Here is the title one h1 placeholder text

The fire control room is required to maintain 24-hour staffing, with two personnel per shift; yet most enterprises are still unable to meet this requirement. The fire control room is no ordinary space—it serves as the “fire safety brain” of the building, housing an automatic fire alarm system that receives and displays fire signals while also controlling fire-fighting equipment. In the event of a fire, it becomes the command center. The on-duty personnel who guard this “brain” are the building’s “gatekeepers” of safety.

The fire control room is required to maintain 24-hour staffing, with two personnel per shift; yet most enterprises are still unable to meet this requirement. The fire control room is no ordinary space—it serves as the “fire safety brain” of the building, housing an automatic fire alarm system that receives and displays fire signals while also controlling fire-fighting equipment. In the event of a fire, it becomes the command center. The on-duty personnel who guard this “brain” are the building’s “gatekeepers” of safety.

Yet in reality, some organizations treat on-duty regulations as mere formalities; others cut staff to save money; and still others go so far as to use mannequins and fake credentials to pass inspections. Such practices not only violate laws and regulations but also treat the safety of countless lives and property as a trivial matter.

Today, we’ll take a thorough look at the staffing of fire control rooms from several angles: regulatory requirements, personnel costs, local flexibility policies, and the current state of industry乱象.

What regulations and administrative requirements must fire control room personnel comply with? According to the Fire Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China, the fire control room shall be separately located on the ground floor or the basement level of a building and must be equipped with flood-proof measures. In addition to being fitted with fire alarm control panels, fire linkage control panels, emergency broadcast control devices, and other relevant equipment, the fire control room is required to implement a 24-hour duty system, with no fewer than two personnel on each shift. Moreover, duty operators must hold the appropriate professional qualification certificates, be thoroughly familiar with fire alarm response procedures and requirements, and perform their job duties in accordance with the law. The regulations also stipulate that fire control room personnel may not leave their posts without authorization, abandon their posts, or fail to report for duty. During routine inspections of fire alarms and shift handovers, duty personnel must complete the “Fire Control Room Duty Log.” Units that fail to implement the fire duty system as prescribed or assign personnel who do not meet the requisite qualifications to duty will be subject to a fine of up to RMB 10,000. The fire control room must maintain 24-hour staffing, with two personnel per shift, operating under a four-shift, three-rotation system; therefore, proper staffing allocation and cost accounting are of paramount importance.

From a staffing perspective, a four-shift, three-rotation schedule entails three shifts per day, with two personnel on duty per shift, requiring a total of six staff members. However, given the need to account for employee leave, training, and other absences, staffing is typically scaled up by a factor of 1.3 to 1.5, resulting in a requirement of 8 to 9 personnel.

In terms of costs, personnel-related evidence-gathering expenses are unavoidable. Labor costs constitute the largest share: at an average monthly salary of RMB 5,000 per person, nine employees would incur annual labor costs of RMB 540,000, plus approximately RMB 150,000 per year for social insurance and housing provident fund contributions. Ongoing administrative costs include an average monthly expense of RMB 2,000 for on-duty equipment maintenance and RMB 500 per month for office supplies, totaling about RMB 30,000 annually. Thus, the total annual cost averages approximately RMB 720,000.

Most companies cannot afford such costs.

However, under specific conditions, the fire control room may reduce its staffing to one person per shift. According to regulations in multiple regions—such as the Measures of Guangdong Province for Implementing the Fire Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Chongqing Municipal Regulations on the Management of Fire-Fighting Facilities, the Zhejiang Provincial Fire Protection Regulations, and the newly revised Beijing Municipal Fire Protection Regulations—it is explicitly stipulated that when the fire control room can remotely operate all control functions through the city’s remote fire-monitoring system, at least one person may be assigned to each shift. Taking Beijing as an example, the new regulations that came into effect on May 1 specify that, provided remote operation and control are implemented in accordance with national standards, a single-person shift may be authorized.

