Post on 28-Mar-2020
National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471 Phone: 617-770-3000 • Fax: 617-770-0700 • www.nfpa.org
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: NFPA Technical Committee on Industrial and Medical Gases
FROM: Joanne Goyette, Administrator, Technical Projects
DATE: February 11, 2014
SUBJECT: NFPA 55 First Draft TC FINAL Ballot Results (A2015)
According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass ballot.
26 Members Eligible to Vote 4 Not Returned (T. Cirone, A. Gonzalez, F. Licari, and W. Satterfield) 16 Affirmative on All Revisions (With Comment: R. Barnes, J. Cordero, M. Gresho, A. Lacahwiec, and
D. Rohrig) 5 Negative on one or more Revisions (R. Barnes, J. Cordero, M. Gresho, A. Lachawiec, and G. Mahnken) 1 Abstentions on one or more Revisions: (J. Anicello) The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the explanation of the vote for each first revision.
There are two criteria necessary for each first revision to pass ballot: (1) simple majority and (2) affirmative 2/3 vote. The mock examples below show how the calculations are determined.
(1) Example for Simple Majority: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members, 11 affirmative votes are required to pass ballot. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligible to vote ÷ 2 = 10 + 1 = 11)
(2) Example for Affirmative 2/3: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members and 1 member did not
return their ballot and 2 members abstained, the number of affirmative votes required would be 12. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligble to vote – 1 not returned – 2 abstentions = 17 x 0.66 = 11.22 = 12 )
As always please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
NFPA 55 IMG‐AAA First Draft Ballot
Final Results
February 11, 2014
FR‐3, Section No. 2.3.4, See FR‐3
FR‐77, Section No. 2.3.2, See FR‐77
Total Voted : 22
FR‐9, Section No. 1.4.1, See FR‐9
Total Voted : 22
FR‐2, New Section after 1.3, See FR‐2
Total Voted : 22
Results by Revision
FR‐1, Global Input, See FR‐1
Total Voted : 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
FR‐4, Section No. 3.3.3, See FR‐4
FR‐80, Section No. 2.4, See FR‐80
Total Voted : 22
FR‐79, Sections 2.3.8, 2.3.9, 2.3.10, See FR‐79
Total Voted : 22
FR‐81, Section No. 2.3.7, See FR‐81
Total Voted : 22
FR‐78, Section No. 2.3.5, See FR‐78
Total Voted : 22
Total Voted : 22
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
FR‐8, New Section after 3.3.64.2, See FR‐8
FR‐61, New Section after 3.3.49.11, See FR‐61
Total Voted : 22
FR‐7, Section No. 3.3.49.7, See FR‐7
Total Voted : 22
FR‐60, New Section after 3.3.20, See FR‐60
Total Voted : 22
FR‐5, Section No. 3.3.15, See FR‐5
Total Voted : 22
Total Voted : 22
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
FR‐11, Section No. 3.3.98, See FR‐11
FR‐71, Section No. 3.3.93.4, See FR‐71
Total Voted : 22
FR‐30, Section No. 3.3.93.2, See FR‐30
Total Voted : 22
FR‐29, Section No. 3.3.93.1, See FR‐29
Total Voted : 22
FR‐82, Section No. 3.3.75, See FR‐82
Total Voted : 22
Total Voted : 22
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 21
Affirmative with Comment 1
Martin T. Gresho There should not be a requirement for storage areas. Most of these are in control areas anyway so this
is redundant. Perhaps the requirement should be storage areas >MAQ which would be hazardous
areas.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 21
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 1
Martin T. Gresho I had this all typed out nicely but the ridiculous system did not save it. Here it goes again. There is no
such thing as an Ordinary Hazard Group 2 Occupancy. NFPA 13 uses that term but it is misleading and is
not something NFPA 55 should strive to correlate with. The term occupancies, as used elsewhere in
NFPA 55, refers to the occupancy classification assigned to a structure and from which all building and
fire code requirements can be determined. Examples are business, storage or industrial. These are
common occupancies. NFPA 13 is referring to a particular level of combustible loading presented. It is
better to leave the 55 text as is or to be consistent with the text developed for the MATS systems and
refer to the curve in NFPA 13. That text was suggested by an NFPA 13 member. NFPA 55 is less
confusing without making the proposed change presented here.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 21
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 1
Martin T. Gresho same issue as for FR‐12
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
FR‐14, Section No. 6.16.4.2, See FR‐14
FR‐13, Section No. 6.10.2.2, See FR‐13
Total Voted : 22
FR‐12, Section No. 6.10.2.1, See FR‐12
Total Voted : 22
FR‐10, Section No. 4.2.1.2, See FR‐10
Total Voted : 22
Total Voted : 22
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 2
FR‐73, New Section after 7.1.18.10, See FR‐73
FR‐18, New Section after 7.1.6.5.6, See FR‐18
Total Voted : 22
FR‐16, Section No. 7.1 [Excluding any Sub‐Sections], See FR‐16
Total Voted : 22
FR‐15, Section No. 6.16.4.3, See FR‐15
Total Voted : 22
Total Voted : 22
Anthony J. Lachawiec, Jr. Section 7.1.20.1.3.1 of the new proposed text states that purging procedures require independent or
third party review, however these procedures are regularly developed without third party review
requirements and are routine, well‐understood and assessed for risk at the time of development. What
is the justification to have these procedures reviewed by a third party and who, for example is the third
party qualified to review/approve? Is the owner of the system/piping considered a third party if the
owner does not install or construct the system or piping?
