ROC TC Initial Ballot Cover · PDF filePart 1 is a Letter Ballot on the Correlating Committee...

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 Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

FROM: Ron Coté

DATE: December 27, 2012

SUBJECT: NFPA 101 First Draft Correlating Committee Ballot (A2014)

______________________________________________________________________

In accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA

Standards, attached is the Letter Ballot on the First Draft (FD) for the 2015 Edition of

NFPA 101. Please note the Letter Ballot has two parts:

Part 1 is a Letter Ballot on the Correlating Committee Notes to the First Draft. The notes

provide clarification and other appropriate information or direct the responsible Technical

Committee(s) to reconsider Public Input, Committee Input, or Correlating Input, conduct

further review, or take further action during the preparation of the Second Draft. For

more detailed information, please refer to the Regs at 4.3.11.5.1.

Part 2 is a Letter Ballot on the First Correlating Revisions to the First Draft. The First

Correlating Revisions are actions to delete or modify First Revisions or other text in the

First Draft. For more detailed information, please refer to the Regs at 4.3.11.5.2.

In ALL cases reasons must accompany “Negative” and “Abstaining” votes. Negative

votes are limited to subjects within the purview of the Correlating Committee. Opposition

on a strictly technical basis is not sufficient grounds for substantiating a negative vote.

If you have correlation issues, please identify and describe your concerns in the area of

the ballot form for identification of correlation issues.

The First Draft has been posted on the NFPA Document Information page: http://www.nfpa.org/101next.

Please complete and return your ballot as soon as possible but no later than January 17,

2013. As noted on the ballot form, please return the ballot to Kelly Carey either via e-

mail to [email protected] or via fax to 617-984-7110. You may also mail your ballot to

the attention of Kelly Carey at NFPA, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169.

http://www.nfpa.org/101next

mailto:[email protected]

The return of ballots is required by the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA

Standards. As usual, nonvoting members (for example, the nonvoting technical

committee chairs) need not return ballots.

Attachments

101Correlating Committee Notes for Document # 12/14/2012

First Revision # FR104

Relative to FR104 (FileMaker) / FR52 (Terra) on replacing terms like "No requirement," the SAF-FUNcommittee is asked to reconsider the first revision, study the issue relative to its effects Code-wide, andprepare recommendations that the other technical committees can follow for consistency. It might behelpful to have the terms "No requirements", "No special requirements", "Reserved" and "Nomodifications" defined. As needed, develop annex text.

Correlating Committee Note:

(xx.1.6 Subsection of Various Chapters)

As a variation of the "Global Replace" concept:(1) Replace the entry "(No requirements.)" with the entry "(Reserved.)" in 14.1.6, 15.1.6, 38.1.6, 39.1.6,

40.1.6 and 42.1.6.(2) Replace the entry "(No special requirements.)" with the entry "(Reserved.)" in 26.1.6, 28.1.6, 29.1.6,

30.1.6, 31.1.6, 36.1.6 and 37.1.6.

First Revision Text:

The entries of "No requirements" and "No special requirements," in various occupancy chaptersubsections __.1.6 related to Building Construction, mistakenly cause users to believe that if another codeor standard referenced by NFPA 101 has construction requirements, such requirements need not be met.That is not the intent. The intent is that the document with the more "specific" requirement be met. Seefirst revision to 4.4.2.3 which is being made to help clarify the issue.

Committee Statement:

SAF-FUN

Page 1


First Revision # FR105 (2.3.6 ASTM Publications)

2.3.6 ASTM Publications. ASTM International, P.O. Box C700, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, WestConshohocken, PA 19428-2959. www.astm.org

ASTM C 1629/C 1629M, Standard Classification for Abuse-Resistant Nondecorated Interior GypsumPanel Products and Fiber-Reinforced Cement Panels, 2006 (2011) .

ASTM D 1929, Standard Test Method for Determining Ignition Temperatures of Plastic,2011 1996(2001e1).ASTM D 2859, Standard Test Method for Ignition Characteristics of Finished Textile Floor Covering

Materials, 2006 (2011).ASTM D 2898, Standard Test Methods for Accelerated Weathering of Fire-Retardant-Treated Wood for

Fire Testing, 2010.ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, 2012 2010.ASTM E 108, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Roof Coverings, 2011 2010a.ASTM E 119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, 2012 2010b.ASTM E 136, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750

Degrees C, 2011 2009b.ASTM E 648, Standard Test Method for Critical Radiant Flux of Floor Covering Systems Using a Radiant

Heat Energy Source, 2010 e1.ASTM E 814, Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Through-Penetration Fire Stops, 2011a 2010.ASTM E 1352, Standard Test Method for Cigarette Ignition Resistance of Mock-Up Upholstered

Furniture Assemblies, 2008a.ASTM E 1353, Standard Test Methods for Cigarette Ignition Resistance of Components of Upholstered

Furniture, 2008a(e1).ASTM E 1354, Standard Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and

Products Using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter, 2011b 2009.ASTM E 1537, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Upholstered Furniture, 2012 2007.ASTM E 1590, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Mattresses, 2012 2007.ASTM E 1591, Standard Guide for Obtaining Data for Deterministic Fire Models, 2007.ASTM E 1966, Standard Test Method for Fire-Resistive Joint Systems, 2007 (2011).ASTM E 2072, Standard Specification for Photoluminescent (Phosphorescent) Safety Markings, 2010.ASTM E 2074, Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Door Assemblies, Including Positive Pressure

Testing of Side-Hinged and Pivoted Swinging Door Assemblies, 2000 e1 (withdrawn 2007), Revised 2004.ASTM E 2307, Standard Test Method for Determining Fire Resistance of Perimeter Fire Barrier Systems

Using Intermediate-Scale, Multi-Story Test Apparatus, 2010.ASTM E 2404, Standard Practice for Specimen Preparation and Mounting of Textile, Paper or VinylWall

or Ceiling Coverings to Assess Surface Burning Characteristics, 2010 2008.ASTM E 2573, Standard Practice for Specimen Preparation and Mounting of Site-Fabricated Stretch

Systems to Assess Surface Burning Characteristics, 2012 2007a.ASTM E 2599, Standard Practice for Specimen Preparation and Mounting of Reflective Insulation

Materials and Radiant Barrier Materials for Building Applications to Assess Surface BurningCharacteristics, 2011 2009.

ASTM E 2652, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Tube Furnace with a Cone-shapedAirflow Stabilizer, at 750 Degrees C, 2009a.

ASTM F 851, Standard Test Method for Self-Rising Seat Mechanisms, 1987 (2005).ASTM F 1577, Standard Test Methods for Detention Locks for Swinging Doors, 2005.ASTM G 155, Standard Practice for Operating Xenon Arc Light Apparatus for Exposure of Non-Metallic

Materials, 2005a.


SAF-FUN

Page 2


Relative to FR105 (FileMaker) / FR53 (Terra) on 2.3.6, ASTM Standards, the SAF-FUNcommittee is asked to delete reference to ASTM E 2074 as the standard has beenwithdrawn and NFPA 252 is an equivalent test method. In a separate Correlating Note,the SAF-FIR committee is being asked to delete reference to ASTM E 2074 in thefootnotes to Table 8.3.4.2.


The changes update the currently referenced ASTM documents to reflect the edition available at the timeof the committee's First Draft meeting. References are being added for ASTM E1352 and ASTM E1353 asthe documents will appear in other Code provisions.



Relative to FR108 (FileMaker) / FR58 (Terra) on 3.3.21.2.2 definition of Net Floor Area, the SAF-FUNcommittee is asked to rework the text so as to clarify the meaning. Per the ballot comments of Elvove andGencarelli, the proposed definition is confusing and should be more clearly worded.


(3.3.21.2.2 Net Floor Area)

3.3.21.2.2 Net Floor Area. The floor area within the inside perimeter of the outside walls, or the outsidewalls and fire walls of a building, or outside and/or inside walls that bound an occupancy or incidental usearea requiring the occupant load to be calculated using net floor area under consideration with deductionsfor hallways, stairs, closets, thickness of interior walls, columns, or other features.


The current definition only addresses the entire interior of a building but does not address the fact thatthere are often interior spaces within the overall building that require the use of net floor area forcalculating occupant loads, for example, an incidental assembly use such as a conference room or anyday care use within the space.


SAF-FUN

Page 3



Relative to FR110 (FileMaker) / FR61 (Terra) on the change to the definition of Exit by SAF-FUN, theSAF-MEA committee is asked to review the inclusion of the word "location" and offer further revision asneeded.


(3.3.81 Exit)

3.3.81* Exit. That portion of a means of egress that is separated from all other spaces of the building orstructure by construction, location, or equipment as required to provide a protected way of travel to theexit discharge.


Clarification that location (e.g., the front door to the outside from the lobby of an office building) offers theprotection, required of an exit, based on its location, such that the protection is comparable to thatprovided to occupants of an upper floor by a fire-rated stair enclosure.


SAF-FUN


Relative to FR113 (FileMaker) / FR64 (Terra) on change to the definition of Grade Plane, the SAF-FUNcommittee is asked to format the definition by retaining the Boldface Term and adding a reference to "See4.6.15." Remove the current single sentence "A reference plane...are based." Add the sentence to 4.6.15as necessary. Something similar was done in an earlier revision cycle for the terms Noncombustible(Material) and Limited-Combustible as the pared-back definition left in Chapter 3, after the requirementswere moved to Chapter 4, is not useful.Further, the Correlating Committee asks SAF-FUN revise 3.3.124.1 First Story Above Grade Plane to useformatting as done above for Grade Plane. Move the necessary portions of the current definition to 4.6.15.Retain the Boldface Term and add "See 4.6.15".


(3.3.124 Grade Plane)

3.3.124* 3.3.124 Grade Plane. A reference plane upon which vertical measurements of a building are

based. representing the average of the finished ground level adjoining the building at all exterior walls.When the finished ground level slopes down from the exterior walls, the grade plane is established by thelowest points within the area between the building and the lot line or, when the lot line is more than 6 ft(1830 mm) from the building, between the building and a point 6 ft (1830 mm) from the building.


The definition of "grade plane" was revised to be generic without requirements. The requirements in thedefinition were removed to reflect the NFPA Manual of Style. The requirements were moved to a newsubsection 4.6.15. The asterisk added to the paragraph number denotes that annex text is being added.


SAF-FUN

Page 4


First Revision # FR226 (7.2.1.11)

7.2.1.11 Turnstiles and Similar Devices.7.2.1.11.1 Turnstiles or similar devices that restrict travel to one direction or are used to collect fares or

admission charges shall not be placed so as to obstruct any required means of egress, unless otherwisespecified in 7.2.1.11.1.1 and 7.2.1.11.1.2 7.2.1.11.1.1, 7.2.1.11.1.2 and 7.2.1.11.1.3.

7.2.1.11.1.1 Approved turnstiles not exceeding 39 in. (990 mm) in height that turn freely in the directionof egress travel shall be permitted where revolving door assemblies are permitted in Chapters 11 through43.

7.2.1.11.1.2 Where turnstiles are approved by the authority having jurisdiction and permitted in Chapters11 through 43, each turnstile shall be credited for a capacity of 50 persons, provided that such turnstilesmeet all of the following criteria:

(1) They freewheel in the egress direction when primary power is lost, and freewheel in the direction ofegress travel upon manual release by an employee assigned in the area.

(2) They are not given credit for more than 50 percent of the required egress width.(3) They are not in excess of 39 in. (990 mm) in height and have a clear width of not less than 16½ in.

(420 mm).7.2.1.11.1.3* Security access turnstiles that impede travel in the direction of egress utilizing a physical

barrier shall be permitted to be considered as a component of the means of egress, where permitted inChapters 11 through 43, provided that all the following criteria are met:

(1) The building is protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system inaccordance with Section 9.7.

(2) Each security access turnstile lane configuration has a minimum clear passage width of 22 in. (560mm).

(3) Any security access turnstile lane configuration providing a clear passage width of less than 32 in.(810 mm) shall be given an egress capacity of 50 persons.

(4) Any security access turnstile lane configuration providing a clear passage width of 32 in. (810 mm) ormore shall be given an egress capacity as calculated in accordance with Section 7.3.

(5) Each secured physical barrier shall automatically retract or swing to an unobstructed open position inthe direction of egress, under each of the following conditions:

(a) Upon loss of power to the turnstile or any part of the access control system that secures the physicalbarrier

(b) Upon actuation of a readily accessible and clearly identified manual release device that results indirect interruption of power to each secured physical barrier, remains in the open position for not less than30 seconds, and is positioned at one of the following locations:

i. The manual release device is located on the egress side of each security access turnstile laneii. The manual release device is located at an approved location where it can be activated by an

employee assigned to the area.(c) Upon activation of the building fire protective signaling system, if provided, and for which the

following apply:i. The physical barrier remains in the open position until the fire-protective signaling system is

manually reset.ii. The activation of manual fire alarm boxes that activate the building fire-protective signaling system

is not required to meet the requirements specified in 7.2.1.11.1.3(5)(c).(d) Upon actuation of the building automatic sprinkler or fire detection system, and for which the

physical barrier remains in the open position until the fire-protective signaling system is manually reset.7.2.1.11.2 Turnstiles exceeding 39 in. (990 mm) in height shall meet the requirements for revolving door

assemblies in 7.2.1.10 or the requirements of 7.2.1.11.1.3 for security access turnstiles.7.2.1.11.3 Turnstiles located in, or furnishing access to, required exits shall provide not less than 16½ in.


SAF-MEA

Page 5


Relative to FR226 (FileMaker) / FR73 (Terra) on 7.2.1.11.1.3, the SAF-MEA committeeis asked to revise the reference in subpart (5)(c)ii from “7.2.1.11.1.3(5)(c)” to“7.2.1.11.1.3(5)(c)i” as the current text creates a circular reference to itself, as noted inthe ballot comment by Shulman.


(420 mm) clear width at and below a height of 39 in. (990 mm) and at least 22 in. (560 mm) clear width atheights above 39 in. (990 mm).-

Manufacturers of turnstile devices have expanded into the security access control market and currentlyhave products that have physical barrier leaves that restrict access into and out of buildings. Thesedevices can vary in height and sophistication to address building security concerns that may not meetsafety requirements related to the means of egress. Typically, these turnstile devices are located atbuilding entrances and elevator lobbies.

The current requirements for turnstiles apply historically to the “three arm” waist high turnstiles forentertainment or transportation venues and do not apply to the new installations. Currently, the AHJ is leftto evaluate these new modern turnstiles to determine compliance with the egress requirements in NFPA101.

The intent of the revision is to provide guidance to on evaluating these new modern turnstiles. Turnstileson the market can be as narrow as 22 inches. For turnstiles that are less than 32 inches, there areadditional capacity issues that need to be considered. The fail safe provisions for overriding the turnstileaccess restrictions are derived from existing code provisions (e.g., delayed egress locks and forces toopen doors).


Page 6



Relative to FR215 (FileMaker) / FR113 (Terra) on 7.2.2.5.2.4, the SAF-MEA committeeis asked to revise the text as needed to clarify intent given that the first subparagraphrefers to sprinklers in stairs but the base paragraph mentions outside stairs. The needfor revision is noted in the ballot comment by Bush.


