CANASA supports U.S. partners in NFPA vote
At stake is a decision that could affect a privately-held monitoring station’s ability to operate in a fire alarm monitoring capacity, limiting them “to situations approved by the AHJ (Authority Having Jurisdiction).”
Monitoring firms that operate solely in Canada would not directly be affected, but there are potential implications for those that provide service in the U.S.
The current language proposed for the 2016 NFPA 72 Nation Fire Alarm and Signaling Code actually clarifies a monitoring station’s ability to operate as a fire alarm monitoring facility, but there are opposers who are seeking to change that language altogether, placing greater power in the hands of the municipalities.
“The fear is, the removal of that language could allow AHJs to mandate something else,” says CANASA executive director JF Champagne, such as restricting the ability of a privately-owned monitoring station to monitor fire alarms, turning over that ability to publicly-funded entities.
A memo that originated from the Security Industry Association (SIA) was provided to CANASA members calling attention to the situation, particularly the “potential trickle down effects to the broader electronic security industry” should the motions not be defeated.
According to the memo: “Defeating these motions is important to the alarm industry. From a national perspective, the code should reflect that a facility meeting the stringent central station listing requirements automatically meets the remote station facility standards. This prevents a central station from arbitrarily being denied recognition as a remote station.”
The memo also encourages NPFA members of record to attend the Chicago meeting in person, if possible, and vote “no” to the motions in question.