Rodney L. Barnes 7.1.20.1.3.1 ‐ I don't understand the need for the third party reviewer.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 17
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 4
Martin T. Gresho This deletion goes too far. While there may be problems with excess flow control that is only one
option required here. Gas detection + auto shutoff is also an option and that gets deleted as well for
flammable gases. When flammable gases are piped into a building at >15 psi one of these two methods
is appropriate. If there are situations where neither excess flow nor gas detection + auto shutoff are
workable then these should be addressed through the standard alternate means or equivalency
process. This deletion reduces fire safety and is not justified by the substantiation.
Julie V. Cordero This change would reduce fire safety and cause conflicting requirements with the IFC.
Glenn Mahnken Reason # 1: The substantiation statement only explains why excess flow valves do not provide effective
excess flow control in many cases. This difficulty by itself does not justify removing the entire
requirement for excess flow control and the alternative (leak detection + shut‐off). Reason #2: No
substantiation or explanation is given for continuing to require excess flow control for Health hazard
and Instability Classes 3 and 4, while exempting Flammability Class 4. They are all high hazard
compressed gases ‐ what is the rationale for exempting flammable gases but not the others?
Rodney L. Barnes There are other alternatives that can satisfy the requirement instead of forcing this option.
Abstain 1
John J. Anicello History: The excess flow control provision was approved when the hazardous materials provisions from
the legacy codes were being merged into the IFC and was approved in accordance with all the rules in
1997‐2000 when the IFC was developed, 14 years ago. In regards to the NFPA 55 provision 7.3.1.12.1, it
was put there by proponent.
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
FR‐99, New Section after 7.6.1.2, See FR‐99
FR‐98, Section No. 7.6.1.1, See FR‐98
Total Voted : 22
FR‐19, Section No. 7.3.1.12.1 [Excluding any Sub‐Sections], See FR‐19
Total Voted : 22
Total Voted : 22
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
FR‐22, Section No. 8.2.4.7.2.2, See FR‐22
FR‐21, Section No. 8.2.4.7.2.1, See FR‐21
Total Voted : 22
FR‐74, Sections 7.6.3.2.1, 7.6.3.2.2, See FR‐74
Total Voted : 22
FR‐43, Section No. 7.6.3.1, See FR‐43
Total Voted : 22
FR‐33, New Section after 7.6.2.5, See FR‐33
Total Voted : 22
Total Voted : 22
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 2
Martin T. Gresho Makes CGA M‐1 an enforceable document. This was not provided to the TC members so I do not know
what is in it.
Julie V. Cordero The CGA document was not provided for committee review.
Abstain 0
FR‐75, Section No. 9.1.1.2, See FR‐75
FR‐62, New Section after 8.14.1.2, See FR‐62
Total Voted : 22
FR‐24, Section No. 8.7.3 [Excluding any Sub‐Sections], See FR‐24
Total Voted : 22
FR‐23, New Section after 8.5.1.8, See FR‐23
Total Voted : 22
Total Voted : 22
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 1
Rodney L. Barnes Agree with comment made by fellow TC Member to add a diagram for better understanding.