(7.2.2.5.2.4)

7.2.2.5.2.4 Separation shall not be required between corridors and outside stairs, provided that all ofthe following conditions are met:(1) The building, including corridors and stairs, is protected throughout by an approved, electrically

supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation ofSprinkler Systems, or, where applicable, NFPA 13R, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems inResidential Occupancies up to and Including Four Stories in Height.(2) The corridors comply with 7.1.3.1.(3) The corridors are connected on each end to an outside stair complying with 7.2.2.6.(4) At any location in the corridor where a change in direction exceeding 45 degrees occurs, a clear

opening to the exterior of not less than 35 ft2 (3.25 m2), located to restrict the accumulation of smoke andtoxic gases, or an outside stair is provided.


The proposed text exists in NFPA 5000. The option offered, to the core requirement for separation, isuseful and technically viable.


SAF-MEA

Page 7



Relative to FR239 (FileMaker) / FR119 (Terra) on 7.2.4.3.4, the SAF-MEA committee isasked to consider changing the words “from termination of” to “from intersection with” forclarity as noted in the ballot comment by Bonisch.


(7.2.4.3.4)

7.2.4.3.4 Where fire barriers serving horizontal exits, other than existing horizontal exits, terminate at

outside walls, and the outside walls are at an angle of less than 180 degrees for a distance of 10 ft (3050mm) on each side of the horizontal exit, the outside walls shall be protected by one of the followingmethods:(a) The outside walls shall have a minimum 1-hour fire resistance rating, with opening protectives having

a minimum ¾-hour fire protection rating, for a distance of 10 ft (3050 mm) on each side of the horizontalexit.(b) One of the outside walls shall have a 2-hour fire resistance rating with opening protectives having a

minimum 1 1/2 –hour fire protection rating, for a distance of 10 ft (3050 mm) from termination of thehorizontal exit.


The proposed revision provides an alternate to the existing requirement. The intent is to preventmigration of fire or smoke from one compartment to the next. The proposed 2-hour fire resistance-ratedexterior wall on one side will provide such protection and offer design flexibility.


SAF-MEA

Page 8


First Revision # CI3SAF-HEA

Relative to CI3-SAF-HEA (FileMaker) / CI297 (Terra) on Table 7.3.1.2 occupant loadfactor for ambulatory health care (under the heading of Health Care Use), the SAF-MEAcommittee is asked to consider revising the factor from 100 ft2/person (9.3 m2/person) to150 ft2/person (13.9 m2/person). The SAF-HEA committee raised the issue as a CIbecause (1) it wanted to receive public input on the subject, and (2) because it does nothave jurisdiction over Chapter 7. The Correlating Committee did not create a FirstCorrelating Revision (FCR) because SAF-HEA was not certain of the new value.


(Table 7.3.1.2)

Health Care UseInpatient treatment departments 240 22.3Sleeping departments 120 11.1Ambulatory health care 100 150 9.3 13.9


The committee is seeking input from facility operators and Code users to determine the appropriateoccupant load factor for ambulatory health care. The proposed revision is consistent with the proposedrevision for business occupancies.

Note that this CI was generated by the Technical Committee on Health Care Occupancies.Note to Correlating Committee for its consideration: Communication to SAF-MEA committee needed

relative to formalizing the change during the second draft preparation period.


SAF-HEA

Page 9



The change to Table 7.3.1.2, proposed by FR243 (FileMaker) / FR127 (Terra) bySAF-MEA, is being changed by the Correlating Committee to Committee Input (CI)because the change will instead be that proposed by SAF-MER which has primaryresponsibility for occupant load factors related to business uses.


(Table 7.3.1.2)

...Business Use (other 100 150 9.3 14

than below)Concentrated business 100 9.3

usef

Air traffic control 40 3.7tower observationlevels

...f See A.7.3.1.2....

Editorially, reformat the table to present the boldface use categories alphabetically as follows:Assembly UseBusiness Use (other than below)Day-Care UseDetention and Correctional UseEducational UseIndustrial UseMercantile UseResidential UseStorage Use


The current occupant load factor of 100 ft2 of floor area per person for business use spaces hasremained unchanged in the code since the 1930's. A study facilitated through the Fire ProtectionResearch Foundation (FPRF) and conducted at Worcester Polytechnic Institute examined theappropriateness of the 100 ft2 load factor. The study, entitled Evaluating Occupant Load Factors forBusiness Operations, examined the following: historical basis of the load factor; changes in office spacefunction, planning and layout since the load factor first appeared in the code; availability of furnishings forbusiness use spaces; and trends in the use of business space. The study involved a literature searchincluding the review of space planning guides and previous studies; and a on-line questionnaire ofdesigners, building managers and real estate agents. While the response rate of the questionnaires wasless than desired, the overall results of the study do support the changes as proposed. The study isavailable through the Fire Protection Research Foundation.


SAF-MEA

Page 10



Relative to FR250 (FileMaker) / FR134 (Terra) on 7.8.1.2.2, the SAF-MEA committee isasked to revise text in subitem (2) from “upon normal power” to “upon loss of normalpower” as those key words were omitted, as noted in the ballot comment by Shulman.


(7.8.1.2.2)

7.8.1.2.2* 7.8.1.2.2 Unless prohibited by Chapters 11 through 43, automatic, motion sensor–type

lighting switches lighting control devices shall be permitted to temporarily turn off the illumination withinthe means of egress, provided that the switch controllers each lighting control device complies complywith all of the following:

(1) The In new installations, switch controllers the lighting control device is listed.(2) The switch controllers lighting control device is are equipped for fail-safe operation to automatically

energize the controlled lights upon normal power and is evaluated for this purpose.(3) The illumination Illumination timers are provided and are set for a minimum 15-minute duration.(4) The motion sensor lighting control device is activated by any occupant movement in the area served

by the lighting units.(5) The In new installations, switch controller the lighting control device is activated by activation of the

building fire alarm system, if provided.(6) The lighting control device does not turn off any lights relied upon for activation of photoluminescent

exit signs or path markers.(7) The lighting control device does not turn off any battery-equipped emergency luminaires, unit

equipment, or exit signs.


Subparts (1) and (5) are being made applicable only to new installations. When the provision for lightingcontrol devices was added to the Code, no allowance was made for existing installations. The listingrequirement and the connection to alarm system requirement are not practical for retroactive application.The revision to the base paragraph 7.8.1.2.2 clarifies the purpose of the lighting control devices (formerlyswitch controllers) and provides context to the subparts.

The revision to subpart (5) clarifies the desired action of the controller.New subparts (6) and (7) clarify that lighting controllers cannot be used to turn off lights relied upon for

activation of photoluminescent path markers, battery-equipped exit signs, battery-equipped emergencyluminaires, and unit equipment.

See proposed Annex A text, A.7.8.1.2.2, for additional rationale for this revision.


SAF-MEA

Page 11



Relative to FR252 (FileMaker) / FR135 (Terra) on 7.8.1.3, the SAF-MEA committee isasked to reconsider the subject in light of the ballot comments from Frable and Shulmannoting the lack of technical substantiation for making a change and, then, for theparticular value chosen. Further, SAF-MEA is asked to clarify intent relative toapplication to new (replacement) surfaces in existing installations versus only surfacesin new construction.


(7.8.1.3)

7.8.1.3 7.8.1.3* The floors and other walking surfaces within an exit and within the portions of the exitaccess and exit discharge designated in 7.8.1.1 shall be illuminated as follows:

(1) During conditions of stair use, the minimum illumination for new stairs shall be at least 10 ft-candle(108 lux), measured at the walking surfaces.

(2) The minimum illumination for new floors and other new walking surfaces, other than new stairs duringconditions of stair use, shall be to values of at least 2 ft-candle (21.6 lux), measured at the floor.(3) The minimum illumination for floors and walking surfaces, other than new stairs during conditions of

stair use, existing floors, existing stairs, and other existing walking surfaces shall be to values of at least 1ft-candle (10.8 lux), measured at the floor.(4) (3) In assembly occupancies, the illumination of the walking surfaces of exit access shall be at least

0.2 ft-candle (2.2 lux) during periods of performances or projections involving directed light.(5)* (4)* The minimum illumination requirements shall not apply where operations or processes require

low lighting levels.


The problem addressed by this change is how to accommodate people with low vision or severe visualimpairment. Due to the natural progression of the aging eye, the 65 and older population is at great risk inunder illuminated environments, not to mention with the addition of smoke, fire, obstacles and possiblepanic. According to the Federation for the Blind, more than 6.5 million Americans over age 65 have asevere visual impairment today. In 2006, approximately 21.2 million Americans reported that they havedifficulty seeing to some degree. The US Census Bureau states that the number of persons age 65 yearsor older is expected to increase from approximately 35 million in 2000 to an estimated 71 million in 2030,roughly 20 percent of the U.S. population. This means that roughly 20 percent of our population is likely tohave at least normal age related low vision or some more serious form of visual impairment. Given theimprovements in battery power, battery life, low energy use LED’s, this change is a small and reasonableadjustment. The committee was asked to make this change on behalf of the Illuminating EngineeringSociety's Lighting for the Aged and Partially Sighted Committee.

The asterisk is being removed from the paragraph number as the associated annex text is being deleted.


SAF-MEA

Page 12



The Correlating Committee notes that the creation of 8.2.3.1.3, proposed by FR400(FileMaker) / FR173 (Terra) by SAF-FIR, is changed to a Committee Input (CI) becausethe item failed committee letter ballot.


(8.2.3.1.3)

8.2.3.1.3* For other than existing, previously approved elements and assemblies, thefire resistance rating of an element or assembly as determined by an approved testmethod shall not be permitted to rely on an automatic sprinkler system or any other firesuppression system.


This issue has been considered by FIR for several cycles. Last cycle, the Committee voted to acceptComment 101-89 during the ROC meeting. However, the ballot results did not confirm the vote takenduring the meeting and the item failed by a vote of 14-8. It should be noted that one of the negative votesaddressed a concern that the language inferred that three standard fire resistance test procedures wereequivalent. The language proposed addresses several of the concerns expressed during the previouscycles. First, the language exempts existing, previously approved elements and assemblies so as not toimpact existing conditions. Secondly, the language specifically states that the test performed shall includethe use of an automatic sprinkler system or other fire suppression system. In previously cycles, there wasconcern that the equivalency provisions and performance-based design approaches could not be used.While not the intent in the past, the proposed language clearly states that the restricion only applies to theconduct of the test. In previous cycles concern was expressed over the impact the provision may have onthe wetted glass wall assemblies permitted in atria. However, the proposed language addresses that inthat the wetted glass wall assembly is an option to a fire barrier and as such is not an assembly that isrequired to have a fire resistance rating determined by one of the fire test standards referenced.


SAF-FIR

Page 13



Relative to FR420 (FileMaker) / FR182 (Terra) on 8.2.4 Analytical Methods, the SAF-FIR committee isasked to revise 8.2.4.1 to reference all the applicable paragraphs given that items have been added andothers renumbered within 8.2.4.2 through 8.2.4.5.


(8.2.4.1)

Revise 101 as follows:8.2.4.1 Analytical methods utilized to determine the fire resistance rating of building assemblies shallcomply with 8.2.4.2 or 8.2.4.3.


Building assemblies have a fire resistance rating. Proposed text was missing and should be added forclarity.


SAF-FIR

Page 14



Relative to FR405 (FileMaker) / FR190 (Terra) on Table 8.3.4.2, the SAF-FIR committeeis asked to delete reference to ASTM E 2074 in the table footnotes as the standard hasbeen withdrawn and NFPA 252 (already referenced in the same footnote) is anequivalent test method. In a separate Correlating Note, the SAF-FUN committee isbeing asked to delete ASTM E 2074 from 2.3.6.


(Table 8.3.4.2)

Revise Table 8.3.4.2 as follows:<Insert Table 8.3.4.2 from Public Input #1>


Sections of NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, permit the use of ½ hour elevator hoistways.Without an entry for this condition in the table, it becomes confusing and difficult to applyor enforce. The addition of a line to address ½ hour elevator hoistways would completethe table to ensure that all requirements for fire resistance-rated assemblies, as requiredby another section of the Code, are addressed in the new Table 8.3.4.2. Table 8.3.4.2was revised and expanded during the ROP and ROC stages of the Annual 2011 revisioncycle to incorporate not only the required fire protection ratings for opening protectives,but also to include the requirements for glazing ratings for both fire protection glazingand fire resistance glazing, glazing markings, and permitted glazing sizes. The newtable incorporates glazing requirements that were formerly located in the body of theCode. During the ROP, actions taken in Proposal 101-174a removed the row in thecurrent Table 8.3.4.2 for elevator hoistways and incorporated elevator hoistways into therow for vertical shafts. This was done because there was no need for a separate row forelevator hoistways, which are a form of vertical shaft. It is also noted by Proposal101-174a that the current elevator hoistway row is missing entries for ½-hour hoistways.By adding them as part of the vertical shafts row, it now provides values for ½ hourelevator hoistways, which are permitted under certain existing conditions. During theROC, the extensive revisions and additions to the table, as noted above, werecompleted. The revised table, as accepted in Comment 101-98, omitted this concept of½ hour elevator hoistways, thus having no row in the table to use when evaluatingopening protectives in a ½ hour existing elevator hoistway. The concept as proposed in101-174a would not work for the new Table 8.3.4.2, because as the requirements forglazing size and marking differ. A new row for ½ hour elevator hoistways is needed tocomplete the table and provide the information necessary for opening protectives in ½hour elevator hoistways. A footnote for the metric conversions is also added forcompliance with NFPA Manual of Style.


