Technical Committee on John D. Garcia Fire Prevention Code Raymond A. Grill Donald P. Bliss, William K. Hopple Lynne Kilpatrick Scott W.

Transcription

1 Technical Committee on Fire Prevention Code Donald P. Bliss, Chair New Hampshire Dept. of Safety, NH [E] Rep. National Association of State Fire Marshals Scott W. Adams, Park City Fire District, UT [E] John F. Bender, Maryland Office of State Fire Marshal, MD [E] David F. Bibber, City of Dover Fire and Rescue, NH [E] Rep. International Association of Fire Chiefs D. Edwin Blehschmidt, West Virginia University, WV [U] Rep. NFPA Health Care Section James W. Bowman, The DuPont Company, DE [U] Jeffrey P. Collins, Palm Beach County Fire/Rescue, FL [E] Brian J. Denk, Sara Lee Corporation, IL [U] Rep. NFPA Industrial Fire Protection Section Matthew D. Dobson, National Association of Home Builders, DC [U] Gene B. Endthoff, National Fire Sprinkler Association, IL [M] Rep. National Fire Sprinkler Association Douglas S. Erickson, American Society for Healthcare Engineering, VI [U] Rep. American Society for Healthcare Engineering Ronald R. Farr, Kalamazoo Township Fire Department, MI [E] Rep. International Fire Marshals Association Alfred J. Hogan, Reedy Creek Improvement District, FL [U] Howard Hopper, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., CA [RT] Thomas W. Jaeger, Gage-Babcock & Associates Inc., VA [SE] Robert J. James, City of Bloomington Fire Prevention, MN [E] Richard S. Kraus, Petroleum Safety Consultants, VA [U] Rep. American Petroleum Institute Michael J. Laderoute, MJL Associates, Inc., VA [M] Rep. Fire Equipment Manufacturers Association James K. Lathrop, Koffel Associates, Inc., CT [SE] Len Malmquist, Central Emergency Services, AK [E] Ronald K. Mengel, System Sensor, IL [M] Rep. National Electrical Manufacturers Association Wayne D. Moore, Hughes Associates, Inc., RI [M] Rep. Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc. Joseph L. Navarra, Potomac Electric Power Company, DC [U] Rep. Edison Electric Institute Michael A. O Hara, The MountainStar Group, MN [SE] Kenneth R. Quick, Jr., City of Culver City Fire Department, CA [E] Rep. South Bay Section Fire Prevention Officer Association Robert Rowe, City of Downey Fire Department, CA [E] Chester W. Schirmer, Schirmer Engineering Corporation, NC [I] Jeffrey M. Shapiro, International Code Consultants, TX [M] Rep. The Chlorine Institute Amal Tamim, W.R. Grace & Company-Conn, MA [M] Randolph W. Tucker, The RJA Group, Inc., TX [SE] Stanley Wheeler, CA [E] Rep. International Code Council, Inc./AEBO Peter J. Willse, GE Global Asset Protection Services, CT [I] Alternates Anthony C. Apfelbeck, Altamonte Springs Fire Department, FL [E] (Alt. to J. P. Collins) Carl F. Baldassarra, Schirmer Engineering Corporation, IL [I] (Alt. to C. W. Schirmer) Thomas T. Bulow, AZ [U] Rep. NFPA Health Care Section (Alt. to D. E. Blehschmidt) Kenneth E. Bush, Maryland State Fire Marshals Office, MD [E] (Alt. to J. F. Bender) John A. Davenport, VA [I] (Alt. to P. J. Willse) Kenneth A. Ford, National Association of Home Builders, DC [U] (Alt. to M. D. Dobson) John D. Garcia, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., NJ [RT] (Alt. to H. Hopper) Raymond A. Grill, The RJA Group, Inc., VA [SE] (Alt. to R. W. Tucker) William K. Hopple, SimplexGrinnell, CA [M] Rep. National Electrical Manufacturers Association (Alt. to R. K. Mengel) Lynne Kilpatrick, Seattle Fire Department, WA [E] (Alt. to L. Malmquist) Roy C. (Chuck) Kimball, Brooks Equipment Company, Inc., NC [M] Rep. Fire Equipment Manufacturers Association (Alt. to M. J. Laderoute) William E. Koffel, Koffel Associates, Inc., MD [SE] (Alt. to J. K. Lathrop) Michael E. Lyden, The Chlorine Institute, Inc., DC [M] (Alt. to J. M. Shapiro) Anthony Sanfilippo, Michigan Dept. of Consumer & Industry Services, MI [E] Rep. International Fire Marshals Association (Alt. to R. R. Farr) Rick Thornberry, The Code Consortium, Inc., CA [M] (Alt. to A. Tamim) Wayne Waggoner, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc., TN [M] (Alt. to G. B. Endthoff) Patrick C. Ward, Gage Babcock & Associates, Inc., CA (Alt to T. W. Jaeger) Nonvoting Robert Bourke, Lynn Fire Department, MA [E] Rep. Northeast Regional Fire Code Development Committee James E. Everitt, Tualatin Valley Fire/Rescue, OR [E] Rep. Western Regional Fire Code Development Committee Jon Nisja, Minnesota State Fire Marshal Division, MN [E] Rep. North Central Regional Fire Code Development Committee Eddie Phillips, City of East Ridge Fire and Police, TN [E] Rep. Southeast Regional Fire Code Development Committee Walter Smittle, WV [SE] (Member Emeritus) Staff Liaison: Martha H. Curtis Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on a Fire Prevention Code that includes appropriate administrative provisions, to be used with the National Fire Codes for the installation, operation, and maintenance of buildings, structures and premises for the purpose of providing safety to life and property from fire and explosion. This includes development of requirements for, and maintenance of, systems and equipment for fire control and extinguishment. Safety to life of occupants of buildings and structures is under the primary jurisdiction of the Committee on Safety to Life. This list represents the membership at the time the Committee was balloted on the text of this report. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred. A key to classifications is found at the front of the document. This portion of the Technical Committee Report of the Committee on Fire Prevention Code is presented for adoption. This Report on Comments was prepared by the Technical Committee on Fire Prevention Code, and documents its action on the comments received on its Report on Proposals on NFPA 1, Fire Prevention Code, 2000 edition, including a name change of NFPA 1 to Uniform Fire Code, as published in the Report on Proposals for the 2002 November Meeting. This Report on Comments has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Fire Prevention Code, which consists of 32 voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report. 465

2 Note: To assist in review, a preprint of NFPA 1 is available and downloadable from our Web Site at It is also available on the CD ROM. Paper copies of the preprint are available from NFPA upon request by calling Customer Service at (Log #107) 1-1-(Chapter 1) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: William E. Koffel, Koffel Assoc., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:1-5 RECOMMENDATION: Review the ROC Draft of NFPA 5000 and revise Chapter 1 of NFPA 1 to be consistent with NFPA SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee stated that this could not be done during the proposal stage but that it would be done during the comment stage. The purpose of this comment is ensure that the necessary comparison and changes are done. COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION:Accept in Principle 1. Add the following revised paragraphs to Chapter 1: Approval. The authority having jurisdiction shall approve such alternative construction systems, materials, or methods of design when it is substantiated that the standards of this Code are at least equaled. If, in the opinion of the authority having jurisdiction, the standards of this Code shall not be equaled by the alternative requested, approval for permanent work shall be refused. Consideration shall be given to test or prototype installations Tests Whenever there is insufficient evidence of compliance with the requirements of this Code or evidence that any material or method of construction does not conform to the requirements of this Code, or to substantiate claims for alternative construction systems, materials, or methods of construction, the authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to require tests for proof of compliance to be made by an approved agency at the expense of the owner or his/her agent Test methods shall be as specified by this Code for the material in question. If there are not appropriate test methods specified in this Code, the authority having jurisdiction is authorized to accept an applicable test procedure from another recognized source Copies of the results of all such tests shall be retained in accordance with Add a new to read as follows: Stop-Work Orders. Whenever any work is being done contrary to provisions of this Code, the authority having jurisdiction is hereby authorized to order such work stopped. Such work shall immediately stop until authorized by the authority having jurisdiction to proceed. 3. Add the following identified paragraphs to the NFPA 1 UFC to read as follows: Quorum. Two-thirds but not less than four members of the Board of Appeals shall constitute a quorum. In varying the application of any provision of this Code, or in modifying an order of the authority having jurisdiction, a majority vote shall be required Meetings and Records. Meetings of the board shall be held at the call of the chair and at such other times as the board determines. All hearings before the board shall be open to the public. The board shall keep minutes of its proceedings showing the vote of each member on every question, or if the member is absent or fails to vote, indicating such actions. The Board shall also keep records of its examinations and other official actions. Minutes and records of the board shall be public records Procedures. The board shall establish rules and regulations for its own procedures consistent with the provisions of this Code. 4. Revise to read as follows: It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the following conditions are met: (1) The construction documents include all of the fire protection requirements. (2) The shop drawings are correct and in compliance with the applicable codes and standards. (3) The Contractor shall maintain an approved set of construction documents on site. 5. Revise to read: * No person shall fail to leave any overcrowded premises when told to do so by the authority having jurisdiction. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee reviewed the NFPA 5000 ROC draft and included sections to correlate with NFPA 5000, NFPA Building Code. The Committee did not believe that the other issues that they reviewed needed any action. SUBSTANTIATION: The addition of outdoor events clarifies that this is part of the scope of the code. COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION:Accept (Log #CC1) 1-3-(1-4.2, 1.4.3) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fire Prevention Code, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:1-19 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Revise and in the NFPA 1 UFC ROP Draft to read as follows: Referenced Standards Details regarding processes, methods, specifications, equipment testing and maintenance, design standards, performance, installation, or other pertinent criteria contained in codes and standards listed in Chapter 2 of this Code shall be considered a part of this Code Where no applicable codes, standards, or requirements are set forth in this Code or contained within other laws, codes, regulations, ordinances, or bylaws adopted by the authority having jurisdiction, compliance with applicable codes and standards of the NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) or other approved nationally recognized standards shall be deemed as prima facie evidence of compliance with the intent of this Code. (See Annex K) Nothing herein shall derogate from the authority of the authority having jurisdiction to determine compliance with codes or standards for those activities or installations within the authority having jurisdiction s responsibility. 2. Renumber as and revise to read as follows: Conflicts When a requirement differs between this Code and a referenced document, the requirement of the this code referenced document shall apply When a conflict between a general requirement and a specific requirement occurs, the specific requirement shall apply When the requirement between referenced documents conflict, the reference document that provides the greatest level of safety shall apply. 3. Add all NFPA Codes and Standards not in Chapter 2 to Annex K. SUBSTANTIATION: Paragraph was deleted since the authority having jurisdiction has other procedures to resolve conflicts between referenced documents. The Committee revised this section to correlate with NFPA 5000, NFPA Building Code. The Committee wants all the other codes and standards to be added to Annex K to assist code users in determining requirements for issues not addressed in this Code in accordance with COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION:Accept AFFIRMATIVE: 30 NEGATIVE: 1 EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: KRAUS: During the meeting I agreed to the changes proposed in this comment based upon the TC s approval of the HM task group s proposed changes to Chapter 67 Hazardous Materials that were to clearly state that only the administrative requirements of Chapter 67 would apply to specific hazardous materials covered elsewhere in NFPA 1. Each specific hazardous materials chapter was also supposed to contain the following general provisions (1) The storage and handling of XXX (specific hazardous material) shall be in accordance with this chapter (the specific chapter) and sections 67.1 and 67.2 of this code; and (2) Where the provisions of NFPA XXX (the NFPA code covering the specific hazardous material) conflict with the provisions of Chapter 67, the provisions of NFPA XXX shall apply. This was supposed to resolve the question regarding which requirements apply, those of the code or those of the specific material. However, as it does not appear that these charging statements are included in each of the specific hazardous materials chapters, I cannot vote affirmative to this change. (Log #17) 1-2-(1.2.9) : Accept SUBMITTER: Jim Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Dev. Committee COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:1-12 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: (9) The regulation and control of special events including but not limited to assemblage of people, exhibits, trade shows, amusement parks, haunted houses, outdoor events, and other similar special temporary and permanent occupancies. 466 (Log #96) 1-4-(1.4.4) : Reject SUBMITTER: J. Kendall Kraus, Los Angeles City Fire Department COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:1-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: When a requirement differs between this Code and a referenced document, the requirement of this Code shall apply. When a conflict between a general requirement and a specific requirement occurs, the specific requirement shall apply. When the requirement between referenced documents conflict, the reference document that provides the greatest level of safety shall apply. Note: Unable to enter strike-through or underscore. The above is the revised version without the words that are to be deleted. Originally. it read..., the requirement of the referenced document shall apply. This modifies only the first sentence of

