*************
Hi Ken,
    First and foremost the 2010 Edition of NFPA-72 is NOT the reference standard to the 2009 Edition of the International Building Code, the 2007 Edition of NFPA-72 is.
2009 International Building Code
CHAPTER 35
REFERENCED STANDARDS
This chapter lists the standards that are referenced in various sections of this document. The standards are listed herein by the promulgating agency of the standard, the standard identification, the effective date and title, and the section or sections of this document that reference the standard. The application of the referenced standards shall be as specified in Section 102.4. (Page 587)

NFPA
72—07  National Fire Alarm Code. (Pg 602)

The 2007 Edition of NFPA-72 provides a corresponding exception to the control protection smoke detector in sprinklered buildings.  (4.4.5 Exception 2)  So there is not a conflict between the building code and the standard referenced.  With that said if a jurisdiction adopts the 2009 IBC it need not adopt the reference standards individually as the IBC accomplishes that via Chapter 35 Reference Standards.  In other words adopt the Building and Fire Codes as their intended to be adopted.

Even with that there is the possibility of a conflict however the IBC addresses that possibility;

2009 International Building Code
CHAPTER 1
Scope and Administration
102.1 General. Where there is a conflict between a general requirement and a specific requirement, the specific requirement shall be applicable. Where, in any specific case, different sections of this code specify different materials, methods of construction or other requirements, the most restrictive shall govern.
102.4 Referenced codes and standards. The codes and standards referenced in this code shall be considered part of the requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each such reference. Where differences occur between provisions of this code and referenced codes and standards, the provisions of this code shall apply. (Page 1)

    If however, as Mark speculated, a jurisdiction goes outside the framework the IBC and adopts standard(s) other than those referenced in the IBC it would be up to the adopting jurisdiction to either amend the IBC accordingly or address conflicts in their adopting legislation, regulations, ordinances etc.
    Lastly keep in mind;