SAF-FIR

Page 15

Table 8.3.4.2 Minimum Fire Protection Ratings for Opening Protectives in Fire Resistance–Rated Assemblies and Fire Rated Glazing Markings

Component

Walls and

Partitions

(hr)

Fire Door

Assemblies

(hr)

Door Vision

Panel

Maximum

Size (in.2)a

Fire Rated

Glazing

Marking

Door Vision

Panel

Minimum Side Light/

Transom

Assembly Rating

(hr)

Fire Rated Glazing Marking

Side Light/Transom

Panel

Fire Window Assembliesb,c

Fire

Protection

Fire

Resistance

Fire

Protection

Fire

Resistance (hr)

Fire Rated Glazing

Marking Window

Elevator

hoistways 2 1 ½ 155 in.2 d D-H-90 or

D-H-W-90 NP 2 NP D-H-W-120 NP W-120

1 1 155 in.2 d D-H-60 or

D-H-W-60 NP 1 NP D-H-W-60 NP W-60

½ 1/3 85 in.2 e D-20 or

D-W-20 1/3

1/3 D-H-20 D-W-20 NP W-30

Elevator lobby

(per 7.2.13.4) 1 1 100 in.2 b

≤100 in.2,

D-H-T-60 or

D-H-W-60a

NP 1 NP D-H-W-60 NP W-60

>100 in.2,

D-H-W-60a

Vertical shafts

(including

stairways,

exits, and

refuse chutes

2 1 ½ Maximum

size tested

D-H-90 or

D-H-W-90 NP 2 NP D-H-W-120 NP W-120

1 1 Maximum

size tested

D-H-60 or

D-H-W-60 NP 1 NP D-H-W-60 NP W-60

Replacement

panels in

existing

vertical shafts

½ 1/3 Maximum

size tested

D-20 or

D-W-20 1/3

1/3 D-H-20 D-W-20 NP W-30

Fire barriers 3 3 100 in.2 b

<=100 in.2,

D-H-180 or

D-H-W-180h

NP 3 NP D-H-W-180 NP W-180

>100 in.2,

D-H-W-180h

2 1 ½ Maximum

size tested

D-H-90 or

D-H-W-90 NP 2 NP D-H-W-120 NP W-120

Component

Walls and

Partitions

(hr)

Fire Door

Assemblies

(hr)

Door Vision

Panel

Maximum

Size (in.2)a

Fire Rated

Glazing

Marking

Door Vision

Panel

Minimum Side Light/

Transom

Assembly Rating

(hr)

Fire Rated Glazing Marking

Side Light/Transom

Panel

Fire Window Assembliesb,c

Fire

Protection

Fire

Resistance

Fire

Protection

Fire

Resistance (hr)

Fire Rated Glazing

Marking Window

1 3/4 Maximum

size testedf

D-H-45 or

D-H-W-45 3/4

f 3/4f D-H-45 D-H-W-45 3/4 OH-45 or W-60

½ 1/3 Maximum

size tested

D-20 or

D-W-20 1/3

1/3 D-H-20 D-W-20 1/3 OH-20 or W-30

Horizontal

exits 2 1 ½

Maximum

size tested

D-H-90 or

D-H-W-90 NP 2 NP D-H-W-120 NP W-120

Horizontal exits

served by

bridges between

buildings

2 3/4 Maximum size testedf

D-H-45 or D-H-W-45

3/4f

3/4f D-H-45 D-H-W-45 3/4 OH-45 or W-120

Exit access

corridorsg 1 1/3

Maximum size tested

D-20 or D-W-20

3/4 3/4 D- H-45 D-H-W-20 3/4 OH-45 or W-60

½ 1/3

Maximum

size tested

D-20 or

D-W-20 1/3

1/3 D- H-20 D-H-W-20 1/3 OH-20 or W-30

Smoke barriersa 1 1/3 Maximum

size tested

D-20 or

D-W-20 3/4

3/4 D- H-45 D-H-W-20 3/4 OH-45 or W-60

Smoke

partitionsg,h ½

1/3 Maximum

size tested

D-20 or

D-W-20 1/3

1/3 D- H-20 D-H-W-20 1/3 OH-20 or W-30

NP: Not permitted.

a. Note: 1 inch2 = .00064516 m2.

b. Fire resistance rated glazing tested to NFPA 251 shall be permitted in the maximum size tested (see 8.3.3.7). c. Fire rated glazing in exterior windows shall be marked in accordance with Table 8.3.3.12

d. See ASME A17.1, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, for additional information.

e. See ASME A17.3, Safety Code for Existing Elevators and Escalators, for additional information. f. Maximum area of individual exposed lights shall be 1296 in2 (0.84 m2 ) with no dimension exceeding 54 in. (1.37 m) unless otherwise tested. [80:Table 4.4.5 Note b and 80:4.4.5.1].

g. Fire doors are not required to have a hose stream test per NFPA 252, Standard Methods of Fire Tests of Door Assemblies; ASTM E 2074, Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Door Assemblies, Including Positive

Pressure Testing of Side-Hinged and Pivoted Swinging Door Assemblies; ANSI/UL 10B, Standard for Fire Tests of Door Assemblies; or ANSI/UL 10C, Standard for Positive Pressure Fire Tests of Door Assemblies. h. For residential board and care, see 32.2.3.1 and 33.2.3.1.



Relative to FR427 (FileMaker) / FR200 (Terra) on 8.5.5.4.1, the SAF-FIR committee isasked to reformat the text to make clear that two conditions need to be satisfied: (1)either NFPA 90A or NFPA 90B must be met, AND (2) NFPA 105 must be met. Thesubject was noted in the ballot comment of Cahanin.


(8.5.5.4.1)

Revise text to read as follows:8.5.5.4.1 Air-conditioning, heating, ventilating ductwork, and related equipment, including smoke dampersand combination fire and smoke dampers, shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 90A, Standard forthe Installation of Air-Conditioning and Ventilating Systems, NFPA 90B Standard for the Installation ofWarm Air Heating and Air-Conditioning Systems, and NFPA 105, Standard for Smoke Door Assembliesand Other Opening Protectives.


Proposed text currently exists in NFPA 5000 and should be added here for correlation.


SAF-FIR

Page 16



Relative to FR428 (FileMaker) / FR201 (Terra) on 8.5.5.5, the SAF-FIR committee isasked to: (1) revise subpart (2) of 8.5.5.5.2 to add the words “or smoke barriercontinuity” for completeness, and (2) revise 8.5.5.5.3(1) to change “reading as” to“reading as one of the following:” The subject was noted in the ballot comment ofCahanin.


(8.5.5.5)

Revise text to read as follows:8.5.5.5 Access and Identification.8.5.5.5.1 Access to the dampers shall be provided for inspection, testing, and maintenance. The accessopenings shall not reduce the fire resistance rating of the fire barrier assembly.8.5.5.5.2 Smoke and combination fire and smoke dampers in new construction shall be provided with anapproved means of access, as follows:(1) The means of access shall be large enough to allow inspection and maintenance of the damper and itsoperating parts.(2) The access shall not affect the integrity of fire resistance–rated assemblies.(3) The access openings shall not reduce the fire resistance rating of the assembly.(4) Access doors in ducts shall be tight-fitting and suitable for the required duct construction.(5) Access and maintenance shall comply with the requirements of the mechanical code.8.5.5.5.3 Identification. Access points to fire and smoke dampers in new construction shall bepermanently identified by one of the following:(1) Label having letters not less than ½ in. (13 mm) in height reading as follows in 8.5.5.5.3(a), (b), or(c):(a) FIRE/SMOKE DAMPER(b) SMOKE DAMPER(c) FIRE DAMPER(2) Symbols as approved by the authority having jurisdiction


Proposed text currently exists in NFPA 5000. The provisions for damper access should be consistent forboth NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000. Text provides guidance for damper access for both new and existingconstruction as well as additional identification provisions required for new.


SAF-FIR

Page 17



Relative to FR429 (FileMaker) / FR202 (Terra) on 8.5.6.5, the SAF-FIR committee isasked to clarify what listed system is intended and whether any rating is required.


(8.5.6.5)

Revise text to read as follows:8.5.6.5 Where the penetrating item uses a sleeve to penetrate the smoke barrier, the sleeve shall besecurely set in the smoke barrier, and the space between the item and the sleeve shall be filled with alisted system or a material capable of restricting the transfer of smoke.


The intent of Section 8.5.6.5 is to use a listed material to fill the space between the sleeve and thepenetrating item. Proposed text exists in NFPA 5000 and should be added here for correlation.


SAF-FIR

Page 18


First Revision # CI1SAF-FUN (8.6.7)

8.6.7* Atriums. Unless prohibited by Chapters 11 through 43, an atrium shall be permitted, provided thatthe following conditions are met:

(1) The atrium is separated from the adjacent spaces by fire barriers with not less than a 1-hour fireresistance rating, with opening protectives for corridor walls, unless one of the following is met:

(a) The requirement of 8.6.7(1) shall not apply to existing, previously approved separations atriums.(b) Any number of levels of the building shall be permitted to open directly to the atrium without

enclosure, based on the results of the engineering analysis required in 8.6.7(5).(c)* Glass walls and inoperable windows shall be permitted in lieu of the fire barriers where all the

following are met:i. Automatic sprinklers are spaced along both sides of the glass wall and the inoperable windows at

intervals not to exceed 6 ft (1830 mm).ii. The automatic sprinklers specified in 8.6.7(1)(c)(i) are located at a distance from the glass wall not

to exceed 12 in. (305 mm) and arranged so that the entire surface of the glass is wet upon operation ofthe sprinklers.

iii. The glass wall is of tempered, wired, or laminated glass held in place by a gasket system thatallows the glass framing system to deflect without breaking (loading) the glass before the sprinklersoperate.

iv. The automatic sprinklers required by 8.6.7(1)(c)(i) are not required on the atrium side of the glasswall and the inoperable window where there is no walkway or other floor area on the atrium side abovethe main floor level.

v. Doors in the glass walls are of glass or other material that resists the passage of smoke.vi. Doors in the glass walls are self-closing or automatic-closing upon detection of smoke.vii. The glass is continuous vertically, without horizontal mullions, window treatments, or other

obstructions that would interfere with the wetting of the entire glass surface.(2) Access to exits is permitted to be within the atrium, and exit discharge in accordance with 7.7.2 is

permitted to be within the atrium.(3) The occupancy within the atrium meets the specifications for classification as low or ordinary hazard

contents. (See 6.2.2.)(4) The entire building is protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in

accordance with Section 9.7.(5)* For other than existing, previously approved smoke control systems atriums, an engineering analysis

is performed that demonstrates that the building is designed to keep the smoke layer interface above thehighest unprotected opening to adjoining spaces, or 6 ft (1830 mm) above the highest floor level of exitaccess open to the atrium, for a period equal to 1.5 times the calculated egress time or 20 minutes,whichever is greater.

(6)* For In other than existing, previously approved smoke control systems atriums, where an engineeredsmoke control system is installed to meet the requirements of 8.6.7(5), the system is independentlyactivated by each of the following:

(a) Required automatic sprinkler system(b) Manual controls that are readily accessible to the fire department


The change is presented as a Committee Input (CI) because it was drafted by the SAF-FUNFundamentals Committee which does not have responsibility for the atrium provisions of Chapter 8. Suchresponsibility rests with the SAF-FIR Fire Protection Features Committee. SAF-FUN is hopeful thatSAF-FIR will address the subject during preparation of the Second Draft.

An existing atrium that avails itself of the exceptions afforded existing atriums by the current code text,


SAF-FUN

Page 19


Relative to CI1-SAF-FUN (FileMaker) / CI79 (Terra) on 8.6.7, prepared by the SAF-FUNcommittee, the SAF-FIR committee is asked to consider the changes recommended bySAF-FUN which would change the atrium provisions of 8.6.7 as follow:1. In subpart (1), change “previously approved atriums” to “previously approved

separations”2. In subpart (5), change “previously approved atriums” to “previously approved smoke

control systems”3. In subpart (6), change “previously approved atriums” to “previously approved smoke

control systems”, and change the introductory word from “In” to “For”.The issue was raised by the SAF-FUN committee which could not change the text ofChapter 8. The SAF-FUN committee included the following substantiation:“An existing atrium that avails itself of the exceptions afforded existing atriums by the

current code text, offers no assurance that the atrium separation from the remainder ofthe building and the smoke control present will do much to prevent spread of the effectsof fire.Relative to 8.6.7(1)(a), the feature that should meet the criteria of being previously

approved is the separation.Relative to 8.6.7(5), the feature that should meet the criteria of being previously

approved is the smoke control.Relative to 8.6.7(6), the feature that should meet the criteria of being previously

approved is the smoke control.A previously approved atrium without some reasonable separation and smoke control

is not the atrium that should substitute for the protection of vertical openings viafire-rated shafts.”


offers no assurance that the atrium separation from the remainder of the building and the smoke controlpresent will do much to prevent spread of the effects of fire.

Relative to 8.6.7(1)(a), the feature that should meet the criteria of being previously approved is theseparation.

Relative to 8.6.7(5), the feature that should meet the criteria of being previously approved is the smokecontrol.

Relative to 8.6.7(6), the feature that should meet the criteria of being previously approved is the smokecontrol.

A previously approved atrium without some reasonable separation and smoke control is not the atriumthat should substitute for the protection of vertical openings via fire-rated shafts.

Page 20


First Revision # CI5SAF-RES

Relative to CI5-SAF-RES (FileMaker) / CI297 (Terra) on 8.6.11.6, the SAF-FIRcommittee is asked to consider the subject raised by the text proposed by the SAF-REScommittee relative to building construction requirements for cases where attic spacesare not sprinklered. SAF-RES does not have jurisdiction over text of Chapter 8 andraised the issue via a Committee Input (CI). The text proposed by SAF-RES reads:8.6.11.6 Where a building is protected by an automatic sprinkler system and sprinklers are not


(8.6.11.6 (New) )

8.6.11.6 Where a building is protected by an automatic sprinkler system and sprinklers are not providedin the attic, the construction requirements shall consider the influence of fire in the unprotected space.


This Committee Input was developed by the Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies.At least six recent fires since April 2012 have been brought to the attention of NFPA and the Technical

Committee on Residential Occupancies where buildings protected in accordance with NFPA 13Rexperienced fires in nonsprinklered attics, which resulted in no life loss but extensive property damage($1M loss or more). While the specific details of these fires are still being studied, the committee wants toreserve the right to address any potential solutions that come from further studies. This CI is being putforward to engage a broader review of the subject that can be considered at the comment meeting in2013. There is no agreement at this point from the technical committee as to what changes arenecessary, if any - but this CI gets the subject on the table. Since the first edition of NFPA 13R wasissued in 1988, model codes from NFPA and ICC, including the legacy codes, have successfully workedto get automatic sprinkler protection into more types of multi-family dwellings. It is also important torecognize how the multifamily housing industry has supported this effort. NFPA 13R systems have anexcellent track record of providing for occupant life safety in accordance with its scope.

In recent years, as more long term experience is gained with NFPA 13R systems, NFPA has been madeaware of a small number of fires in multifamily housing units protected with NFPA 13R systems where thebuilding has been a total loss or has had significant property damage. Within the scope of NFPA 13R,these fires can be described as “successes” since there was no loss of life - a goal that is consistent withthe scope of NFPA 13R.

Some AHJs are now experiencing a concern over this performance level and have asked NFPA to lookat this issue more closely. At this point in time, the following actions might be considered:-Discuss the issue as part of the IFMA Board meeting (SEPT 2012)-Ascertain the extent of, and loss history of fires involving NFPA 13R systems where extensive propertydamage occurred.-Discuss whether there are any influencing factors including modern era construction-such as engineeredlumber or structural adhesives-that are allowing fires in these unprotected spaces to spread more rapidlythus causing extensive damage.-If the current draft stop provisions of the model codes are sufficient and if they are being designed andinstalled properly.-Raise awareness of AHJs to make inspection of draft stops a priority in these residential environments.-Hold a workshop, possibly under the umbrella of FPRF, to engage all of the stake-holders, and todetermine where changes to NFPA and ICC codes might be necessary in the future.


SAF-RES

Page 21


provided in the attic, the construction requirements shall consider the influence of fire in theunprotected space.


Relative to FR619 (FileMaker) / FR17 (Terra) on 9.6.3.6.1 through 9.6.3.6.3, theSAF-BSF committee is asked to reword 9.6.3.6.2 as the phrase “when approved by theAHJ” is not clear as to what the AHJ is required to approve. As noted in the ballotcomment from Larrimer, the text might be better phrased as “provided that sucharrangement is approved by the AHJ.”


(9.6.3.6.1 through 9.6.3.6.3)

9.6.3.6.1 The general evacuation alarm signal shall operate throughout the entire building other thanthe locations described in 9.6.3.6.4 and 9.6.3.6.5.