3 SUBSTANTIATION: Existing would require jurisdictions to automatically adopt the most recent versions of recognized standards. These standards would take precedence over locally adopted ordinances, subverting efforts of the AHJ. The modified would allow local ordinances (the adopted Code) to apply. COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION:Reject COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee does not believe that this requirement does not automatically require the updating of referenced codes and standards. This Code also does not negate any local amendments, ordinances or other modifications to this Code. AFFIRMATIVE: 30 NEGATIVE: 1 EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: QUICK: I agree with the submitter, when a code is adopted any changes (updates/most current versions are changes) would require re-approval by the local Gov. Board. Since the referenced documents can change between adoption cycles using the most current version can create legal enforcement issues for the Chief. 467 SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee revised the text to correlate it with and , which mandates that new and existing buildings, as well as buildings where there is a change in occupancy comply with NFPA 101, Life Safety Code. COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION:Accept AFFIRMATIVE: 29 NEGATIVE: 2 EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: QUICK: This standard should not refer to NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, as the 101 Life Safety Code is a second building Code and will be in conflict with any code adopted by the jurisdiction. I would refer you to the removal of reference to NFPA 5000 to prove the same point. At best there should be interlocks with NFPA 5000 to prove the same point. At best there should be interlocks with NFPA 5000 only and in such a way as to allow use of another duly adopted building code. NFPA 101 should have strike through not underline. SHAPIRO: Although the committee statement correctly reflects that compliance with NFPA 101 is currently mandated by Sections and , inclusion of an additional, redundant statement in this chapter is actually contrary to the direction that the code should be heading. The committee took action in the ROC to delete specific references to NFPA 5000 for the purpose of allowing NFPA 1 to be more compatible with other model building codes. Maintaining and expanding direct references to NFPA 101 is counter to this goal because NFPA 101 is not compatible with other model building codes and, in some cases, NFPA 101 isn t even entirely synchronized with NFPA Accordingly, this comment should not be accepted. COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: KOFFEL: The provisions for the performance based option in NFPA 1 need to be consistent with NFPA Otherwise, there is an inference that one set of performance criteria must be met for the building code and one for the fire code. To be consistent the following changes need to be made: Revise as follows: 4.1.1* Scope Goals. The purpose primary goals of this Code shall be to provide a reasonable level of are life safety, property protection and public welfare, including property protection as it relates to the primary goals from the hazards created by fire, explosion, and other hazardous conditions. Add the following at the end of the existing A.4.1.1: Property protection is not included as a highest level goal, as it is contained in most of the other goals. Delete section Relocate the Property Protection Objectives in Section as follows: Prevention of Ignition - move to Section Safety from Fire Objectives * Mitigation of Fire Spread and Explosions - move to Section Safety from Fire Objectives Structural Integrity - move to Section Safety from Fire Objectives. Replace and subparagraphs with the following: Public Welfare. The public welfare goal of this code is intended to ensure that the design, construction and operation of the building or facility are consistent with the reasonable expectations of society with respect to cultural heritage preservation and mission continuity Public Welfare Goal. The mission continuity goal of this code is to maintain a high probability that the building or facility continues to perform the function for its intended purpose following a fire Public Welfare Objective. Buildings or facilities that provide a public welfare role for a community shall be designed and constructed to provide reasonable assurance of continued function following a fire. A The reasonable expectations of society are often articulated in other legislation and regulations, or in the expressed direction of public officials. A This goal is applicable to certain buildings or facilities that have been deemed to be necessary to the continued welfare of a community. A Examples of buildings and facilities that provide a public welfare role for a community might include hospitals, fire stations, evacuation centers and electrical generating plants. Also included are buildings and facilities with significant impact on the economic viability of a community. This objective is intended to ensure that such facilities are capable of maintaining their essential services following a disaster, since the community s well being may depend on that service being available. (Log #2) 1-5-(1.4.4 [1.5.4]) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Anthony Ordile, Loss Control