FireAlarm.org.
author: By Greg Kessinger SET, CFPS