9.6.3.6.2* Where total evacuation of occupants is impractical due to building configuration, only theoccupants in the affected zones shall be initially notified initially. Provisions, and provisions shall be madeto selectively notify occupants in other zones to afford orderly evacuation of the entire building whenapproved by the authority having jurisdiction.

9.6.3.6.3 Where occupants are incapable of evacuating themselves because of age, physical or mentaldisabilities, or physical restraint, all of the following shall apply:

(1) the The private operating mode, as described in NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code,shall be permitted to be used.

(2) Only the attendants and other personnel required to evacuate occupants from a zone, area, floor, orbuilding shall be required to be notified.

(3) The notificationNotification of personnel as specified in 9.6.3.6.3(2) shall include means to readilyidentify the zone, area, floor, or building in need of evacuation.


The proposed revision is intended to editorially correlate with similar language in NFPA 5000.


SAF-BSF

Page 22



Relative to FR622 (FileMaker) / FR21 (Terra) on 9.6.4.4, the SAF-BSF committee isasked to revise the text as:- No exemption was provided for existing installations- The term “remotely located receiving facility” is not definedAs noted in the ballot comment by Larrimer, it is not clear if a remote location, on acampus but not within the building, qualifies as a remotely located receiving facility.Explanatory annex text would be helpful.


(9.6.4.4)

9.6.4.4 Where fire alarm systems are required to provide emergency forces notification, supervisorysignals and trouble signals shall sound and be visibly displayed either at an approved, remotely locatedreceiving facility or at a location within the protected building that is constantly attended by qualifiedpersonnel.


The proposed revision adds language from NFPA 5000 that is currently not contained in NFPA 101 forcorrelation.


SAF-BSF

Page 23


First Revision # FR612 (9.7)

9.7 Automatic Sprinklers and Other Extinguishing Equipment.9.7.1 Automatic SprinklersGeneral.9.7.1.1* Each automatic sprinkler system required by another section of this Code shall be in

accordance with one of the following:(1) NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems(2) NFPA 13D, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two-Family Dwellings and

Manufactured Homes(3) NFPA 13R, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Residential Occupancies up to and

Including Four Stories in Height9.7.1.2 Sprinkler piping serving not more than six sprinklers for any isolated hazardous area shall be

permitted to be connected directly to a domestic water supply system having a capacity sufficient toprovide 0.15 gpm/ft2 (6.1 mm/min) throughout the entire enclosed area.

9.7.1.3 Sprinkler piping serving hazardous areas as described in 9.7.1.2 shall be provided with An anindicating shutoff valve, supervised in accordance with 9.7.2 or NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation ofSprinkler Systems, shall beand installed in an accessible, visible location between the sprinklers and theconnection to the domestic water supply.

9.7.1.34* In areas protected by automatic sprinklers or an automatic water mist system, automaticheat-detection devices required by other sections of this Code shall not be required.

9.7.1.45 Automatic sprinkler systems installed to make use of an alternative permitted by this Codeshall be considered required systems and shall meet the provisions of this Code that apply to requiredsystems.

9.7.2 Supervision.9.7.2.1* Supervisory Signals.9.7.2.1.1 Where supervised automatic sprinkler systems are required by another section of this Code,

supervisory attachments shall be installed and monitored for integrity in accordance with NFPA 72,National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, and a distinctive supervisory signal shall be provided to indicatea condition that would impair the satisfactory operation of the sprinkler system.

9.7.2.1.2 Supervisory signals shall sound and shall be displayed either at a location within the protectedbuilding that is constantly attended by qualified personnel or at an approved, remotely located receivingfacility.

9.7.2.2 Alarm Signal Transmission.9.7.2.2.1 Where supervision of automatic sprinkler systems is provided in accordance withrequired by

another provision section of this Code, waterflow alarms shall be transmitted to an approved, proprietaryalarm-receiving facility, a remote station, a central station, or the fire department.

9.7.2.2.2 Such The connection described in 9.7.2.2.1 shall be in accordance with 9.6.1.3.


The proposed revision editorially makes Section 9.7 apply only to automatic sprinkler systems,consistent with the format of NFPA 5000. The term 'isolated' is deleted from 9.7.1.2 because it isundefined in response to PI 101- Log #471 (Public Input No. 424-NFPA 101-2012). Other revisions areeditorial for correlation with NFPA 5000.

The revision to 9.7.1.3 (renumbered as 9.7.1.4) correlates with action taken on NFPA 5000 public input,the substantiation for which follows: Water Mist systems have been approved and installed in manysprinkler applications globally for over 15 years. They have been listed by national and internationallyrecognized testing laboratories such as: UL (Ordinary Hazard Group 1), FM (Light Hazard occupancies,Computer Rooms, Subfloors, Special Hazard Machinery & spaces), City of New York (Light Hazard


SAF-BSF

Page 24


Relative to FR612 (FileMaker) / FR32 (Terra) on Section 9.7, the SAF-BSF committee isasked to modify its action as the section title change, to “Automatic Sprinklers,” seemsnot to accommodate the new material on water mist, as addressed in the ballotcomments of Hutton and Isman.


Occupancies, Combustion Turbines, Machinery Spaces), VdS Germany (Light Hazard, Ord Haz Grp I,IIparking garages & III selected occupancies, Cable Tunnels), KfV Austria (Light Hazard, Ord Haz Grp I,Combustion Turbines) and other agencies. These listings and installations have demonstrated equivalentfire protection to the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). The addition of the proposed text will provide theAHJ a clear option to accept water mist systems as an equivalent system to an approved automaticsprinkler system thereby allowing construction alternatives without having to prove equivalency or beconsidered an alternative extinguishing system.


Relative to FR524 (FileMaker) / FR236 (Terra) on 10.2.4.4, the SAF-FUR committee isasked to move the parenthetical reference to see “Section 48.7 of NFPA 5000” to theadvisory annex. Such non-mandatory references belong in the annex as noted in theballot comments by Lathrop and Puchovsky. Jurisdictions that adopt NFPA 101, but notNFPA 5000, should not have to amend the paragraph before adopting NFPA 101.


(10.2.4.4)

Revise text to read as follows:10.2.4.4* Light-Transmitting Plastics. Light-transmitting plastics shall be permitted to be used as interiorwall and ceiling finish if approved by the authority having jurisdiction. (See 10.4.4 of this Code andSection 48.7 of NFPA 5000.)


Proposed text makes the requirement more user friendly and directs users to specific section for lighttransmitting plastics.


SAF-FUR

Page 25



The addition to 12.1.4.2, relative to Aisle Stair, proposed by FR1023 (FileMaker) /FR374 (Terra) by SAF-AXM, is being changed by the Correlating Committee toCommittee Input (CI) because the definition will be revised in Chapter 3, and a referenceto the Chapter 3 definition will be added to 12.1.4.2 via a separate First CorrelatingRevision (FCR).


(12.1.4.2)

12.1.4.2* Special Definitions. AThe following is a list of special terms used in this chapter follows:(1) Aisle Accessway. (See 3.3.11.)(2) Aisle Stair. A stair within a seating area of an assembly occupancy that directly serves rows of seatsto the side of the stair, including transition stairs that connect to an aisle or a landing.[renumber subsequent defined terms]


The assembly occupancies committee does not have primary jurisdiction for the contents of Chapter 3Definitions. The definition of Aisle Stair in 12/13.1.4.2 is a revision of the current definition in 3.3.263.1 of

the 2012 edition, with the words "

can

temporarily reside in 12/13.1.4.2. The change can be incorporated into the Chapter 3 definition during thesecond draft preparation phase.

The assembly occupancies technical committee flags this item for Correlating Committee action tofacilitate the correlative process between Chapter 12/13 and Chapter 3.


SAF-AXM


Relative to FR1011 (FileMaker) / FR389 (Terra) on recognizing ABHR dispensers, theSAF-AXM committee is asked to move the text from 12.3.2.3 to 12.4.11 for (1)consistency with other occupancy committee actions and (2) to avoid conflict with7.5.1.6.


(12.3.2.3)

12.3.2.3 Alcohol-based hand-rub dispensers in accordance with 8.7.3.3 shall be permitted.


The provisions proposed as new 8.7.3.3 are adequate to safeguard the use of ABHR dispensers inassembly occupancies.


SAF-AXM

Page 26



Relative to FR1058 (FileMaker) / FR441 (Terra) on revising the exemption from thecrowd manager requirement for places of religious worship from 2000 persons to 500,the SAF-AXM committee is asked to substantiate the technical basis for the change asraised in the ballot comments of Conner, Gerdes and Miller.


(12.7.6 and 12.7.6.1)

12.7.6* 12.7.6 Crowd Managers.12.7.6.1 Assembly occupancies shall be provided with a minimum of one trained crowd manager orcrowd manager supervisor. Where the occupant load exceeds 250, additional trained crowd managers orcrowd manager supervisors shall be provided at a ratio of one crowd manager or crowd managersupervisor for every 250 occupants, unless otherwise permitted by one of the following:

(1) This requirement shall not apply to assembly occupancies used exclusively for religious worship withan occupant load not exceeding 2000 500.

(2) The ratio of trained crowd managers to occupants shall be permitted to be reduced where, in theopinion of the authority having jurisdictionAHJ, the existence of an approved, supervised automaticsprinkler system and the nature of the event warrant.12.7.6.2 12.7.6.2* The crowd manager and crowd manager supervisor shall receive approved training incrowd management techniques.


Assembly occupancies used for religious worship need crowd managers where the occupant loadexceeds 500, not 2000. Another First Revision deletes the current annex text.


SAF-AXM

Page 27



The addition to 13.1.4.2, relative to Aisle Stair, proposed by FR1024 (FileMaker) /FR413 (Terra) by SAF-AXM, is being changed by the Correlating Committee toCommittee Input (CI) because the definition will be revised in Chapter 3, and a referenceto the Chapter 3 definition will be added to 13.1.4.2 via a separate First CorrelatingRevision (FCR).


(13.1.4.2)

13.1.4.2* Special Definitions. A list of special terms used in this chapter follows:(1) Aisle Accessway. See 3.3.11.(2) Aisle Stair. A stair within a seating area of an assembly occupancy that directly serves rows of seatsto the side of the stair, including transition stairs that connect to an aisle or a landing.[renumber subsequent defined terms]


The assembly occupancies committee does not have primary jurisdiction for the contents of Chapter 3Definitions. The definition of Aisle Stair in 12/13.1.4.2 is a revision of the current definition in 3.3.263.1 of

the 2012 edition, with the words "

can

temporarily reside in 12/13.1.4.2. The change can be incorporated into the Chapter 3 definition during thesecond draft preparation phase.

The assembly occupancies technical committee flags this item for Correlating Committee action tofacilitate the correlative process between Chapter 12/13 and Chapter 3.


SAF-AXM


Relative to FR1012 (FileMaker) / FR419 (Terra) on recognizing ABHR dispensers, theSAF-AXM committee is asked to move the text from 13.3.2.3 to 13.4.11 for (1)consistency with other occupancy committee actions and (2) to avoid conflict with7.5.1.6.


(13.3.2.3)

13.3.2.3 Alcohol-based hand-rub dispensers in accordance with 8.7.3.3 shall be permitted.


The provisions proposed as new 8.7.3.3 are adequate to safeguard the use of ABHR dispensers inassembly occupancies.


SAF-AXM

Page 28



Relative to FR1059 (FileMaker) / FR476 (Terra) on revising the exemption from thecrowd manager requirement for places of religious worship from 2000 persons to 500,the SAF-AXM committee is asked to substantiate the technical basis for the change asraised in the ballot comments of Gerdes and Miller.


(13.7.6 and 13.7.6.1)

13.7.6* 13.7.6 Crowd Managers.13.7.6.1 Assembly occupancies shall be provided with a minimum of one trained crowd manager orcrowd manager supervisor. Where the occupant load exceeds 250, additional trained crowd managers orcrowd manager supervisors shall be provided at a ratio of one crowd manager or crowd managersupervisor for every 250 occupants, unless otherwise permitted by one of the following:

(1) This requirement shall not apply to assembly occupancies used exclusively for religious worship withan occupant load not exceeding 2000 500.

(2) The ratio of trained crowd managers to occupants shall be permitted to be reduced where, in theopinion of the authority having jurisdictionAHJ, the existence of an approved, supervised automaticsprinkler system and the nature of the event warrant.13.7.6.2 13.7.6.2* The crowd manager and crowd manager supervisor shall receive approved training incrowd management techniques.


Assembly occupancies used for religious worship need crowd managers where the occupant loadexceeds 500, not 2000. Another First Revision deletes the 13.7.6 annex text.


SAF-AXM

Page 29



Relative to FR2013 (FileMaker) / FR641 (Terra) on revising the current criteria on ABHRdispensers, the SAF-END committee is asked to move the text from 16.6.3.2.1 to 16.6.4for (1) consistency with other occupancy committee actions and (2) to avoid conflict with7.5.1.6.Additionally, SAF-END is asked to move current 16.3.2.6 to 16.4.4 as the issue hasbeen raised in the First Revision phase so as to make the change legitimate at theSecond Revision phase as a correlation issue.


(16.6.3.2.1(1))

16.6.3.2.1 Alcohol-Based Hand-Rub Dispensers. Alcohol-based hand-rubdispensers shall be protected in accordance with 8.7.3.1, unless all of the followingconditions are met:(1) Dispensers shall be installed in rooms or spaces separated from corridors and

exits, hallways, stairways and exterior doors.(2) The maximum individual dispenser fluid capacity shall be as follows:

(a) 0.32 gal (1.2 L) for dispensers in rooms(b) 0.53 gal (2.0 L) for dispensers in suites of rooms

(3) Dispensers shall be separated from each other by horizontal spacing of not lessthan 48 in. (1220 mm).(4) Storage of quantities greater than 5 gal (18.9 L) in a single fire compartment shall

meet the requirements of NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code.(5) Dispensers shall not be installed over or directly adjacent to an ignition source.(6) Dispensers installed directly over carpeted floors shall be permitted only in

sprinklered rooms or spaces.


Day-care home occupancies use the term "means of escape" in their requirements for egress. Means ofescape does not reference the terms "exit access" and "exit". These terms are unique to the term "Meansof Egress" as covered in Chapter 7.


SAF-END

Page 30



Relative to FR2014 (FileMaker) / FR651 (Terra) on revising the current criteria on ABHRdispensers, the SAF-END committee is asked to move the text from 17.6.3.2.1 to 17.6.4for (1) consistency with other occupancy committee actions and (2) to avoid conflict with7.5.1.6.Additionally, SAF-END is asked to move current 17.3.2.6 to 17.4.4 as the issue hasbeen raised in the First Revision phase so as to make the change legitimate at theSecond Revision phase as a correlation issue.


(17.6.3.2.1(1))

17.6.3.2.1 Alcohol-Based Hand-Rub Dispensers. Alcohol-based hand-rubdispensers shall be protected in accordance with 8.7.3.1, unless all of the followingconditions are met:(1) Dispensers shall be installed in rooms or spaces separated from corridors and

exits, hallways, stairways and exterior doors.(2) The maximum individual dispenser fluid capacity shall be as follows:

(a) 0.32 gal (1.2 L) for dispensers in rooms(b) 0.53 gal (2.0 L) for dispensers in suites of rooms

(3) Dispensers shall be separated from each other by horizontal spacing of not lessthan 48 in. (1220 mm).(4) Storage of quantities greater than 5 gal (18.9 L) in a single fire compartment shall

meet the requirements of NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code.(5) Dispensers shall not be installed over or directly adjacent to an ignition source.(6) Dispensers installed directly over carpeted floors shall be permitted only in

sprinklered rooms or spaces.