Furthermore, the neglect of the on-duty personnel system and the cavalier attitude toward safety continue to occur from time to time. As the gatekeepers of a building’s fire safety, the staff on duty in the fire control room bear responsibilities that must not be underestimated. However, during recent targeted inspections, fire departments across various regions have found that some organizations still disregard the on-duty personnel system and treat safety as a mere formality. On-duty personnel lack operational skills. Recently, fire inspectors in Lianyungang, Jiangsu Province, conducted an inspection of a shopping center in the Lianyun District and discovered that the fire control room was completely empty. After waiting for about ten minutes, a control-room attendant finally hurried in. When questioned about the storage location of facility maintenance records and how to operate the relevant equipment, the attendant was at a loss. In response to these safety hazards, the fire inspectors ordered the establishment to carry out immediate rectification. Photo ID fraud: In Yuyao, Zhejiang Province, fire inspectors recently inspected the fire control room of a local community and found that the list of on-duty personnel posted on the wall did not match the registered roster. According to police, the staff member using a forged certificate had manipulated images on a computer—using image-editing software—to superimpose their own photo onto someone else’s certification in order to pass inspection. In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law of the People’s Republic of China, the public security authorities imposed administrative penalties on the two forgers, each receiving five days of administrative detention. “Mannequin substitutes” stand in for personnel: In some enterprises, there have even been instances where on-duty staff, in order to cut corners, replaced themselves with mannequins as stand-ins. To make the deception more convincing, companies would also dress the mannequins in different outfits. Such practices leave the enterprise completely unprepared; should a fire break out, the consequences could be disastrous. The fire department reminds the public that holding a certificate of qualification as a fire-facilities operator is a prerequisite for employment as on-duty personnel in fire control rooms. Only those who have undergone training, mastered the operation of equipment and procedures, and passed the relevant examinations are permitted to work with such certificates. Illegally forging a certificate of qualification as a fire-facilities operator or working with a fake certificate both constitute violations of the law.

I. First, let’s clarify: What exactly do the regulations require for staffing the fire control room?

When it comes to fire control rooms, the first thing to clarify is that their design and operation are governed by explicit national regulations—organizations cannot simply do as they please.

From the Fire Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China to various specialized regulations, the requirements for fire control rooms can be summarized into two main categories: “hardware” and “software.” With regard to the “hardware,” the control room must be separately located on the ground floor or the basement level of the building and must also be flood-proof—after all, if rainwater leaks in and damages the equipment, the system will be unable to even sound the alarm when a fire actually breaks out, which would create serious problems.

The internal equipment is equally essential: fire alarm control panels, fire-fighting linkage control panels, and emergency broadcast control units—these “core components” are all indispensable and must be kept in proper working order at all times.

For example, an emergency public-address system must be able to promptly broadcast evacuation instructions to occupants inside the building in the event of a fire. If the equipment fails, residents may not know which way to go, with potentially disastrous consequences.

In terms of “software”—that is, the on-duty system—this is the most critical aspect and also the area where many organizations tend to run into problems. The regulations state very clearly: a 24-hour on-duty roster is mandatory, with each shift staffed by no fewer than two personnel. Why require two people on duty at all times? It’s not an unnecessary extra measure; there is a genuine operational need for it.

For example, when the fire alarm sounds, one person must monitor the screen to pinpoint the location of the fire—determining which floor and which room is triggering the alert—while another immediately contacts the on-site security patrol to dispatch them to the scene to verify whether it is a genuine fire or a false alarm caused by equipment malfunction.

If a fire actually breaks out, one person must quickly start the fire pump and activate the smoke-control system, while another immediately dials 119 to report the emergency and uses the emergency public-address system to alert everyone in the building to evacuate—there’s simply no way one person can handle all of this alone.

If a duty officer suddenly falls ill—say, with dizziness or a stomachache—and only one person is left on duty, the entire control room effectively becomes “half paralyzed.” In a real emergency, even basic response measures would be impossible.

In addition to staffing levels, there are strict qualification requirements for on-duty personnel: they must hold the appropriate level of professional certification and be thoroughly proficient in fire alarm response procedures. It is not permissible to simply assign any security guard or temporary worker to duty.

For example, if the alarm system triggers a fault signal, a certified technician can use the on-screen codes and indicator light statuses to determine whether the issue stems from a faulty device wiring or a false sensor activation. The technician will then log the fault information, contact maintenance personnel to dispatch a service visit, and temporarily adjust the surveillance priorities in the meantime.

