Re: Power Supply

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Michael Baker" <mbbaker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1142942175.065622.175570@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Bob Worthy wrote:

> > Well, I wish everyone would agree on that or at least interpet it the
same
> > as you do. Down here in south Florida, the AHJ's in 5 counties and 9
cities
> > are putting the onus directly on the alarm contractor. Starting at even
> > pulling the permit.
>
> When I worked for a living, this was the case as well.  I paid for the
> permits and passed the cost along to the property owner.   Similarly,
> costs associated with central station service were passed along to the
> the end-user.

Were you a UL or FM certified installation contractor?

> > > Throughout these codes and standards you'll find the
> > > qualifying words "where required ..."
> >
> > Where is this please? Since the hurricane tore off the roof at my office
and
> > I lost lots of reference material, I only have the next to last version
of
> > 72, which I had at home. I will get the new one when it comes out. Is
that
> > 2007 or is it 2006.
>
> NFPA 72-2002 4.5.2.4* Verification of Compliant Installation. Where
> required, compliance of the completed installation with the
> requirements of this standard, as implemented via the referring
> code(s), specifications, and/or other criteria applicable to the
> specific installation, shall be certified by a qualified and impartial
> third-party organization acceptable to the authority having
> jurisdiction.

Thanks Mike, I was under the impression the code called specifically for a
nationally recognized testing laboratory. This sounds like the field is
wider and is left open to an AHJs approval. Under this scenerio, an AHJ
could require central station service city/county wide on all buildings
(which is happening in Florida), and then any retired fire inspector from
that city or county could actually become the third party verifier. Sorta
like building a guaranteed profit center for retirement. Interesting. Sounds
like I have a conspiracy theory, but with the fire marshalls trying
legislatively to get rid of the word "inspect" in our state licensing law
(possibly to avoid needing a license) and the fact that city/countys are
going central station exclusively, it may make sense. Otherwise, why tear
down a statute that is meant to set a higher standard? Especially when these
guys have their own newgroup that is closed, unless you are approved to have
access, and the ones that have gone CSS are all tight. The other possibility
is that, since UL and FM had to get a license in Florida because of the law,
if UL/FM wanted to use retired fire inspectors for inspections, they would
have to hire them as employees. UL's contract says they can use
subcontractors. In Florida, those subs would be required to have a license
and insurance. Naturally UL would want subs to avoid costs. UL is looking to
get exempted, which I don't  think will happen, so now we are back to
getting rid of the word "inspect". The writing is on the wall. If they have
an agenda, put it on the table and lets stop screwing around by hiding
behind the code.

> > Don't go away on this one, it is important.
>
> I'm traveling this week, but I've got access to the internet!

Thanks again and I will stay in touch. Others may want to pay more attention
to what may lay ahead for their areas. UL reps have told us that this is
going national, not only for fire but burg as well. Maybe the industry needs
to check their licensing laws to make sure UL/FM might not need to be
licensed for their activities. They are a private company just like we are
and are not exempt from any state laws. If anyone is interested, I will give
you the areas in Florida's law that required them to be licensed.