Day-care home occupancies use the term "means of escape" in their requirements for egress. Means ofescape does not reference the terms "exit access" and "exit". These terms are unique to the term "Meansof Egress" as covered in Chapter 7.


SAF-END

Page 31



The addition to 18.1.4.2, relative to Deep Fat Frying, proposed by FR3087 (FileMaker) /FR381 (Terra) by SAF-HEA, is being changed by the Correlating Committee toCommittee Input (CI) because the definition will be added to Chapter 3 via a separateFirst Correlating Revision (FCR).


(18.1.4.2)

18.1.4.2 Special Definitions. A list of special terms used in this chapter follows:(1) Ambulatory Health Care Occupancy. See 3.3.188.1.(2) Deep-fat Frying. A cooking method that involves fully immersing food in hot oil.(2) (3) Hospital. See 3.3.142.(3) (4) Limited Care Facility. See 3.3.88.2.(4) (5) Nursing Home. See 3.3.140.2.


The definition was buried in the annex text [A.18.3.2.5.7.3(7)] and serves better in the body of the Code.Note to Correlating Committee for its consideration: Communication to SAF-FUN committee needed

relative to inserting the definition into Chapter 3 during the second draft preparation period.


SAF-HEA


Relative to FR3012 (FileMaker) / FR384 (Terra) on 18.2.2.2.11, the SAF-HEA committee is asked torevise, as needed, as it deleted the reference to 7.2.1.14 in what seems to be an effort to make theprovision apply to horizontal sliding doors, in general, but the Global Replace that affected the paragraphchanges the term to "special purpose horizontally sliding accordion or folding door assemblies".


(18.2.2.2.10.1)

18.2.2.2.10.1 Horizontal-sliding doors, as permitted by 7.2.1.14, that are not automatic-closing shall belimited to a single leaf and shall have a latch or other mechanism that ensures that the doors will notrebound into a partially open position if forcefully closed.


This requirement applies to horizontal sliding doors other than those addressed in 7.2.1.14.


SAF-HEA

Page 32



Relative to FR3046 (FileMaker) / FR427 (Terra) on increasing the allowable area of a smokecompartment, the SAF-HEA committee is asked to substantiate the technical basis for the change asraised in the ballot comments of Bush, Fishbeck, Rickard and Widdekind. The committee chose to adoptthe PI submitter’s substantiation as its own for the Statement included with the First Revision. Thestatement references an analysis that was not made available to the technical committee.


(18.3.7.1)

18.3.7.1 Buildings containing health care facilities shall be subdivided by smoke barriers (see 18.2.4.3),unless otherwise permitted by 18.3.7.2, as follows:

(1) To divide every story used by inpatients for sleeping or treatment into not less than two smokecompartments

(2) To divide every story having an occupant load of 50 or more persons, regardless of use, into not lessthan two smoke compartments

(3) To limit the size of each smoke compartment required by 18.3.7.1(1) and (2) to an area notexceeding 22,500 40,000 ft2 (2100 3720 m2), unless the area is an atrium separated in accordance with8.6.7, in which case no limitation in size is required

(4) To limit the travel distance from any point to reach a door in the required smoke barrier to a distancenot exceeding 200 ft (61 m)


This code change updates outdated material. Historically, smoke compartment size has been driven bythe allowable travel distance within the smoke compartment. Past code changes have increased the traveldistance without a considering smoke compartment size. Secondly, the size of the functional patient areashave increased, but the occupant load has been reduced.Originally, there was no limit to smoke compartment size, other what was imposed by travel distance. The22,500 square foot requirement was based on the old travel distance requirement of 150 feet, and used itto extrapolate an area (150ft x150ft = 22,500 square feet). This proposal uses the same logic and appliesthe current 200 foot travel distance maximum (200ft x200ft), resulting in a 40,000 square foot smokecompartment. This proposal would maintain the existing requirement that each floor be divided into twosmoke compartments. Practically the requirement for 200’ travel distance within smoke compartments willstill drive smaller smoke compartment sizes in some cases.Additionally, rooms that used to house 2-4 patients have been converted to a single patient. Rooms havebecome universal in design and flexible for different layouts. This has been codified by the Guidelines forDesign and Construction of Healthcare Facilities which now requires single patient rooms. Our occupantload has consistently decreased since this requirement was entered in the LSC. We have re-analyzedthis requirement and see the need for much larger compartments. The larger compartments will increasestaff efficiency by allowing units to be contained within a single compartment, aid them in the ability tomonitor patients without physical barriers between them and the patient. and will reduce medical errorswith the increase in efficiency. In reality, the analysis suggested compartment sizes up to 100,000square feet, however the possibility of ever having a single unit needing such space would be rare, thennext logical size considered was 52,000 square feet which would be consistent with sprinkler system sizerequirements. In our opinion, 40,000 s.f. is a more consistent number with a typical 36 bed unit and thisnumber still works well with the 200 foot travel distance.


SAF-HEA

Page 33



The change to 19.1.4.2, relative to Deep Fat Frying, proposed by FR3088 (FileMaker) /FR437 (Terra) by SAF-HEA, is being changed by the Correlating Committee toCommittee Input (CI) because the definition will be added to Chapter 3 via a separateFirst Correlating Revision (FCR).


(19.1.4.2)

19.1.4.2 Special Definitions. A list of special terms used in this chapter follows:(1) Ambulatory Health Care Occupancy. See 3.3.188.1.(2) Deep-fat Frying. A cooking method that involves fully immersing food in hot oil.(2) (3) Hospital. See 3.3.142.(3) (4) Limited Care Facility. See 3.3.88.2.(4) (5) Nursing Home. See 3.3.140.2.


The definition was buried in the annex text [A.19.3.2.5.7.3(7)] and serves better in the body of the Code.Note to CORRELATING COMMITTEE for its consideration: Communication to SAF-FUN committee

needed relative to inserting the definition into Chapter 3 during the second draft preparation period.


SAF-HEA


Relative to FR3013 (FileMaker) / FR440 (Terra) on 19.2.2.2.11, the SAF-HEA committee is asked torevise, as needed, as it deleted the reference to 7.2.1.14 in what seems to be an effort to make theprovision apply to horizontal sliding doors, in general, but the Global Replace that affected the paragraphchanges the term to "special purpose horizontally sliding accordion or folding door assemblies".


(19.2.2.2.10.1)

19.2.2.2.10.1 Horizontal-sliding doors, as permitted by 7.2.1.14, that are not automatic-closing shall belimited to a single leaf and shall have a latch or other mechanism that ensures that the doors will notrebound into a partially open position if forcefully closed.


This requirement applies to horizontal sliding doors other than those addressed in 7.2.1.14.


SAF-HEA

Page 34



Relative to FR3047 (FileMaker) / FR482 (Terra) on increasing the allowable area of asmoke compartment, the SAF-HEA committee is asked to substantiate the technicalbasis for the change as raised in the ballot comments of Bush, Fishbeck, Rickard andWiddekind. The committee chose to adopt the PI submitter’s substantiation as its ownfor the Statement included with the First Revision. The statement references an analysisthat was not made available to the technical committee.


(19.3.7.1)

19.3.7.1 Smoke barriers shall be provided to divide every story used for sleeping rooms for more than30 patients into not less than two smoke compartments (see 19.2.4.4), and the following also shall apply:

(1) The size of any such smoke compartment shall not exceed one of the following:(a) 22,500 ft2 (2100 m2), and the travel distance from any point to reach a door in the required

smoke barrier shall not exceed 200 ft (61 m), for health care occupancies not meeting 19.3.7.1(1)(b).(b) 40,000 ft2 (3720 m2), and the travel distance from any point to reach a door in the required

smoke barrier shall not exceed 200 ft (61 m), for buildings protected throughout by an approved,supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance 19.3.5.8

(2) Where neither the length nor width of the smoke compartment exceeds 150 ft (46 m), the traveldistance to reach the smoke barrier door shall not be limited.

(3) The area of an atrium separated in accordance with 8.6.7 shall not be limited in size.


This code change updates outdated material. Historically, smoke compartment size has been driven bythe allowable travel distance within the smoke compartment. Past code changes have increased the traveldistance without a considering smoke compartment size. Secondly, the size of the functional patient areashave increased, but the occupant load has been reduced.Originally, there was no limit to smoke compartment size, other what was imposed by travel distance. The22,500 square foot requirement was based on the old travel distance requirement of 150 feet, and used itto extrapolate an area (150ft x150ft = 22,500 square feet). This proposal uses the same logic and appliesthe current 200 foot travel distance maximum (200ft x200ft), resulting in a 40,000 square foot smokecompartment. This proposal would maintain the existing requirement that each floor be divided into twosmoke compartments. Practically the requirement for 200’ travel distance within smoke compartments willstill drive smaller smoke compartment sizes in some cases.Additionally, rooms that used to house 2-4 patients have been converted to a single patient. Rooms havebecome universal in design and flexible for different layouts. This has been codified by the Guidelines forDesign and Construction of Healthcare Facilities which now requires single patient rooms. Our occupantload has consistently decreased since this requirement was entered in the LSC. We have re-analyzedthis requirement and see the need for much larger compartments. The larger compartments will increasestaff efficiency by allowing units to be contained within a single compartment, aid them in the ability tomonitor patients without physical barriers between them and the patient. and will reduce medical errorswith the increase in efficiency. In reality, the analysis suggested compartment sizes up to 100,000square feet, however the possibility of ever having a single unit needing such space would be rare, thennext logical size considered was 52,000 square feet which would be consistent with sprinkler system sizerequirements. In our opinion, 40,000 s.f. is a more consistent number with a typical 36 bed unit and thisnumber still works well with the 200 foot travel distance.


SAF-HEA

Page 35



Relative to FR4007 (FileMaker) / FR323 (Terra) on recognizing ABHR dispensers, theSAF-DET committee is asked to move the text from 22.7.5 to 22.4.6 for consistency withother occupancy committee actions.


(22.7.5)

22.7.5* Alcohol-Based Hand-Rub Dispensers. Alcohol-based hand-rub dispensers shall be permittedwhere both of the following criteria are met:(1) The detention and correction facility permits their use.(2) The installation meets the requirements in 8.7.3.3.


The use of these dispensers is allowed in accordance with Chapter 8 requirements. Facility operators maywant to restrict the use of the dispensers in certain areas for health, security, or fire safety purposes. Theprovision is more appropriate in the Operating Features section.


SAF-DET


Relative to FR4009 (FileMaker) / FR330 (Terra) on recognizing ABHR dispensers, theSAF-DET committee is asked to move the text from 23.7.5 to 23.4.6 for consistency withother occupancy committee actions.


(23.7.5)

23.7.5* Alcohol-Based Hand-Rub Dispensers. Alcohol-based hand-rub dispensers shall be permittedwhere both of the following criteria are met:(1) The detention and correction facility permits their use.(2) The installation meets the requirements in 8.7.3.3.


The use of these dispensers is allowed in accordance with Chapter 8 requirements. We recognize thatsome facility operators want to restrict the use in certain areas for health, security, or fire safety purposes.The provision is more appropriate in the Operating Features section.


SAF-DET

Page 36



Relative to FR5021 (FileMaker) / FR265 (Terra) on recognizing ABHR dispensers, theSAF-RES committee is asked to move the text from 28.3.2.3 to 28.4.2 [currently shownas Reserved] for (1) consistency with other occupancy committee actions and (2) toavoid conflict with 7.5.1.6.


(28.3.2.3 (New) )

28.3.2.3 Alcohol-Based Hand-Rub Dispensers. Alcohol-based hand-rub dispensers in accordancewith 8.7.3.3 shall be permitted.


The proposed FR adds language to permit the use of ABHR dispensers in accordance with the proposed8.7.3.3.


SAF-RES




(29.3.2.3 (New) )

29.3.2.3 Alcohol-Based Hand-Rub Dispensers. Alcohol-based hand-rub dispensers in accordancewith 8.7.3.3 shall be permitted.




SAF-RES

Page 37





(30.3.2.2)

30.3.2.2 Reserved. Alcohol-Based Hand-Rub Dispensers. Alcohol-based hand-rub dispensers inaccordance with 8.7.3.3 shall be permitted.




SAF-RES

Page 38



Relative to FR5000 (FileMaker) / FR293 (Terra) on the SAF-RES action to exemptsprinklers from small bathrooms in apartment living units, the Correlating Committeenotes (in answer to the ballot comment by Isman) that SAF-RES followed protocol andwrote advisory annex text substantiating the deviation from NFPA 13.


(30.3.5.4 (New) )

30.3.5.4* In buildings sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of SprinklerSystems, bathrooms not greater than 55 ft2 (5.1 m2) in individual dwelling units shall not be required to besprinklered.


The proposed revision maintains the sprinkler exception that was recently deleted in the 2013 edition ofNFPA 13 from Section 8.15.8.1.1. The Residential Committee members were informed at its First DraftMeeting on August 14, 2012, that the AUT-SSI Committee accepted a code proposal to delete thissprinkler exception that has been in its standard since the 1991 edition of NFPA 13. This sprinklerexception was original in the 1976 edition of NFPA 101 and was only removed from the NFPA 101editions after 1991 because of the informal understanding between the NFPA 101 and NFPA 13Committees that sprinkler contractors would rather have such an exception in NFPA 13 so it would not bemissed during the bidding, design and installation process.

During the 2010 NFPA 13 code process, the AUT-SSI Committee attempted to delete this sameexception, but the NMHC submitted a CAM that was approved by the membership at the AnnualTechnical Meeting in Chicago that reinstated the exception.

The Residential Committee, at its First Draft Meeting, reviewed the NFPA Fire Data Report, “1582-Areaof Origin in Reported Apartment Fires 2004-2008,” dated January 2011, that clearly provides fire datashowing that fires in bathrooms in sprinklered apartments building are small in number, with limitedproperty loss, and have not caused any fire deaths.

Therefore, it is the position of the Residential Committee that since it is evident that the AUT-SSI doesnot desire to maintain this reasonable sprinkler exception in NFPA 13 based on well documented fire datajustifying such a sprinkler exception since 1976, it is entirely within the scope of the Residential Committeeto retain its original responsibility for this sprinkler exception and to reinstate it back into the 2015 editionsof NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000.


SAF-RES

Page 39





(31.3.2.2)

31.3.2.2 Reserved. Alcohol-Based Hand-Rub Dispensers. Alcohol-based hand-rub dispensers inaccordance with 8.7.3.3 shall be permitted.




SAF-RES

Page 40



Relative to FR5050 (FileMaker) / FR295 (Terra) on the SAF-RES action to exemptsprinklers from small bathrooms in apartment living units, the Correlating Committeenotes (in answer to the ballot comment by Isman) that SAF-RES followed protocol andwrote advisory annex text substantiating the deviation from NFPA 13.


(31.3.5.4 (New) )

31.3.5.4* In buildings sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of SprinklerSystems, bathrooms not greater than 55 ft2 (5.1 m2) in individual dwelling units shall not be required to besprinklered.