Untrained personnel may become flustered when staring at the control panel, either mistaking a fire alarm for a malfunction and inadvertently hitting the “mute” button—thereby missing the critical window for extinguishing the fire—or misinterpreting a routine fault as a real fire and frantically calling the fire department, only to discover after a lengthy commotion that it was a false alarm. Such incidents not only waste valuable firefighting resources but also erode public vigilance toward genuine fire alarms.

Even the minutiae of daily operations are subject to regulatory oversight. On-duty personnel are prohibited from leaving their posts without authorization; even during meal breaks, they must arrange for a colleague to cover their shift before stepping away, ensuring that the control room is never left unattended.

During shift handover, meticulous attention is essential: all details regarding equipment operation during the shift, including any alarm records and pending faults, must be recorded item by item in the Fire Control Room Duty Log. Only after signing to confirm can the shift be handed over. Should the fire department conduct an inspection and find the log blank or containing inconsistent, contradictory, or otherwise disorganized entries, the organization will undoubtedly be held accountable.

Finally, let’s talk about penalties—don’t assume that a violation will be resolved simply with criticism and education. If an organization fails to implement the on-duty system as required—for example, by assigning only one person per shift or by allowing unqualified personnel to work—it may, according to the regulations, be fined up to RMB 10,000.

Some may view this fine as relatively minor, but if a fire were to break out due to inadequate on-duty supervision, resulting in casualties or property damage, the issue would far exceed the scope of a mere fine. In such cases, the person in charge of the organization would not only be liable for civil damages; under serious circumstances, criminal liability could also be incurred, with lifelong repercussions.

II. Let’s Do the Math: With 24-hour, two-person shifts, just how high are the personnel costs?

Many organizations are reluctant to implement the on-duty system, claiming that “the procedures are cumbersome,” but in reality they are primarily motivated by cost-cutting. So let’s do the math: how much labor costs are actually involved in maintaining a 24-hour, two-person on-duty roster, and why do some organizations feel they simply can’t afford it?

Let’s start with staffing. To ensure 24-hour continuous on-duty coverage, the industry most commonly employs a “four-shift, three-rotation” system: the 24-hour day is divided into three eight-hour shifts, and four shift teams rotate through these shifts. This arrangement not only guarantees that there is always someone on duty at all times but also provides employees with adequate rest periods, thereby reducing the risk of errors or incidents caused by fatigue.

Based on the requirement of two staff per shift, having three shifts operating simultaneously would necessitate six personnel. However, this is not the final staffing level, as we must also account for employees’ regular leave, training, and time-off requests.

For example, some employees need to take annual leave, others have to stay home with a cold and fever, and still others are required to attend regular refresher training sessions organized by the fire department. If no one steps in to cover their shifts, the control room will be left unstaffed.

Therefore, it is customary to staff the control room at 1.3 to 1.5 times the standard requirement; accordingly, a fire control room typically requires a total of 8 to 9 personnel to operate effectively.

Turning to costs, they can be broadly categorized into three components: evidence-gathering training expenses, labor costs, and routine administrative expenses.

The cost of certification training is a one-time investment, but it must never be skimped on. Every on-duty personnel member is required to first undergo training to become a fire-fighting facilities operator, covering equipment operation, fire alarm response, fault diagnosis and troubleshooting, among other topics. Upon completion of the training, they must also pass an examination to obtain the relevant qualification certificate.

The entire training-and-examination process requires a significant investment of both time and money, and the certification is not valid for life; every few years, professionals must undergo refresher courses and annual recertification to update their knowledge—resulting in ongoing expenses.

If there is high employee turnover, the costs will be even higher when newly trained, certified staff leave and new hires must be brought on board and retrained from scratch.

Labor costs represent the largest expense and are a recurring outlay. Currently, certified fire-control-room operators command significantly higher salaries than ordinary security guards—after all, they must possess specialized technical expertise and shoulder greater responsibilities.

Based on the market average, the monthly payroll for a certified on-duty employee, including statutory social insurance and housing provident fund contributions, represents a significant labor cost.

With nine on-duty staff, the annual labor costs can add up to a significant expense. While large shopping malls and office buildings may still be able to absorb such costs, property management companies in many older residential communities and small factories face considerable financial pressure.

Property management fees in older residential communities are low, and some residents frequently default on payments. With profit margins already slim, it’s indeed a challenge for property management companies to allocate such a substantial sum to security staffing. Meanwhile, small factories often face unstable order volumes and tight cash flow, making them prone to cutting back on safety-related expenses—often reasoning that “there’s not much going on normally, so it’s okay to have fewer staff.”