Associates, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:1-19 RECOMMENDATION: Replace with the following subsections: Where a requirement differs between this Code and a referenced document, the requirement of the referenced document shall apply Where there is a conflict in this code between a general requirement and a specific requirement, the specific requirement shall apply. Renumber accordingly. SUBSTANTIATION: As currently worded and as a single requirement, the text conflicts with itself. The first sentence of in the preprint should stand alone, as it refers to a conflict between NFPA 1 and a referenced document. The second sentence of in the preprint should be a separate subsection, because it refers to conflicts between two requirements of NFPA 1 alone, i.e., an internal conflict. The third sentence of in the preprint should be deleted, as it directly conflicts with the first sentence. The requirements of referenced documents should take preference over the requirements of NFPA 1, based on the premise that the referenced document is more specific to the occupancy or situation. COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION:Accept in Principle COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Comment 1-3 (Log # CC1). The Committee believes that its action on comment 1-3 (Log#CC1) accomplishes the submitter s intent to revise the administrative section in the Code addressing referenced codes and standards and resolution of conflicts among referenced documents. AFFIRMATIVE: 29 NEGATIVE: 2 EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: THORNBERRY: I believe that the appropriate action for this Comment is to Accept in Principle in Part by only accepting the proposed revision to Section The Committee Statement indicates that we believe that action taken on Comment 1-3 (Log #CC1) accomplishes the submitter s intent. However, the comparable section to Section in this Comment which is Section of Comment 1-3 was not revised as proposed in Comment 1-5 (Log #2). In my opinion, the only conflict that may arise which should be addressed is between a general requirement and a specific requirement within this code. And that is what should be specifically stated in Section The other potential conflicts have already been resolved by other actions taken in Comment 1-3 (Log # CC1) but that particular conflict has not. I certainly don t want to see this code having to resolve conflicts with other codes and standards or regulations that may be adopted by a jurisdiction. The purpose is to resolve conflicts that arise within the code itself and that need to be clearly stated by adding the phrase in this code as suggested in Comment 1-5 (Log #2). QUICK: This code should take precedence, as this is a Code not a standard. See the 1997 UFC. References are minimal and the UFC is not designed as a reference document for NFPA or other standards. The UFC is a stand alone Code to be used with the Building Code. (Log #CC3) 1-6-(1-4.9) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fire Prevention Code, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:1-21 RECOMMENDATION: Revise in the NFPA 1 UFC ROP Draft to read as follows: Repairs, renovations, alterations, reconstruction, change of occupancy, and additions to buildings shall conform with NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, and the adopted building code of the jurisdiction. (Log #21) 1-7-(1.4.10) : Accept SUBMITTER: Jim Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Dev. Committee COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:1-21 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: Newly introduced equipment, material and operations regulated by this code shall comply with the requirements for new construction or processes. SUBSTANTIATION: Better clarifies that new processes must also meet the requirement for new in this code. COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION:Accept

4 (Log #99) 1-8-(1.7.6 [1.4.6]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Scott McGuff, City of Oldsmar Fire Rescue COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:1-15 RECOMMENDATION: None. SUBSTANTIATION: The Log #7 proposal (1-15) alters the entire intent of the section. The section was clearly worded to afford a due process for AHJ entry into private dwellings. The AHJ is empowered to enter other occupancy types without consent for the purposes of ensuring the public s safety. The proposal would require AHJ s to seek entry warrants from courts in cases where the occupant refused entry. This delays inspection processes and endangers the public. The submitter s substantiation that Section requirements for private dwellings actually apply to all occupancies could require AHJ s to spend far more time in courts seeking warrants than in building of public occupancy conducting fire and life safety code compliance inspections. The current language must be left intact to ensure the public s safety. COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION:Reject COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Under the current legal system the authority having