The proposed revision maintains the sprinkler exception that was recently deleted in the 2013 edition ofNFPA 13 from Section 8.15.8.1.1. The Residential Committee members were informed at its First DraftMeeting on August 14, 2012, that the AUT-SSI Committee accepted a code proposal to delete thissprinkler exception that has been in its standard since the 1991 edition of NFPA 13. This sprinklerexception was original in the 1976 edition of NFPA 101 and was only removed from the NFPA 101editions after 1991 because of the informal understanding between the NFPA 101 and NFPA 13Committees that sprinkler contractors would rather have such an exception in NFPA 13 so it would not bemissed during the bidding, design and installation process.

During the 2010 NFPA 13 code process, the AUT-SSI Committee attempted to delete this sameexception, but the NMHC submitted a CAM that was approved by the membership at the AnnualTechnical Meeting in Chicago that reinstated the exception.

The Residential Committee, at its First Draft Meeting, reviewed the NFPA Fire Data Report, “1582-Areaof Origin in Reported Apartment Fires 2004-2008,” dated January 2011, that clearly provides fire datashowing that fires in bathrooms in sprinklered apartments building are small in number, with limitedproperty loss, and have not caused any fire deaths.

Therefore, it is the position of the Residential Committee that since it is evident that the AUT-SSI doesnot desire to maintain this reasonable sprinkler exception in NFPA 13 based on well documented fire datajustifying such a sprinkler exception since 1976, it is entirely within the scope of the Residential Committeeto retain its original responsibility for this sprinkler exception and to reinstate it back into the 2015 editionsof NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000.


SAF-RES

Page 41



Relative to FR6010 (FileMaker) / FR305 (Terra) on recognizing ABHR dispensers, theSAF-BCF committee is asked to move the text from 32.2.3.2.6 to 32.2.4 [currentlyshown as Reserved] for (1) consistency with other occupancy committee actions and (2)to avoid conflict with 7.5.1.6.


(32.2.3.2.6 (New) )

32.2.3.2.6 Alcohol-based hand-rub dispensers in accordance with 8.7.3.3 shall be permitted.




SAF-BCF


Relative to FR6011 (FileMaker) / FR304 (Terra) on recognizing ABHR dispensers, theSAF-BCF committee is asked to move the text from 32.3.3.2.3 to 32.3.4.2 for (1)consistency with other occupancy committee actions and (2) to avoid conflict with7.5.1.6.


(32.3.3.2.3 (New) )





SAF-BCF

Page 42



Relative to FR6012 (FileMaker) / FR306 (Terra) on recognizing ABHR dispensers, theSAF-BCF committee is asked to move the text from 33.2.3.2.6 to 33.2.4 [currentlyshown as Reserved] for (1) consistency with other occupancy committee actions and (2)to avoid conflict with 7.5.1.6.


(33.2.3.2.6 (New) )





SAF-BCF


Relative to FR6013 (FileMaker) / FR307 (Terra) on recognizing ABHR dispensers, theSAF-BCF committee is asked to move the text from 32.3.3.2.3 to 32.3.4.2 [and insert a33.3.4.1 Reserved, for correlation with Chapter 32] for (1) consistency with otheroccupancy committee actions and (2) to avoid conflict with 7.5.1.6.


(33.3.3.2.4 (New) )





SAF-BCF

Page 43



Relative to FR7014 (FileMaker) / FR448 (Terra) on commercial cooking equipment, theSAF-MER committee is asked to consider whether the new provision could inadvertentlyprohibit other portable cooking equipment that should otherwise be permitted, asaddressed in the ballot comment of Elvove.


(36.3.2.3)

Revise text to read as follows:36.3.2.3* Commercial Cooking Equipment Operations. Commercial cooking equipment operationsshall be protected in accordance with 9.2.3, unless the cooking equipment is one of the following types:(1) Outdoor equipment(2) Portable equipment not flue-connected(23) Equipment used only for food warming


1. Coordinate terminology with revisions to 9.2.32. Portable equipment is addressed by NFPA 96 and does not need to be duplicated here. The hazard isbased upon the cooking operation, not the portable nature of the equipment. NFPA 96 does permit suchoperations such as cooking demonstrations or limited cooking operations under NFPA 96, Section 1.1.4


SAF-MER


Relative to FR7010 (FileMaker) / FR448 (Terra) on recognizing ABHR dispensers, theSAF-MER committee is asked to move the text from 36.3.2.4 to 36.4.7 for (1)consistency with other occupancy committee actions and (2) to avoid conflict with7.5.1.6.


(36.3.2.4)

Add new section to read as follows:36.3.2.4 Alcohol-based hand rub dispensers in accordance with 8.7.3.3 shall be permitted.


Proposed text adds language to permit the use of alcohol based hand rub dispensers per the new Section8.7.3.3.


SAF-MER

Page 44





(37.3.2.3)

Revise text to read as follows:37.3.2.3* Commercial Cooking Equipment Operations. Commercial Ccooking equipment operationsshall be protected in accordance with 9.2.3, unless the cooking equipment is one of the following types:(1) Outdoor equipment(2) Portable equipment not flue-connected(32) Equipment used only for food warming




SAF-MER




(37.3.2.4)





SAF-MER

Page 45



The change to 38.1.7, proposed by FR7000 (FileMaker) / FR520 (Terra) by SAF-MER,is being changed by the Correlating Committee to Committee Input (CI) because thechange will instead be made to Table 7.3.1.2.


(38.1.7)

Revise text to read as follows:38.1.7 Occupant Load.38.1.7.1 The occupant load, in number of persons for whom means of egress and other provisions arerequired, shall be determined on the basis of the occupant load factors of Table 7.3.1.2 that arecharacteristic of the use of the space, or shall be determined as the maximum probable population of thespace under consideration, whichever is greater.38.1.7.2 The occupant load factor for business use shall be 150 ft2 per person38.1.7.3 The occupant load factor for concentrated business use shall be 50 ft2 per person.


Action was taken by the Means of Egress Technical Committee to change the occupant load factor forbusiness use areas based upon research conducted and presented in a published report by the FireProtection Research Foundation. However, the FPRF report does not adequately justify that the 100 sq. ftper person factor, as proposed by the Means of Egress Committee is the correct factor for concentrateduse business spaces. The report indicates that 50 sq. ft. per person more appropriately reflects theconcentrated business use areas. The committee is not in agreement that the 100 occupant load factorrepresents the concept of concentrated use areas and that a different value for this factor should be used.Note to CC: Proposed text should be moved to Chapter 7 if accepted.


SAF-MER

Page 46



Relative to FR7034 (FileMaker) / FR521 (Terra) on stairs and ramps serving floorsbelow the street floor, the SAF-MER committee is asked to revise the wording for clarityas the lead-in words “multiple floors” are confusing as addressed in the ballot commentof Derr.


(38.2.1.3)

Revise text to read as follows:38.2.1.3 Stairs and ramps serving two or more floors below a street floor occupied for business use shallbe permitted in accordance with Multiple floors shall comply with 38.2.1.3.1 and 38.2.1.3.2.38.2.1.3.1 Where two or more floors below the street floor are occupied for business use, the samestairs or ramps shall be permitted to serve each floor.38.2.1.3.2 An inside open stairway or inside open ramp shall be permitted to serve as a required egressfacility a component of the required means of egress system from not more than one floor level below thestreet floor.


Current language exists in NFPA 5000 and should be added here for correlation. The proposed changesmake the section more readable and clear.


SAF-MER

Page 47





(38.3.2.3)

Revise text to read as follows:38.3.2.3* Commercial Cooking Equipment Operations. Commercial Ccooking equipment operationsshall be protected in accordance with 9.2.3, unless the cooking equipment is one of the following types:(1) Outdoor equipment(2) Portable equipment not flue-connected(32) Equipment used only for food warming




SAF-MER




(38.3.2.4)





SAF-MER

Page 48



Relative to FR7039 (FileMaker) / FR524 (Terra) on alarm system initiation means, theSAF-MER committee is asked to revise the wording of 38.3.4.2 (2) and (3) from “inaccordance with 9.6.2.6” to “and the provision of 9.6.2.6 shall apply” for clarity asaddressed in the ballot comment of Bellamy as the manual fire alarm box is required inaddition to the automatic initiation provided by the fire detection or sprinkler system.


(38.3.4.2, 38.3.4.3 and 38.3.4.4)

Revise text to read as follows:38.3.4.2 Initiation. Initiation of the required fire alarm system shall be by any one of the following means:(1) Manual means in accordance with 9.6.2.1(1)(2) Means of an aApproved automatic fire detection system that complies in accordance with9.6.2.1(2) and that provides protection throughout the building in accordance with 9.6.2.6.(3) Means of an aApproved automatic sprinkler system that complies in accordance with 9.6.2.1(3)and that provides protection throughout the building in accordance with 9.6.2.6.38.3.4.3 Occupant Notification. During all times that the building is occupied (see 7.2.1.1.3), therequired fire alarm system, once initiated, shall perform one of the following functions:(1) It shall activate a general alarm in accordance with 9.6.3 throughout the building, and(2) A positive alarm sequence in accordance with 9.6.3.4 shall be permitted.38.3.4.4 Emergency Forces Notification. Emergency forces notification shall be provided and shallinclude notifying both of the following:(1) Fire department in accordance with 9.6.4(2) Approved Llocal emergency organization, if provided


Section 38.3.4.2 through 38.3.4.4 are being revised to correlate with the language and format currently inNFPA 5000. The requirements for fire alarm systems are being presented in list formats which are moreclear and user friendly.

References to Section 9.6.2.6 were added to remind users that fire alarm systems using automatic firedetection or waterflow detection devices to initiate the fire alarm system must also be provides with amanual fire alarm box.

The phrase "throughout the building" is being deleted from 38.3.4.3 as the requirements for the alarmsystem coverage are contained in the fire alarm requirements of the core Chapter 9.


SAF-MER

Page 49



The change to 39.1.7, proposed by FR7001 (FileMaker) / FR557 (Terra) by SAF-MER,is being changed by the Correlating Committee to Committee Input (CI) because thechange will instead be made to Table 7.3.1.2.


(39.1.7)

Revise text to read as follows:39.1.7 Occupant Load.39.1.7.1 The occupant load, in number of persons for whom means of egress and other provisions arerequired, shall be determined on the basis of the occupant load factors of Table 7.3.1.2 that arecharacteristic of the use of the space, or shall be determined as the maximum probable population of thespace under consideration, whichever is greater.39.1.7.2 The occupant load factor for business use shall be 150 ft2 per person39.1.7.3 The occupant load factor for concentrated business use shall be 50 ft2 per person.


Action was taken by the Means of Egress Technical Committee to change the occupant load factor forbusiness use areas based upon research conducted and presented in a published report by the FireProtection Research Foundation. However, the FPRF report does not adequately justify that the 100 sq. ftper person factor, as proposed by the Means of Egress Committee is the correct factor for concentrateduse business spaces. The report indicates that 50 sq. ft. per person more appropriately reflects theconcentrated business use areas. The committee is not in agreement that the 100 occupant load factorrepresents the concept of concentrated use areas and that a different value for this factor should be used.Note to CC: Proposed text should be moved to Chapter 7 if accepted.


SAF-MER

Page 50



Relative to FR7035 (FileMaker) / FR558 (Terra) on stairs and ramps serving floorsbelow the street floor, the SAF-MER committee is asked to revise the wording for clarityas the lead-in words “multiple floors” are confusing as addressed in the ballot commentof Derr.


(39.2.1.3)

Revise text to read as follows:39.2.1.3 Stairs and ramps serving two or more floors below a street floor occupied for business use shallbe permitted in accordance with Multiple floors shall comply with 39.2.1.3.1 and 39.2.1.3.2.39.2.1.3.1 Where two or more floors below the street floor are occupied for business use, the samestairs, escalators, or ramps shall be permitted to serve each floor.39.2.1.3.2 An inside open stairway, inside open escalator, or inside open ramp shall be permitted toserve as a required egress facility a component of the required means of egress system from not morethan one floor level below the street floor.


Current language exists in NFPA 5000 and should be added here for correlation. The proposed changesmake the section more readable and clear.


SAF-MER

Page 51





(39.3.2.3)

Revise text to read as follows:39.3.2.3* Commercial Cooking Equipment Operations. Commercial Cooking equipment operationsshall be protected in accordance with 9.2.3, unless the cooking equipment is one of the following types:(1) Outdoor equipment(2) Portable equipment not flue-connected(32) Equipment used only for food warming




SAF-MER




(39.3.2.4)





SAF-MER

Page 52



Relative to FR7041 (FileMaker) / FR571 (Terra) on alarm system initiation means, theSAF-MER committee is asked to revise the wording of 39.3.4.2 (2) and (3) from “inaccordance with 9.6.2.6” to “and the provision of 9.6.2.6 shall apply” for clarity asaddressed in the ballot comment of Bellamy as the manual fire alarm box is required inaddition to the automatic initiation provided by the fire detection or sprinkler system.


(39.3.4.2 and 39.3.4.3)

Revise text to read as follows:39.3.4.2 Initiation. Initiation of the required fire alarm system shall be by one of the following means:(1) Manual means in accordance with 9.6.2.1(1)(2) Means of an aApproved automatic fire detection system that complies in accordance with9.6.2.1(2) and that provides protection throughout the building in accordance with 9.6.2.6.(3) Means of an aApproved automatic sprinkler system that complies in accordance with 9.6.2.1(3)and that provides protection throughout the building in accordance with 9.6.2.6.39.3.4.3 Occupant Notification. During all times that the building is occupied (see 7.2.1.1.3), therequired fire alarm system, once initiated, shall perform one of the following functions:(1) It shall activate a general alarm in accordance with 9.6.3 throughout the building, and both of thefollowing also shall apply:(a) Positive alarm sequence in accordance with 9.6.3.4 shall be permitted.(b) A presignal system in accordance with 9.6.3.3 shall be permitted.(2) Occupant notification shall be permitted to be made via a voice communication or public addresssystem in accordance with 9.6.3.9.2.


Section 39.3.4.2 and 39.3.4.3 are being revised to correlate with the language and format currently inNFPA 5000 as well as the changes made to the corresponding sections in Chapter 38. The revisionsprovide clarity and are more user friendly.

References to Section 9.6.2.6 were added to remind users that fire alarm systems using automatic firedetection or waterflow detection devices to initiate the fire alarm system must also be provides with amanual fire alarm box.

The phrase "throughout the building" is being deleted from 39.3.4.3 as the requirements for the alarmsystem coverage are contained in the fire alarm requirements of the core Chapter 9.


SAF-MER

Page 53



Relative to FR8023 (FileMaker) / FR586 (Terra) on 40.2.2.5.2 on horizontal exits, the SAF-IND committeeis asked to clarify what an "automatic-sliding door" is. Further, SAF-IND is asked to clarify what is meansby requiring the door to be kept open when the building is occupied. Does that include at time of fire ifthere are occupants in the building?


(40.2.2.5.2)

Revise text to read as follows:40.2.2.5.2* In horizontal exits where the opening is protected by a fire door assembly on each side of thewall in which it is located, one fire door shall be of the swinging type, as provided in 7.2.4.3.78, and theother shall be permitted to be an automatic-sliding fire door that shall be kept open whenever the buildingis occupied.