Although routine management expenses are lower than labor costs, they should by no means be overlooked. Equipment in the control room requires regular maintenance: for example, fire alarm control panels must be commissioned monthly, and the fire-fighting linkage system must be tested quarterly; otherwise, the equipment may fail at a critical moment.

This portion of maintenance expenses must be incurred every month, and it must be handled by a professional maintenance service provider—simply hiring any handy electrician will not suffice. In addition, there are office consumables such as duty logs, printing paper, and pens, as well as utility costs for the control room and electricity for operating the equipment, all of which add up to a significant monthly expense. When these miscellaneous costs are totaled, the annual routine management expenses represent a substantial sum.

However, it must be emphasized: high costs are no excuse for non-compliance. Fire safety is the “bottom line”—a red line that must never be crossed. If cost-cutting leads to failure to implement the on-duty system, and a fire subsequently breaks out—destroying factory buildings and injuring people—the ultimate expenses will far exceed the cost of maintaining proper on-duty arrangements; in some cases, the entire enterprise could even be forced to shut down.

Moreover, ensuring the safety of life for everyone inside a building is inherently a legal obligation of the organization; this responsibility must not be neglected simply because of cost considerations.

III. Flexible Policies Are Here: Under What Circumstances Is “Single-Person On-Duty” Permitted?

At this point, some may ask: Given the high cost of 24-hour, two-person shifts, are there more flexible alternatives? In fact, relevant policies have already been introduced in various regions that allow fire control rooms to operate with “single-person staffing” under specific conditions—thereby reducing costs without compromising safety.

Many local regulations have explicitly stipulated this point. For example, the Measures of Guangdong Province for Implementing the Fire Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Regulations on the Management of Fire-Fighting Facilities of Chongqing Municipality, the Fire Protection Regulations of Zhejiang Province, and the newly revised Beijing Municipal Fire Protection Regulations all mention the same core requirement: when the fire control room can remotely operate all control functions through the city’s remote fire-monitoring system, each shift may be staffed with no fewer than one person on duty.

Take Beijing as an example: the newly revised “Beijing Municipal Fire Protection Regulations” came into formal effect on May 1 of this year. The regulations explicitly stipulate that, provided a unit’s fire control room is connected to the city’s remote fire monitoring system in accordance with national standards, and the remote monitoring center is capable of receiving alarm signals and equipment operating data from the control room in real time while also remotely operating all critical systems—including fire pumps, smoke-control and exhaust systems, and emergency public address systems—the control room may be staffed by a single operator on duty.

The logic behind this is straightforward: with a remote monitoring system, you effectively gain an additional “remote assistant.” When on-duty personnel encounter an emergency—such as receiving multiple alarm signals simultaneously and being overwhelmed—the staff at the remote monitoring center can view the on-site situation in real time, help verify the fire, operate equipment, and even directly contact the fire department, thereby indirectly providing the support of a “second pair of eyes.”

However, “single-person duty” is by no means something that can be applied for lightly; it requires meeting stringent technical requirements. First, the remote monitoring system must comply with national standards—it cannot be a rudimentary, in-house installation. Instead, it must be connected to the city’s fire-fighting remote monitoring platform approved by the local fire department, and data transmission must be stable, with no delays or interruptions.

Secondly, remote operation capabilities must be fully implemented across the board; it is unacceptable for some equipment to be remotely controllable while others are not. For example, in the event of a fire, the remote monitoring center must not only be able to receive alarm signals but also remotely start fire pumps, activate sprinkler systems, and disconnect non-fire-related power supplies. If these critical operations can only be performed on-site, then the requirement for dual-person on-duty staffing must still be adhered to.

Moreover, even if a single-person on-duty system is implemented, the requirements for on-duty personnel remain unchanged. On-duty staff must still hold the relevant professional qualification certificates, be proficient in equipment operation and fire alarm response procedures, and must not relax standards simply because remote monitoring is in place.

Remote monitoring systems are merely “support tools” and cannot fully replace the role of on-site personnel. For example, if equipment malfunctions on site, the remote monitoring center may only be able to detect the fault signal; determining which specific component has failed still requires on-site staff to conduct inspections and provide feedback. Moreover, in the event of a network outage, the remote monitoring system becomes inoperable, forcing on-site personnel to handle all response and remediation tasks independently—and without proper professional training, they would be completely unable to cope.