Negative 1
FR‐83, Section No. 10.3.1.2, See FR‐83
FR‐64, New Section after 10.2.3.1.1, See FR‐64
Total Voted : 22
FR‐63, New Section after 9.4.1.8, See FR‐63
Total Voted : 22
FR‐76, Section No. 9.3.2.3, See FR‐76
Total Voted : 22
FR‐26, Section No. 9.3.2 [Excluding any Sub‐Sections], See FR‐26
Total Voted : 22
Total Voted : 22
Anthony J. Lachawiec, Jr. Proposed wording is equally vague – Class 1 Division 1 states Within 3 ft of any vent outlet for location,
then the extent of the classified area is between 0 and 15 ft from “within 3 ft” So is this just between 0
and 18 ft from any vent outlet? Suggestion was made to develop a diagram and none has been
provided. I request that said diagram be provided before consideration so that this intent is
understood, otherwise we miss the intent of the clarifying revision.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 2
Julie V. Cordero Deleting these sections would make it more cumbersome to enforce the requirements. The intent is to
block the radiant heat. Each system would require a design, thus increasing cost.
Rodney L. Barnes Recommend keeping the deleted design wording in. Having a basic design to work to is less problematic
and justification can be provided and approved by the AHJ to allow other design options.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 21
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 1
FR‐84, New Section after 10.6.3.6, See FR‐84
FR‐102, Section No. 10.3.2.6, See FR‐102
Total Voted : 22
FR‐101, Section No. 10.3.2.4.1, See FR‐101
Total Voted : 22
FR‐32, Section No. 10.3.2.1 [Excluding any Sub‐Sections], See FR‐32
Total Voted : 22
Total Voted : 22
Martin T. Gresho The substantiation states that the same level of security should be provided for GH2 as for LH2 without
stating why. GH2 installations are not as complex as LH2 installations with vaporizers etc. and may be
considered bulk at lower thresholds. This is not a significant fire safety issue and does not warrant
special enforcement provisions in a fire code. These fenced areas can create egress concerns that are
not adequately mitigated by the proposed 10.7.3 such as the type of door hardware allowable. Mere
consistency with Chapter 11 is inadequate basis for this requirement. The proponent should provide
examples of incidents that would have been prevented had this added requirement been followed.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 2
Martin T. Gresho Chapter 7 will likely apply to portions of the system after gasification.
Julie V. Cordero Leaving the text as is allows the AHJ to determine the applicability of each Chapter.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
FR‐65, New Section after 11.2.3.8, See FR‐65
FR‐87, Section No. 11.2.3.2, See FR‐87
Total Voted : 22
FR‐86, Section No. 11.2.2, See FR‐86
Total Voted : 22
FR‐85, Section No. 11.1.1, See FR‐85
Total Voted : 22
Total Voted : 22
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 1
Rodney L. Barnes Recommend adding a diagram to prevent confusion with plane geometry.
Negative 1
Anthony J. Lachawiec, Jr. I did not see the requested diagram provided in either the comment or annex material. This would be
helpful as the geometry described is hard to conceptualize. Essentially this defines a cylinder (I think?)
rather than a sphere (as originally stated) around the location being addressed. If so, how far in the
vertical does the extent of the classified area extend? One could interpret the current revised text to
mean that the vertical position has infinite extent, though I don’t think that is the intent of the revision.
I think the diagram may help clarify the intent of the original commenter.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
FR‐36, Section No. 11.2.9 [Excluding any Sub‐Sections], See FR‐36
FR‐89, Section No. 11.2.6, See FR‐89
Total Voted : 22
FR‐88, Section No. 11.2.4.2.2.2, See FR‐88
Total Voted : 22
FR‐103, Section No. 11.2.4.2.2.1, See FR‐103
Total Voted : 22
FR‐35, Section No. 11.2.4.2.1, See FR‐35
Total Voted : 22
Total Voted : 22
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
FR‐40, Section No. 11.4.1.3, See FR‐40
FR‐39, New Section after 11.4.1.1, See FR‐39
Total Voted : 22
FR‐38, Section No. 11.3.2.5, See FR‐38
Total Voted : 22
FR‐37, Section No. 11.3.2.4, See FR‐37
Total Voted : 22
FR‐90, Section No. 11.3.2.2, See FR‐90
Total Voted : 22
Total Voted : 22
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
FR‐106, Section No. 12.3, See FR‐106
Total Voted : 22
FR‐42, New Section after 11.5.7, See FR‐42
Total Voted : 22
FR‐100, New Section after 11.5.5, See FR‐100
Total Voted : 22
FR‐41, New Section after 11.4.1.4.1, See FR‐41
Total Voted : 22
Total Voted : 22
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 1
David A. Rohrig Section 13.3.1.2 Suggestested Wording Pressure relief devices shall be piped to the outdoors or non‐
recirculating exhaust system where the discharge will not impinge on the structure, personnel, or
means of egress and will not create a hazardous concentration of carbon dioxide.