Change corrects the reference in 40.2.2.5.2 to the section in Chapter 7 regarding swinging doors inhorizontal exits.


SAF-IND

Page 54



Relative to FR8039 (FileMaker) / FR589 (Terra) on travel distance for power-generationbuildings, the SAF-IND committee is asked to:- Add to the end of 40.2.6.1 “except as otherwise permitted by 40.2.6.2.”- Revise the wording of 40.2.6.2 to clarify if all the referenced documents must be met

in order to be permitted the 400-ft travel distance as addressed in the ballot comment ofSheldon.


(40.2.6)

Revise text to read as follows:40.2.6 Travel Distance to Exits.40.2.6.1 Travel distance, measured in accordance with Section 7.6, shall not exceed that provided byTable 40.2.6.1.40.2.6.2* Power-Generation Buildings. Buildings of noncombustible construction used exclusively forthe enclosure of steam generators, steam turbines, gas turbines, heat recovery generators, and flue gastreatment equipment, with special hazards protected by approved automatic suppression systems inaccordance with NFPA 11, Standard for Low-, Medium-, and High-Expansion Foam; NFPA 12, Standardon Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing Systems; NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems,NFPA 15, Standard for Water Spray Fixed Systems for Fire Protection; NFPA 16, Standard for theInstallation of Foam-Water Sprinkler and Foam-Water Spray Systems; NFPA 17, Standard for DryChemical Extinguishing Systems; NFPA 750, Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems; or NFPA2001, Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems, shall be permitted to have a maximum traveldistance of 400 ft (122 m).


Proposed text currently exists in NFPA 5000 and should be added here to provide guidance on traveldistance for power-generation buildings and for correlation between NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000. Theassociated Annex language has also been added via a separate First Revision.Note to CC: Please add references to Chapter 2 as necessary.


SAF-IND

Page 55



Relative to FR8003 (FileMaker) / FR593 (Terra) on recognizing ABHR dispensers, theSAF-IND committee is asked to move the text from 40.3.2.5 to 40.4.2 for (1) consistencywith other occupancy committee actions and (2) to avoid conflict with 7.5.1.6.


(40.3.2.5)

Add new section to read as follows:40.3.2.5 Alcohol-based hand-rub dispensers in accordance with 8.7.3.3 shall be permitted.


Proposed text recognizes the new text of 8.7.3.3 and allows permission for the use of alcohol based handrub dispensers in industrial occupancies.


SAF-IND


Relative to FR8013 (FileMaker) / FR602 (Terra) on 42.2.2.5.2 on horizontal exits, the SAF-IND committeeis asked to clarify what an "automatic-sliding door" is. Further, SAF-IND is asked to clarify what is meansby requiring the door to be kept open when the building is occupied. Does that include at time of fire ifthere are occupants in the building?


(42.2.2.5.2)

Revise text to read as follows:42.2.2.5.2* In horizontal exits where the opening is protected by a fire door assembly on each side of thewall in which it is located, one fire door shall be of the swinging type, as provided in 7.2.4.3.78, and theother shall be permitted to be an automatic-sliding fire door that shall be kept open whenever the buildingis occupied.


The proposed change corrects the reference in 42.2.2.5.2 to the section in Chapter 7 regarding swingingdoors in horizontal exits.


SAF-IND

Page 56



Relative to FR8020 (FileMaker) / FR607 (Terra) on travel distance for storageoccupancies, the SAF-IND committee is asked to coordinate with similar material inNFPA 5000 or document why the two codes should be different as addressed in theballot comments of Fluer and McLaughlin.


(Table 42.2.6)

Revise current table 42.2.6 as follows:<<Insert Table 42.2.6 attachment>>


As written, the current language of the Code implies that storage occupancies are sub-classified as eitherlow, ordinary or high hazard storage occupancies. However, the provisions for storage occupancies aredetermined by the hazard of contents that are being stored, not as a specific classification of occupancy.In addition, no provisions are found in the x.1.2 subsection of Chapter 42 that define sub-classifications ofthe occupancy. Proposed change clarifies that the provisions for storage occupancies are determinedbased upon the hazard of contents being stored. No technical changes are being proposed.


SAF-IND


Relative to FR8004 (FileMaker) / FR610 (Terra) on recognizing ABHR dispensers, theSAF-IND committee is asked to move the text from 42.3.2.1 to 42.4.2 [and renumberhigh-rise provision from 42.4 to 42.4.1] for (1) consistency with other occupancycommittee actions and (2) to avoid conflict with 7.5.1.6.


(42.3.2.1)

Revise text to read as follows:42.3.2 Protection from Hazards. (No requirements.) See also Section 8.7.42.3.2.1 Alcohol-based hand -rub dispensers in accordance with 8.7.3.3 shall be permitted.


Proposed text recognizes the new text of 8.7.3.3 and allows permission for the use of alcohol based handrub dispensers in Storage Occupancies.


SAF-IND

Page 57

101/FR8020fm/FR607terra/A14

Table 42.2.6 Maximum Travel Distance to Exits

Level of

Protection

Low Hazard

Storage

Occupancy

Storage

Occupancies

with Low

Hazard

Contents

Ordinary

Hazard

Storage

Occupancy Storage

Occupancies with

Ordinary Hazard

Contents

High Hazard

Storage

Occupancy Storage

Occupancies with

High Hazard

Contents

ft m ft m

Protected throughout by an

approved, supervised automatic

sprinkler system in accordance with

9.7.1.1(1)

NL 400 122 100 30

Not protected throughout by an

approved, supervised automatic

sprinkler system in accordance with

9.7.1.1(1)

NL 200 61 75 23

Flammable and combustible liquid

products stored and protected in

accordance with NFPA 30,

Flammable and Combustible Liquids

Code

NA NA NA 150 46



Relative to FR8026 (FileMaker) / FR612 (Terra) on interior floor finish for storageoccupancies, the SAF-IND committee is asked to change “shall be not less than ClassII” to “shall be Class I or Class II” for consistency with similar provisions elsewhere in theCode as addressed in the ballot comment of Kobelski.


(42.3.3.3.1 and 42.3.3.3.2)

Revise text to read as follows:42.3.3.3.1 Interior floor finish in exit enclosures and in exit access corridors shall be not less than ClassII.42.3.3.3.2 Interior floor finish in areas other than those specified in 42.3.3.3.1 shall not be required tocomply with Section 10.2.7.


42.3.3.3.1 - Revised text correlates with current provision of NFPA 5000. Exit access corridors wereunintentionally omitted from 42.3.3.3.1.42.3.3.3.2 - Change updates section reference to the specific section on floor finish in Chapter 10.


SAF-IND


Relative to FR8034 (FileMaker) / FR620 (Terra) on interior floor finish for parkingstructures, the SAF-IND committee is asked to change “shall be not less than Class II”to “shall be Class I or Class II” for consistency with similar provisions elsewhere in theCode as addressed in the ballot comment of Kobelski.


(42.8.3.3.3.1)

Revise text to read as follows:42.8.3.3.3.1 Interior floor finish in exit enclosures and exit access corridors shall be not less than ClassII.42.8.3.3.3.2 Interior floor finish in areas other than those specified in 42.8.3.3.3.1 shall not be required tocomply with Section 10.2.6.


1. Current text exists in NFPA 5000 and should be added here for correlation. Interior finish should beregulated for exit access corridors.2. Interior floor finish provisions should point users back to the core chapter section specific to interior floorfinish, Section 10.2.6.


SAF-IND

Page 58



Relative to FR114 (FileMaker) / FR88 (Terra) on A.3.3.124 Grade Plane, the SAF-FUN committee isasked to delete the annex text given the changes that the committee is being asked to make to the termGrade Plane in Chapter 3. The user should be sent directly from Chapter 3 to 4.6.15.


(A.3.3.124 Grade Plane)

A.3.3.124 Grade Plane. See 4.6.15 for provisions for establising the grade plane. Verticalmeasurements might be used in determining the number of stories or building height.


The new annex supports the revision to the definition of "grade plane" which was made to be genericwithout requirements. The requirements were moved to a new subsection 4.6.15 and the user needs to bedirected there, via this new annex text.


SAF-FUN

Page 59



The additional text to A.7.3.1.2, proposed by FR244 (FileMaker) / FR154 (Terra) bySAF-MEA, is being changed by the Correlating Committee to Committee Input (CI)because it would conflict with the action by SAF-MER that is being incorporated intoTable 7.3.1.2.Further, the Correlating Committee asks SAF-MEA to develop text to clarify what ismeant by "concentrated business use." Annex examples of concentrated business usewould be helpful.


(A.7.3.1.2)

A.7.3.1.2 The normal occupant load is not necessarily a suitable criterion, because the greatest hazardcan occur when an unusually large crowd is present, which is a condition often difficult for authoritieshaving jurisdiction to control by regulatory measures. The principle of this Code is to provide means ofegress for the maximum probable number of occupants, rather than to attempt to limit occupants to anumber commensurate with available means of egress. However, limits of occupancy are specified incertain special cases for other reasons....

This phenomenon is explained when one considers that, above a certain shopping center gross leasablearea [approximately 600,000 ft2 (56,000 m2)], there exists a multiplicity of the same types of stores. Thepurpose of duplicate types of stores is to increase the choices available to a customer for any given typeof merchandise. Therefore, when shopping center size increases, the occupant load increases as well, butat a declining rate. In using Figure 7.3.1.2(a) or Figure 7.3.1.2(b), the occupant load factor is applied onlyto the gross leasable area that uses the mall as a means of egress.Relative to the 100 ft2 (9.3 m2) per person occupant load factor specified in Table 7.3.1.2 for

concentrated business use, some business use spaces such as call centers and work station areas mightnecessitate use of an occupant load factor less than 100 ft2 (9.3 m2) per person. For example, deskcubicles as small as 25 ft2 (2.3 m2) in area are available in the marketplace. Prudence needs to beexercised when determining the occupant load in concentrated business use areas.


Additional guidance needed on dealing with call centers and work cubicles.


SAF-MEA

Page 60



The Correlating Committee notes that the creation of A.8.2.3.1.3, proposed by FR401(FileMaker) / FR213 (Terra) by SAF-FIR, is changed to a Committee Input (CI) becausethe item failed committee letter ballot.


(A.8.2.3.1.3)

A.8.2.3.1.3 The test procedures set forth in fire test methods referenced in 8.2.3.1 makeno provision for testing automatic fire suppression systems or water sprays inconjunction with structural members or assemblies tested in vertical or horizontal fireresistance furnaces.


This is annex language to accompany text accepted via First Revision #400. This issue has beenconsidered by FIR for several cycles. Last cycle, the Committee voted to accept Comment 101-89 duringthe ROC meeting. However, the ballot results did not confirm the vote taken during the meeting and theitem failed by a vote of 14-8. It should be noted that one of the negative votes addressed a concern thatthe language inferred that three standard fire resistance test procedures were equivalent. The languageproposed addresses several of the concerns expressed during the previous cycles. First, the languageexempts existing, previously approved elements and assemblies so as not to impact existing conditions.Secondly, the language specifically states that the test performed shall include the use of an automaticsprinkler system or other fire suppression system. In previously cycles, there was concern that theequivalency provisions and performance-based design approaches could not be used. While not the intentin the past, the proposed language clearly states that the restricion only applies to the conduct of the test.In previous cycles concern was expressed over the impact the provision may have on the wetted glasswall assemblies permitted in atria. However, the proposed language addresses that in that the wettedglass wall assembly is an option to a fire barrier and as such is not an assembly that is required to have afire resistance rating determined by one of the fire test standards referenced.


SAF-FIR

Page 61



Relative to FR416 (FileMaker) / FR215 (Terra) on A.8.3.2.3, the SAF-FIR committee isasked to either reposition the text or delete it as it is misplaced. The text addressesexterior walls but the subsection in on interior walls and partitions as raised in the ballotcomments of Gencarelli, Gump, Humble, et al.


(A.8.3.2.3)

Add new text to read as follows:A.8.3.2.3 It is not the intent to require exterior walls to be protected against exterior fire exposure exceptwhere specifically required by NFPA 220 or NFPA 5000. Other building codes may also require protectionfrom the exterior in some circumstances. The presence of fire sprinklers or an occupiable exterior space,such as a porch or balcony, does not require protection against exterior fire exposure unless specificallyrequired elsewhere.


Although protection of interior walls is addressed, nowhere does NFPA 101 state whether exterior wallsmust be protected on one or both sides. This section merely clarifies that requirements regarding fire fromthe exterior may be located in other codes, such as NFPA 220 or NFPA 5000, but that NFPA 101 onlyrequires protection from fire originating in the interior of the building.


SAF-FIR

Page 62



Relative to FR417 (FileMaker) / FR217 (Terra) on A.8.3.5.1, the SAF-FIR committee isasked to delete the proposed new third sentence as it references proprietary programs


(A.8.3.5.1)

Revise text to read as follows:A.8.3.5.1 Firestop Materials become systems when installed to the listed firestopsystem design from an accredited testing laboratory. Installation of firestop materials tothe listed system should meet all limitations of the system. FM 4991, Standard for theApproval of Firestop Contractors and the UL Qualified Firestop Contractor Program bothprovide a quantified qualification of the firestop installer who understands the detailedinstallation requirements.Where the configuration of a penetrating item or group of items is such that a listed

system is determined to be non-existent and reconfiguration of the penetrations or fireresistance rated assembly is determined to be impractical or impossible, alternativemethods for maintaining the integrity of the required fire–resistance rating of theassembly should be permitted to be established using an engineering analysis based ona comparison of listed systems prepared by a manufacturer’s technical representative ofthe systems specified, by the laboratory that conducted the original test, or by aprofessional engineer.ASTM E 2174, Standard Practice for On-Site Inspection of Installed Fire Stops,

provides guidance for the inspection of through-penetration fire stop systems tested inaccordance with ASTM E 814, Standard Test Method for Fire Tests ofThrough-Penetration Fire Stops, and ANSI/UL 1479, Standard for Fire Tests ofThrough-Penetration Firestops.


Proposed Paragraph 1 provides guidance about inspection of firestop materials. There is no descriptionof installation importance prior to installation. The purpose of this text is to add information aboutinstallation of firestop materials that, when properly installed to the listed system, become a firestopsystem. Additionally, there are two qualification programs that certify the contractor company in theinstallation of firestop systems, FM 4991, Standard for the Approval of Firestop Contractors and the ULQualified Firestop Contractor Program. Both programs give quantified qualification for the installercompany for AHJ’s and others.

In addition, it is not possible to test all possible penetrations. However, today Engineering Judgments arebeing used even when listed systems are available or with proper design, a listed system could be used.Therefore, one of the reasons for the proposed Annex note is to discourage the prolific use of engineeringjudgments. Secondly, the proposed language requires that the person who prepares the analysis must bethe manufacturer's technical representative who is familiar with the test. Since engineering judgments areto be based upon a test of a similar assembly, one should be familiar with the test in order to render anopinion as to whether the modifications will adversely impact the performance of the system. As analternative, the laboratory who conducted the test may prepare the engineering judgment or it may beprepared by a registered professional engineer practicing in their area of expertise.


SAF-FIR

Page 63


by UL and FM. The annex text should not serve as a sales tool for such programs asaddressed in the ballot comments of Devlin, Holmes, Humble, et al.