This flexible policy is, in essence, a manifestation of “technology empowering security.” By leveraging remote monitoring technologies, it not only addresses the cost challenges faced by some organizations but also enhances security safeguards through professional remote monitoring centers, making it a win-win solution.

However, policy details may vary by jurisdiction; for example, some jurisdictions have more specific requirements for the connectivity standards of remote monitoring systems, while others conduct regular inspections to ensure that remote operation functions are operating properly.

Therefore, if an organization wishes to apply for single-person duty, it must first consult the local fire department to ascertain the specific requirements and procedures. It is not permissible to unilaterally switch to single-person duty simply because the organization believes it meets the criteria; otherwise, the arrangement will still be deemed a violation.

IV. Alarming Chaos: Are These Organizations Really Treating Safety as a Joke?

Despite statutory requirements and flexible policy adjustments, in practice many organizations still treat the fire control room staffing regime as a mere formality, with an endless stream of outrageous violations that are deeply troubling to behold.

Issue 1: On-duty personnel are unable to operate the equipment, rendering the control room a mere formality.

Recently, fire inspectors in Lianyungang, Jiangsu Province, discovered upon entering the fire control room of a local shopping mall that it was completely empty. After waiting for about 10 minutes, a staff member on duty finally hurried over, explaining that he had gone downstairs to buy some water.

When the supervisor asked for details, an even more embarrassing situation arose: when asked where the facility maintenance records were kept, he rummaged through drawers for ages but couldn’t find them; when asked to demonstrate how to operate the emergency public-address system, he stared at the control panel for a long time, unsure which button to press; and when asked how to distinguish between fire-alarm signals and fault signals, he stammered, “I’ve always learned by following the senior staff—I’ve never received any formal training.”

It was only later that we learned this on-duty staff member was a newly hired security guard who had received no training and held no certification; he had been assigned to the control room simply because “he happened to be available.”

Such “inability to operate” is all too common in many small organizations. Some believe that “the control room doesn’t have much to do on a regular basis—just assign someone to keep an eye on it,” and so they casually put a janitor or security guard on duty. These individuals, however, lack the necessary certifications and formal training in fire safety; far from being able to respond to a fire, they cannot even perform basic equipment inspections. If a fire does break out, these on-duty personnel will only panic and flounder, utterly failing to function as the “command center.”

Chaos No. 2: Working with Fake Certificates and Treating Regulations as a “Child’s Play”

Even more outrageous than “being unable to operate the equipment” is “working with a fake certification.” During an inspection of a community’s fire control room, fire inspectors in Yuyao, Zhejiang Province, discovered that the list of on-duty personnel posted on the wall did not match the actual staff on shift.

The supervisor asked the on-duty staff to present their qualification certificates. Reluctantly, they produced two certificates; upon closer inspection, something was amiss: the edges of the photos on the certificates bore obvious signs of photo-editing, and the fonts used for the names and ID numbers differed from those on official certificates.

Subsequent investigation by the police revealed that the two certificates were forged. To circumvent inspections, the two on-duty personnel used image-editing software on a computer to superimpose their own photos onto legitimate certificates belonging to others, then printed the resulting images as if they were their own.

They believed that “the inspectors won’t scrutinize closely anyway, so we can just slip through the cracks,” completely failing to realize that such behavior constitutes a violation of the law. Ultimately, in accordance with the Public Security Administration Punishment Law of the People’s Republic of China, the two forgers were placed under administrative detention for five days in accordance with the law.

The hazards of allowing individuals to work with fake certifications are enormous. Without professional training, such personnel lack the competence to handle fire emergencies; in the event of an emergency, they not only risk delaying rescue efforts but may also exacerbate the danger through improper actions. Moreover, this behavior constitutes a blatant disregard for laws and regulations, and if left unaddressed with due seriousness, it will only encourage more people to follow suit.

Chaos No. 3: “Dummy models” are used to cover for absent staff, completely breaching the safety safeguards.