jurisdiction must receive permission to enter any structure or premises to perform other than emergency operations. The Committee believes that this section adequately addresses the legal requirements for entry into any structure or premises by the authority having jurisdiction. (Log #34) 1-9-(1.7.14) : Accept SUBMITTER: Ken Bush, Chair/WFCA/NFPA AD-Hoc Committee COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:1-3 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: The authority having jurisdiction shall have the authority to order an operation or use stopped and the immediate evacuation of any occupied building or area when such building or area has hazardous conditions that present imminent danger. SUBSTANTIATION: The additional wording would permit evacuation of areas not within buildings such as spills and fireworks which happen outside. Better clarifies the provisions. COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION:Accept (Log #58) 1-10-( ) : Accept SUBMITTER: Eddie Phillips, Southern Fire Code Development Committee COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:1-34 RECOMMENDATION: Delete in its entirety: States with no incident reporting program shall not be required to report incident record data. SUBSTANTIATION: The language in is not needed. If there is no recognized state agency responsible for collecting such data, as specified in , then there is no requirement (or functional ability) for the fire department to report. In addition, the intent of the exception was lost in the editing to remove the exception and place the language in text. The proposed language brings the section back to the original intent of what was approved by the Technical Committee in 1-34 (Log #94) without the unneeded exception. COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION:Accept (Log #95) 1-11-(Table , Table , , , ) : Reject SUBMITTER: Charles Weeth, Skyrockers of La Crosse, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:1-58 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Delete the words possession and possessed from the following locations: Table , 26. Display fireworks Table , 30. Explosives Also remove the 1.3G from Display Fireworks and 1.4G from Consumer Fireworks in the table. 2. Table Rephrase the single term transport or transportation to on-site transport or on-site transportation, or delete the term transport or transportation in the following locations: Table , 26. Display fireworks Table , 30. Explosives Note: Table , 35. Flammable and combustible liquids uses the phrase on-site transportation and Table , 38. Hazardous Materials uses the phrase transportation on-site. 3. New Definition Chapter 3 Define the term hazardous fire area as follows: Hazardous Fire Area. An area where a fire hazard exists to a reasonable degree of certainty, and where combustibles or hazardous materials are manufactured, stored or processed. SUBSTANTIATION: 1. If the Committee s explanation for rejecting my original proposal is that possession of explosives should be regulated in the interests of public safety, then why not regulate the possession of all other hazardous materials too? The Committee has singled out only explosives and fireworks as if the possession of these products poses a greater threat to public safety than other hazardous materials. They do not. The possession of explosives and fireworks pose no greater threat to public safety than flammable and liquid gases, flammable solids, poisons, radioactive materials, etc. All should be regulated similarly in order to provide for public safety. The Committee also seems to be confusing possession with physical control. Possession is a legal term that means more than the just physically controlling a product or material. There is actual possession, adverse possession, civil possession, constructive possession, hostile possession and notorious possession; which one of these does the Committee feels apply? Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 40, Importation, Manufacture, Distribution and Storage of Explosive Materials and Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 18, U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Part 55, Commerce in Explosives specifically address the issue of possession of both explosives and fireworks in interstate commerce. These federal statutes and regulations supersede any state statutes and regulations, or any municipal ordinances or regulations. NFPA 1 is not intended or expected to supplement these federal or state regulations. It is written for state and municipal governments to adopt in those jurisdictions; thus it must not have provisions that conflict with the federal statutes or regulations. The issue of possession of explosives or fireworks in intrastate commerce or for personal use is addressed by state statutes and regulations, which also supersede building and fire codes. NFPA 1 is addressing fire prevention and fire protection, not legal possession. It should address only the processes (manufacture, storage, handling, retail display and use) a product or material undergoes, and then only within the jurisdiction of the AHJ. It