Page 64


First Revision # FR418 (A.8.3.6.5)

A.8.3.6.5 Materials used to protect joints become systems when installed to the listedjoint system design from an accredited testing laboratory. Installation of joint materialsto the listed system should meet all limitations of the system. FM 4991, Standard forthe Approval of Firestop Contractors and the UL Qualified Firestop Contractor Programboth provide a quantified qualification of the joint system installer who understands thedetailed installation requirements.Where the configuration of a joint is such that a listed system is determined to be

nonexistent and reconfiguration of the joint or fire resistance-rated assembly isdetermined to be impractical or impossible, alternative methods for maintaining theintegrity of the required fire resistance rating of the assembly should be permitted to beestablished using an engineering analysis based on a comparison of listed systemsprepared by a manufacturer’s technical representative of the systems specified,prepared by the laboratory that conducted the original test, or by a professionalengineer.On-site inspection of firestopping is important in maintaining the integrity of any vertical

or horizontal fire barrier. Two standard practice documents were developed with theASTM process to allow inspections of through-penetration firestops, joints, andperimeter fire barrier systems. ASTM E 2393, Standard Practice for On-Site Inspectionof Installed Fire Resistive Joint Systems and Perimeter Fire Barriers, provides guidancefor the inspection of fire-resistive joints and perimeter fire barrier joint systems tested inaccordance with the requirements of ASTM E 1966, Standard Test Method forFire-Resistive Joint Systems, or with ANSI/UL 2079, Standard for Tests for FireResistance of Building Joint Systems. ASTM E 2393 contains a standardized reportformat, which would lead to greater consistency for inspections


Proposed Paragraph 1 provides guidance about inspection of joint materials. There is no description ofinstallation importance prior to installation. The purpose of this text is to add information about installationof joint materials that, when properly installed to the listed system, become a joint system. Additionally,there are two qualification programs that certify the contractor company in the installation of joint systems,FM 4991, Standard for the Approval of Firestop Contractors and the UL Qualified Firestop ContractorProgram. Both programs give quantified qualification for the installer company for AHJ’s and others.

It is not possible to test all possible joint configurations. However, today Engineering Judgments arebeing used even when listed systems are available or with proper design, a listed system could be used.Therefore, one of the reasons for the proposed Annex note is to discourage the prolific use of engineeringjudgments. Secondly, the proposed language requires that the person who prepares the analysis must bethe manufacturer's technical representative who is familiar with the test. Since engineering judgments areto be based upon a test of a similar assembly, one should be familiar with the test in order to render anopinion as to whether the modifications will adversely impact the performance of the system. As analternative, the laboratory who conducted the test may prepare the engineering judgment or it may beprepared by a registered professional engineer practicing in their area of expertise.


SAF-FIR

Page 65


Relative to FR418 (FileMaker) / FR218 (Terra) on A.8.3.6.5, the SAF-FIR committee isasked to delete the proposed new third sentence as it references proprietary programsby UL and FM. The annex text should not serve as a sales tool for such programs asaddressed in the ballot comments of Devlin, Holmes, Humble, et al.


Page 66


First Revision # FR632 (A.9.6.2.10.4 and A.9.6.2.10.5)

A.9.6.2.10.4 As per annex material located in A.29.5.1 of NFPA 72, it is not normally recommended thatsmoke alarms or smoke detectors be placed in kitchen spaces. This section of the code providesguidelines for safe installation if a need exists to install a smoke alarm or smoke detector in a residentialkitchen space or cooking area.

Within this Code section, a fixed cooking appliance is any appliance that is intended to be permanentlyconnected electrically to the wiring system or the fuel source. A stationary cooking appliance is anyappliance that is intended to be fastened in place or located in a dedicated space, and is connected to thesupply circuit or fuel source.

Smoke alarms and smoke detectors that are currently available to consumers are susceptible to particlesreleased into the air during normal cooking procedures. If smoke alarms and smoke detectors are placedtoo close to the area where the cooking source originates, a high level of nuisance alarms can occur.Frequent nuisance alarms can result in an occupant disabling the smoke alarm or smoke detector.

Nuisance alarm studies show that commercially available residential smoke alarms and smoke detectorsare susceptible to nuisance alarms when installed too close to cooking appliances. As the horizontaldistance between the smoke alarm or smoke detectors and the cooking appliance increases, thefrequency of nuisance alarms decreases. Smoke alarms or smoke detectors that use ionization smokedetection have been shown to be more susceptible to cooking nuisance alarms than those that usephotoelectric smoke detection when the alarms or detectors are installed within 10 ft (3.0 m) along ahorizontal smoke travel path from a cooking appliance. Smoke alarms or smoke detectors that usephotoelectric smoke detection produce nuisance alarms when installed less than 10 ft (3.0 m) from acooking appliance, though to a lesser degree.

The occurrence of the higher frequency of nuisance alarms observed in smoke alarms or smokedetectors that use ionization detection have been documented in the fire research data. Due to thedifferences in technology between ionization detection and photoelectric detection, the sensitivity typicallyused for ionization detection is much higher than that used for photoelectric detection. This sensitivitydifference is a result of each type of the detection being required to satisfy UL 217, Single and MultipleStation Smoke Alarms performance tests. Removing detection technology from consideration, thefrequency of nuisance alarms is solely due to the sensitivity of the detection method used. Thus, bothionization and photoelectric detector technologies will produce nuisance alarms due to cooking, butcurrently available smoke alarms and smoke detectors that use ionization detection typically producemore cooking related nuisance alarms.

The higher sensitivities of currently available smoke alarms and smoke detectors that use ionizationdetection do provide a benefit at the expense of a potentially higher rate of cooking-related nuisancealarms. Research has demonstrated that ionization detection will typically respond faster thanphotoelectric detection to flaming fires, providing earlier warning to occupants that might allow for quickerintervention or faster egress. In general, the installation of smoke alarms or smoke detectors that useionization detection will result in increased fire safety at the risk of a higher frequency of nuisance alarms.The installation of smoke alarms or smoke detectors that use photoelectric detection will result in reducedfire safety for flaming fires and a reduced risk of nuisance alarms. Based on the trade-off between fasterresponse to fires and the frequency of nuisance alarms, detectors that utilize both technologies (i.e.,ionization, photoelectric, and a combination) are allowed to be installed between 10 ft (3.0 m) and 20 ft(6.1 m) along a horizontal flow path from a standard or fixed cooking appliance if the specific detector isequipped with an alarm silencing means or is of the photoelectric-type. Nuisance alarm studies providedata on cooking nuisances that emanate from both fixed cooking appliances and stationary cookingappliances (e.g., stove, oven) as well as portable cooking appliances (e.g., toaster). Based on thesestudies, which demonstrate the potential of all cooking appliances to generate nuisance sources, a zone


SAF-BSF

Page 67


Relative to FR632 (FileMaker) / FR30 (Terra) on annex text, by SAF-BSF, on smokealarms that references UL 217, the SAF-FUN committee, which has primary


of exclusion has been specified surrounding each stationary or fixed cooking appliance. The purpose ofthis zone is to limit the installation of smoke alarms and detectors in areas where stationary, fixed, orportable cooking appliances will be located within the residential kitchen space such that potentialnuisance alarms are minimized. The size of the zone of exclusion is specified to attempt to take intoaccount the unknown and transitory locations of portable cooking appliances. This zone of exclusion isdetermined by measuring a 10 ft (3.0 m) radial distance from the closest edge of a stationary or fixedcooking appliance. The zone of exclusion is not intended to pass through walls or doorways. FigureA.9.6.2.10.4(a) [72: Figure A.29.8.3.4(4)(a)] provides an example of the zone of exclusion in a generalizedresidential kitchen. If other areas of this Code require that a smoke alarm or smoke detector be placedwithin a horizontal flow path distance between 10 ft (3.0 m) and 20 ft (6.1 m) from a stationary or fixedcooking appliance, the following method should be used to determine the distance, and only photoelectricdetection or smoke alarms/detectors with alarm silencing means can be installed in this area.

To install a smoke alarm or detector between 10 ft (3.0 m) and 20 ft (6.1 m) from the cooking appliance,an installer must first determine the 10 ft (3.0 m) area of exclusion. Once the area of exclusion isdetermined, an installer must then determine the horizontal flow distance. This is the horizontal distancealong the ceiling from the closest edge of the cooking appliance to the smoke alarm or detector. Thehorizontal distance can consist of line segments due to impediments, such as interior partitions. Once animpediment is met, the measurement of the distance will then continue along the new horizontal pathsegment until the distance requirement is met or another impediment is encountered. FigureA.9.6.2.10.4(b) [72: Figure A.29.8.3.4(4)(b)] provides an example for placement outside a kitchen in anearby hallway. Figure A.9.6.2.10.4(c) [72: Figure A.29.8.3.4(4)(c)] provides another example ofappropriate placement outside of a kitchen in an adjacent room. At a horizontal flow path distance ofgreater than 20 ft (6.1 m), any type of smoke alarm or smoke detector can be installed. In rare cases, aresidential dwelling can be of such size and configuration that an area of exclusion of 10 ft (3.0 m) from astationary or fixed cooking appliance excludes the placement of a smoke alarm or smoke detectorrequired by other areas of this Code. In these cases, a smoke alarm or smoke detector using photoelectricdetection can be installed at least 72 in. (1.83 m) from the fixed or stationary cooking appliance. FigureA.9.6.2.10.4(d) [72: Figure A.29.8.3.4(4)(d)] provides an example of this situation in practice where asmoke alarm or smoke detector is required outside of the sleeping area, but the space is in closeproximity to the kitchen space. [72:A.29.8.3.4(4)] A.29.8.3.4(4)]

A.9.6.2.10.5 Studies indicate that smoke alarms and smoke detectors that use ionization detection,photoelectric detection, or a combination of ionization and photoelectric detection, are susceptible tonuisance alarms caused by steam. Little research has been done on the comparative response of thesetypes of detection to steam. Steam particles, in general, are visible, reflect light easily, and are typicallyproduced in a size range that would be more likely to activate a photoelectric sensor. Thus, it is requiredthat smoke alarms and smoke detectors be installed greater than 36 in. (910 mm) from the bathroom doorwhere possible. Increasing the distance between the smoke alarm or smoke detector and the bathroomdoor can reduce the frequency of nuisance alarms from bathroom steam. Frequent nuisance alarms canresult in the occupant disabling the smoke alarm. Each incremental increase in separation, up to 10 ft (3.0m), between the bathroom door and the smoke alarm or smoke detector is expected to reduce thefrequency of nuisance alarms. [72:A.29.8.3.4(5) A.29.8.3.4 (5)]

The proposed revision adds Annex A material extracted from NFPA 72 to correspond with coderequirements extracted from NFPA 72 in First Revision 101- Log #FR615.


Page 68


responsibility for the lists of referenced publications, is asked to add the following toC.1.2.12 UL Publications:UL 217, Single and Multiple Station Smoke Alarms, 2012.


Relative to FR4008 (FileMaker) / FR365 (Terra) on annex text related to ABHRdispensers, the SAF-DET committee is asked to move the text from A.22.7.5 to A.22.4.6for correlation with the requested move of the Code text from 22.7.5 to 22.4.6.


(A.22.7.5)

A.22.7.5 The health, security, and fire safety implications should be reviewed by the detention andcorrection facility prior to installation.


An annex note was added to provide additional information to the facility.


SAF-DET


Relative to FR4010 (FileMaker) / FR370 (Terra) on annex text related to ABHRdispensers, the SAF-DET committee is asked to move the text from A.23.7.5 to A.23.4.6for correlation with the requested move of the Code text from 23.7.5 to 23.4.6.


(A.23.7.5)

A.23.7.5 The health, security, and fire safety implications should be reviewed by the detention andcorrection facility prior to installation.


An annex note was added to provide additional information to the facility.


SAF-DET

Page 69

Report on First Revisions with Statement – June 2014 NFPA 101_______________________________________________________________________________________________101 FCR1(Entire Document)_______________________________________________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee Safety to LifeRecommendation: Globally replace the word “rubbish” with the word “waste”.Statement: Various First Revisions make the change only in certain locations within the Code. The word change needsto be made globally for consistency.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101 FCR7(3.3.56 Deep-fat Frying)_______________________________________________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee Safety to LifeRecommendation: 3.3.56 Deep-fat Frying. A cooking method that involves fully immersing food in hot oil.Statement: The new definition is needed for clarification of provisions of Chapter 18 and 19 on kitchens permitted to beopen to corridors. The SAF-HEA committee does not have jurisdiction over Chapter 3 and could not insert the definitionitself.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101 FCR4(3.3.263.1 Aisle Stair)_______________________________________________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee Safety to LifeRecommendation: 3.3.263.1 Aisle Stair. A stair within a seating area of an assembly occupancy that directly servesrows of seating seats to the side of the stair, including transition stairs that connect to an aisle or a landing.Statement: The revised definition is consistent with related changes made by SAF-AXM in Chapter 12 and 13. TheSAF-AXM committee does not have jurisdiction over Chapter 3 and could not revise the definition itself.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101 FCR2(7.2.1.3.1)_______________________________________________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee Safety to LifeRecommendation: 7.2.1.3.1 The elevation of the floor surfaces on both sides of a door opening shall not vary by morethan ½ in. (13 mm), unless otherwise permitted by 7.2.1.3.5 or 7.2.1.3.6, 7.2.1.3.6, or 7.2.1.3.7.Statement: The new provision of 7.2.1.3.7, being added by FR223 (FileMaker) / FR45 (Terra), needs to be recognizedin the list of exemptions permitted by 7.2.1.3.1 as noted in the ballot comment from Bonisch.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101 FCR3(Table 7.3.1.2)_______________________________________________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee Safety to LifeRecommendation: Table 7.3.1.2Business Use (other 100 150 9.3 13.9than below)Concentrated business 50 4.6UseStatement: The revision to Table 7.3.1.2 reflects the values established by the SAF-MER technical committee whichhas primary responsibility for occupant load factors related to business uses.

1Printed on 12/14/2012

Report on First Revisions with Statement – June 2014 NFPA 101_______________________________________________________________________________________________101 FCR5(12.1.4.2)_______________________________________________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee Safety to LifeRecommendation: 12.1.4.2* Special Definitions. A The following is a list of special terms used in this chapter follows:(1) Aisle Accessway. See 3.3.11.(2) Aisle Stair. See 3.3.263.1.Statement: The change to the definition of Aisle Stair, requested by SAF-AXM, is being made in Chapter 3, via aseparate First Correlating Revision (FCR).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101 FCR6(13.1.4.2)_______________________________________________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee Safety to LifeRecommendation: 13.1.4.2* Special Definitions. A The following is a list of special terms used in this chapter follows:(1) Aisle Accessway. See 3.3.11.(2) Aisle Stair. See 3.3.263.1.Statement: The change to the definition of Aisle Stair, requested by SAF-AXM, is being made in Chapter 3, via aseparate First Correlating Revision (FCR).

2Printed on 12/14/2012

ROC TC Initial Ballot Cover · PDF filePart 1 is a Letter Ballot on the Correlating Committee...

Documents

Transcript of ROC TC Initial Ballot Cover · PDF filePart 1 is a Letter Ballot on the Correlating Committee...