Negative 0
Abstain 1
John J. Anicello Item 91, a rewrite of Chapter 13 was never called to the floor in accordance with the rules. Instead the
chair called the CGA’s revisions to Item 91 to be heard out of order. The intent of proposal Item 91 was
written to be consistent with the regulation of carbon dioxide at the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) as
in other model codes, i.e., International Fire Code for beverage systems and the International
Mechanical Code for refrigeration. This proposal was also intended to be consistent with model fire
code regulation of all other gases that pose a health hazard, where the alarm trigger points are set at
their PELs.
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
FR‐45, Section No. 15.2 [Excluding any Sub‐Sections], See FR‐45
FR‐44, Section No. 15.1 [Excluding any Sub‐Sections], See FR‐44
Total Voted : 22
FR‐68, Section No. 14.4.3.1, See FR‐68
Total Voted : 22
FR‐67, New Section after 14.4.1.2, See FR‐67
Total Voted : 22
FR‐91, Chapter 13, See FR‐91
Total Voted : 22
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
FR‐93, Section No. 15.3.9, See FR‐93
FR‐49, Section No. 15.3.7.4, See FR‐49
Total Voted : 22
FR‐48, Section No. 15.3.3, See FR‐48
Total Voted : 22
FR‐92, Section No. 15.2.3.2, See FR‐92
Total Voted : 22
FR‐46, Section No. 15.2.1.1, See FR‐46
Total Voted : 22
Total Voted : 22
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 21
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 1
Glenn Mahnken Reason # 1: In 15.3.9.1.2, the proposal to use NFPA 13 density/area curves for MATS deluge system
design would allow decreasing water density as the MATS fire area increases above 2500 sqft. This
approach is not appropriate and could result in inadequate protection for a MATS fire area. The
purpose of the deluge system is to provide a minimum density that is needed to cool all of the exposed
acetylene cylinders, regardless of the operating area. The deluge design density criteria should be left
as is currently specified in 15.3.9.1.2 (i.e. "0.30 gpm/sqft over the MATS fire area being protected").
Reason#2: In 15.3.9.1.4.2, the proposed "fire‐rated barriers" would allow the deluge systems on two or
more side‐by‐side MATS to be designed as separate deluge operating areas. However, the barrier will
not prevent automatic activation of the deluge systems on MATS next to the one where the fire starts.
So, this design approach can result in a depleted water supply and indequate deluge protection, hence
failure to cool the exposed acetylene cylinders and a potential run‐away fire spreading to the adjacent
MATS. A fire‐rated barrier is not sufficent. Multiple MATS closer than 30 ft should be treated as a single
deluge operating area.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
FR‐53, Section No. 15.3.10.3.2, See FR‐53
Total Voted : 22
FR‐52, Section No. 15.3.10.3.1, See FR‐52
Total Voted : 22
FR‐51, Section No. 15.3.10.1, See FR‐51
Total Voted : 22
Total Voted : 22
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
FR‐17, New Section after 15.7.2.3, See FR‐17
Total Voted : 22
FR‐56, Section No. 15.4.1.13.2, See FR‐56
Total Voted : 22
FR‐55, Section No. 15.4.1.12.2.1, See FR‐55
Total Voted : 22
FR‐69, New Section after 15.4.1.10.1.1, See FR‐69
Total Voted : 22
FR‐54, Section No. 15.4.1.8.1.1(B), See FR‐54
Total Voted : 22
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
FR‐95, Section No. A.10.2.2, See FR‐95
Total Voted : 22
FR‐94, Section No. A.9.3.2, See FR‐94
Total Voted : 22
FR‐109, Section No. A.7.3.1.12.1, See FR‐109
Total Voted : 22
FR‐72, Section No. A.3.3.49.6, See FR‐72
Total Voted : 22
FR‐58, Section No. 15.7.2.3, See FR‐58
Total Voted : 22
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 2
Julie V. Cordero NFPA 50A was intended to be deleted, but is not shown as such.
Anthony J. Lachawiec, Jr. Reference to NFPA 50A has not been stricken as intended in the comments.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 26
Not Returned : 4
Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,
and William J. Satterfield, III
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 0
FR‐108, Section No. I.2.2, See FR‐108
FR‐107, Sections I.1.2.1, I.1.2.2, I.1.2.3, I.1.2.4, I.1.2.5, I.1.2..., See FR‐107
Total Voted : 22
FR‐59, Section No. I.1.1, See FR‐59
Total Voted : 22
FR‐97, Section No. A.11.3.2.2.4.2, See FR‐97
Total Voted : 22
FR‐96, Section No. A.10.3.2.1, See FR‐96
Total Voted : 22