2009 International Building Code
104.8 Liability. The building official, member of the board of appeals or employee charged with the enforcement of this code, while acting for the jurisdiction in good faith and without malice in the discharge of the duties required by this code or other pertinent law or ordinance, shall not thereby be rendered liable personally and is hereby relieved from personal liability for any damage accruing to persons or property as a result of any act or by reason of an act or omission in the discharge of official duties. Any suit instituted against an officer or employee because of an act performed by that officer or employee in the lawful discharge of duties and under the provisions of this code shall be defended by legal representative of the jurisdiction until the final termination of the proceedings. The building official or any subordinate shall not be liable for cost in any action, suit or proceeding that is instituted in pursuance of the provisions of this code.
    Hope that helps,
John Drucker, CET
Fire Protection Subcode Official
Fire/Building/Electrical Inspector
Fire Marshals Office
Borough of Red Bank, NJ
***************
    I know here in FL when that happens the more stringent requirement is the one you must follow, It's in the FL code.
Stephen Wolf
*****************
Ken
    I agree with your answer to Mark Snodgrass about code vs standard.
    The question  is which is the ADOPTED STANDARD in the municipality or state?  THAT is the CODE. If the IBC has been adopted in lieu of the NFPA 72 than you must follow that one.
    The catch all is what the NTS and all other educators agree on:
    When you have a conflict of codes, FOLLOW THE MORE STRINGENT and you cannot lose.
Typically the AHJ will say FOLLOW THE CODE with no interpretation that may come back to bite him (her).
Performing in EXCESS of the code is an example of SUPERIOR WORK not MINIMUM REQUIRES.
Joel Kent
FBN Security LLC
NTS
******************
    A few comments about Mark's fictitious scenario re "Model Code versus the standard".
    NFPA 72 - 2010 fully intends adequate protection (a misnomer in the sense that providing a smoke detector does not "protect" the control unit) so that the scenario presented would at least provide some level of warning that the unit is at some risk from fire.  The exception was included in section 10.15 because some factions believe that in cases where buildings are fully sprinklered the supression provided would extinguish the fire and permit the control unit to continue functioning.  Operation of a sprinkler head presupposes at least a 165 degree F temperature at the ceiling.  One fallacy is that this excessive temperature (in the area of the control unit) exceeds the permitted operating temperature of the control unit as specified in NFPA 72.  The high temperature alone could and probably would place the unit out of service.  The standard states this temperature to be 120 Degrees F.
    The Technical Committee has debated this issue for many code cycles and the requirement remains.  Having said all that as background intent we should more directly address Mark's concern about conflicts existing between Model Code (in this case IBC and now know as ICC).
    First - a Model code is only a tentative and as stated "Model" until adopted in the jurisdiction within which the AHJ is empowered to operate.  Without some legal action making the Model Code a statute it is without standing.  Let's assume for purposes of argument that the "Model" is adopted.  Many code making bodies carefully screen the model and make modifications prior to adopting.  One reason is to eliminate the conflict presented here.  
    Second - Model codes refer other documents as "Reference Standards".  Although NFPA 72 - 2010 edition is entitled "National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code" it has no legal conformance requirements unless it also is adopted and legitimized by some governing statutory authority.  I do not know what that is the the "Land of 10,000 Lakes"  but the legal authority is usually a body similar to the State Legislature.  Reference standards are also scrutinized and modified prior to adoption.  Assuming the entire "Standard" is adopted it then becomes part of the Code when and where the code is silent on a specific issue.  Since I do not have copy of the 2009 IBC immediately available commenting on the stated requirement would be improper.  
    However - if the adopted code obviates the requirement the requirement as specified in 10.15 of NFPA 72.  On the other hand if it is not specific and NFPA 72 is the adopted standard then the 72 language would prevail.  Si
    Third - Situations when NFPA 72 is the governing document then the Sprinkler Exception is valid.
    Fourth - Considering the foregoing it is imperative that from a code making perspective - the AHJ has broad and sweeping powers BUT can only act within the powers granted under his charter.  NFPA Standards make significant provision for decisions by the AHJ and as such provide that party the ability to make some (but not all) ad hoc decisions.  Section 10.15 does NOT make such a provision.  The Model Code might make this proviso although such is very much within doubt.
    Fifth - Federal buildings that utilize model codes often provide additional authority to the AHJ simply because the Federal Government is both an Owner and AHJ.  Be extremely careful in those situations.
    Sixth - Code issues aside - the project technical specifications may alter code requirements.  Always evaluate the specs when applying code.
    Seventh - The AHJ can certainly impose additional requirements/exceptions but only when chartered or authorized to do so.  Just because the AHJ says so does not mean  you must comply.  The downside, of course, is that you may not receive project completion approval.
    Eighth - Remember that since this is a hypothetical scenario a business decision might wisely guide to including the smoke detector, installation, programming and commissioning.  The actual cost is minimum and will preclude further punitive action by the AHJ.
    Ninth - Last comment.  The pecking order is:  Local and legal requirements, Statutory Code (may include Model Code), Reference Standards, Job specifications and AHJ opinion.  The old adage of "use the more restrictive requirement" is often a good choice".
    Keep in mind - there are GOOD, knowledgeable, trained and competent AHJs.  BUT there are also - Not so good, unknowing, untrained and incompetent AHJs.  Hopefully your's is the former.
    Hope this is of some assistance.  BTW - personally - I always require the detector whether the AHJ does or not.
James M. Mundy, Jr., President
CPP, CDT, CHS V, CSI, CFPS, mSFPE, SET
Asset Protection Associates, LTD
Wantagh, New York 11793-3237
smokedetector@msn.com
****************
and talking about code requirements
***************
Ken
    In a new development toward the full adoption of Network and Cellular communication for alarm signals, New York City  FDNY approved Network and Cell for primary alarm communication for Fire Systems within New York City.  The Products approved for use by the FDNY are the DMP XR100N and XR500N and 463G Cellular Communicator.
    You can read more about it here.
http://pitchengine.com/dmp/fdny-approves-dmp-network-and-cell-fire-alarm-communications
and get more info by contacting Matt Schweiger - DMP, Director of sales, East.  Phone  417-693-3988
Mark Hillenburg | Exec. Dir. of Marketing
Digital Monitoring Products
DMP.com

**************