What is most shocking is that, in an effort to cut costs, some organizations have resorted to using “dummy mannequins” in place of live personnel on duty. Earlier, a fire inspection revealed that in the fire control room of a certain factory, there was a “person” seated in a security guard uniform; only upon closer inspection did it become apparent that it was a plastic mannequin, complete with a mask on its face—so convincing that, at first glance, one might easily mistake it for a real person. To make the dummy even more “realistic,” the factory would periodically change its clothing and even place a cup of “freshly brewed tea” nearby, all in a bid to pass inspection undetected.

This practice is nothing short of treating safety as a “joke.” The fire control room is the safety core of a building; substituting mannequins for live personnel is tantamount to leaving the entire building completely “unprotected.”

If a fire breaks out and no one receives the alarm, no one activates the fire-fighting systems, and no one notifies the occupants of the building to evacuate, the consequences would be unimaginable.

Moreover, such conduct constitutes a serious violation of fire safety regulations; once detected, the organization will not only be subject to substantial fines, but the persons in charge will also bear legal liability.

The fire department has repeatedly emphasized that obtaining the Fire Protection Facilities Operator Professional Qualification Certificate is a mandatory requirement for applying for positions as on-duty personnel in fire control rooms. Only individuals who have undergone systematic training, thoroughly mastered equipment operation and procedural workflows, and passed the relevant assessments are permitted to take up their posts with the certificate.

Illegally forging certificates, working with fake credentials, or using a substitute to take one’s place on the job are all unlawful acts and will inevitably be punished by law.

V. How to Build a Solid Security Defense? It Requires “Tripartite Collaboration”

The issue of staffing the fire control room cannot be resolved by any single party alone; it requires the concerted efforts of the organization, property owners, and the fire department to truly establish a robust safety defense.

For organizations, the first priority is to abandon any sense of complacency and place fire safety at the top of the agenda. The attitude that “nothing ever happens during normal operations, so on-duty staffing is unimportant” must be discarded. Instead, organizations should proactively implement and enforce on-duty protocols, ensuring that adequate staffing levels are maintained and that all required certifications are obtained and held by the appropriate personnel.

If you believe the costs are high, consult your local fire department to explore whether remote monitoring can enable single-person staffing, leveraging technology to reduce expenses rather than resorting to unauthorized reductions in personnel.

At the same time, it is essential to strengthen the management of on-duty personnel by organizing regular training and refresher courses to ensure that everyone is proficient in operating equipment and fully understands emergency response procedures, so that situations where personnel are “unable to operate” do not recur.

Homeowners and residents should proactively monitor the staffing and operational status of the fire control rooms in their residential communities and office buildings. When passing by these control rooms, they should take note of whether anyone is on duty and whether the on-duty personnel are performing their duties diligently.

In the homeowners’ group chat, you can proactively inquire about the implementation of the property management company’s on-duty system and request that the qualifications of on-duty staff and the duty roster be publicly posted.

If you discover any violations—such as frequent empty shifts in the control room or unlicensed personnel on duty—report them promptly to the fire department or the government services hotline. Do not adopt a “it’s none of my business” attitude. After all, fire safety is vital to the life and property of every individual; proactive oversight is, in essence, self-protection.

For the fire department, it is essential to strengthen oversight while also enhancing service delivery. On the one hand, the frequency of unannounced inspections must be increased—particularly during early morning hours and on public holidays, when staffing shortages are more likely—to ensure that organizations do not take risks by violating regulations.

Units that repeatedly violate regulations and fail to adequately implement corrective measures shall be strictly punished in accordance with the law, and may even be placed on a list of untrustworthy entities, thereby increasing the costs of non-compliance. On the other hand, proactive services should be provided to these units, such as organizing free training sessions, guiding them in connecting to remote monitoring systems, and helping them address cost-related challenges.

At the same time, efforts to raise awareness must be intensified so that more organizations and individuals understand the importance of having personnel on duty in fire control rooms, shifting the mindset from “I have to comply” to “I want to comply.”

The duty roster in the fire control room may seem like a “small matter,” but it is intimately linked to the safety of countless individuals. Every on-duty personnel member’s steadfast commitment and every compliant operational procedure contribute to building a stronger foundation of safety.

It is hoped that all organizations will take this matter seriously, put a stop to the rampant practices of “dummy workers filling in” and “unlicensed personnel working,” ensure that the “safety brain” of every building operates properly, and enable everyone to work and live in a safe environment.