makes no difference who legally possess the product or commodity, only who is manufacturing, storing, handling, displaying at retail or using the product or material and where. One can possess a product or material, but not physically control it and at the same time physically control have it, but not possess it. This scenario is common, especially when these products or materials are being transported. Example 1. The Acme Fireworks Mfg Co. of Walla Walla, Washington manufactures and distributes fireworks. They also import so they have both a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms (ATF) manufacturing of fireworks license (Type 50) and an ATF importer of fireworks license (Type 51). Wile E. Coyote Enterprises is their biggest customer outside of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Wile s office manager orders fireworks from Acme and supplies a copy, signed in ink by Wile, of their ATF user of fireworks permit (Type 54). Acme puts the order together with a commercial invoice and a bill of lading, plus the accompanying paperwork, then ships it via Roadrunner Express Co., a trucking company, to Wile. Acme retains possession of the fireworks until received by Wile. Wile receives the fireworks when they sign the bill of lading, even though the invoice is actually the title deed. Once Wile receives them, they now possess them. Roadrunner never possessed the fireworks, they just physically controlled them during this interstate shipment. Example 2. Wile orders fireworks from Acme so they have what they want for the coming season, but doesn t want them until they need them. A commercial invoice is drawn up for the fireworks, but Acme stores them for Wile until Wile comes to pick them up. Wile now possesses the fireworks even though they are in Acme s magazines and no bill of lading was signed. Acme maintains physical custody, but Wile possesses them. Wile takes physical custody when the bill of lading is signed when they come to the plant to pick the fireworks up. Example 3. Wile wants to buy a full container from China for a big series of shows they have scheduled, but is not licensed as an importer. Wile asks Acme to import it for them, but wants the fireworks shipped directly to him in New Mexico to save time and freight. Acme orders the fireworks from China and is invoiced by the manufacturer there. Acme then invoices Wile for the product, plus their usual 33 1/3% markup, and has the fireworks shipped directly to Wile via Roadrunner Express.

5 Once the shipment clears US Customs, Acme is in possession of the fireworks, even though they never actually physically have custody of the fireworks. Once Wile receives the shipment and signs the bill of lading, they are in possession and physical custody of the fireworks. Again, Roadrunner never possessed the fireworks, they just physically controlled them during this interstate shipment. Example 4. Wile has a show to perform for the Coyote Days Festival in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. He packs the fireworks and equipment he needs for the show, prepares the shipping papers, placards the vehicles, etc. in compliance with federal and state transportation statutes and regulations. Wile drives the truck to the show site, performs the show and then returns. Wile has both possession and physical control of the fireworks in this intrastate shipment. As written, state and municipal AHJs must issue a permit to everyone who possesses explosives and fireworks, including consumer fireworks in any quantity, within their jurisdiction; even if the explosives and fireworks are never physically within their jurisdiction. And it also would require a permit be obtained from every AHJ s jurisdiction that an interstate or intrastate shipment of explosives or fireworks, including consumer fireworks in any quantity, would travel through. This is beyond the scope of any state or municipal AHJ s authority and clearly interferes with interstate and intrastate commerce. It is a bureaucratic nightmare that is unenforceable and makes conducting business involving explosives and fireworks virtually impossible. Public safety can be addressed adequately by focusing on fire prevention and fire protection issues, not criminal or civil liability issues. The transportation classifications for Display Fireworks and Consumer Fireworks in the table are not included in the definitions. The reason is Display fireworks can be 1.1g, 1.2g, 1.3g, 1.4g or 1.4s and Consumer fireworks can be 1.4g, 1.4s or not classified as hazardous materials by the US DOT at all The scope of the document addresses on-site transportation, not transportation in general. Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 171 to end, US Department of Transportation addresses the transportation of all hazardous materials and has been referenced by this document, so it is not necessary for this document to address off-site transportation of hazardous materials. NFPA 1 is written with the intent and expectation that it will be adopted by state or municipal fire and building officials for their jurisdictions. It is not written with the intent or expectation that it will be adopted by the federal government as a part of a federal regulation, nor is it intended or expected to be used as a supplement by federal or state transportation officials. The Committee also has no representatives from any federal agencies, bureaus or departments to provide guidance on how federal statutes and regulations apply to this document. It is beyond the authority of a state or local fire or building official to regulate interstate or intrastate transportation. On-site transportation however is within the scope of these officials, but this must be clearly delineated from off site transportation. 3. New Definition Chapter 3 The term hazardous fire area is used in the document in numerous locations (17.3.1, , , , , , , , , , , , and ) but is not defined. It is a unique term that either needs to be defined objectively or specific conditions provided for each of the situations. Without an objective definition, it would be reasonable to conclude that one could not possess or use explosives, fireworks, tracer bullets, tracer charges, rockets, model aircraft, etc. in close proximity to the products or materials being possessed or used because their mere presence makes the area a hazardous fire area. The Committee should either reference when and where these products can be stored and used from the appropriate NFPA documents that address these products (explosives, fireworks, tracer bullets, tracer charges, rockets, model aircraft, etc.), or be more specific under what conditions the storage and use of these products will be restricted. COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION:Reject COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Some of the issues submitted by the commentor are new material and not addressed in original proposal The Committee believes that possession should be regulated and is an appropriate term. These products are explosives and possession should be regulated in the interest of public safety. The term hazardous fire area does not need to be defined, as it is not used in Chapter 65, 66, or 67. In 1-2(12), the scope of NFPA 1 UFC is limited to on-site transportation. 469 SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee Statement for rejecting the Proposal indicated that we did not provide any evidence to support the exemption. On the contrary, we specifically cited Section of the 2000 Uniform Fire Code which addressed this very same issue. The Uniform Fire Code Committee felt that the 10 pound trigger was appropriate, albeit it is an arbitrary number. We believe it is reasonable to rely upon that Committee s judgment in incorporating this limit into the NFPA 1 Uniform Fire Code since the Uniform Fire Code is still in the process of being merged into the NFPA 1 Fire Prevention Code during this code cycle. If one looks at the various threshold amounts specified in this section, as well as in the tables accompanying this section, one will see that the 10 pound limit is basically consistent with the lowest threshold quantity for other hazardous materials. In fact, flammable solids, which are definitely more hazardous than consumer fireworks, have a threshold amount of 100 pounds. Even Level 2 and Level 3 aerosols have a threshold limit of 500 pounds net weight. On that basis, we believe that the 10 pound threshold proposed for consumer fireworks to trigger the requirement for a permit is very conservative and certainly should be suitable for this code. COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION:Reject COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is the Committee s opinion that regulation of these items is new to the code and therefore, knowledge of all locations where consumer fireworks are sold or handled is appropriate until the hazard and risks are fully understood. COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: BULOW: After reviewing the text of UFC-2000 edition, ( ) specifically, I find a possible conflict in the commentor s statement and the intent of the referenced text from the Uniform Fire Code. Article 78, 7801 provides direction for professional storage, handling, and use of fireworks, not retail consumer environments. There seems to be no correlation with Article , and the tables (c) and (19). It appears the commentor s statement is misleading as it refers to a consumer environment. (Log #20) 1-13-(1.13.1) : Accept SUBMITTER: Jim Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Dev. Committee COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:1-79 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: The authority having jurisdiction shall have the authority to require certificates of fitness and collect fees for individuals or companies performing activities related to fire or life safety within the jurisdiction such as the following: (1) Use of explosive materials (2) Blasting or demolition operations (3) Fireworks displays (4) Inspection, servicing, or recharging of portable fire extinguishers (5) Installation, servicing, or recharging of fixed fire extinguishing systems (6) Installation or servicing of fire alarm or fire communication systems (7) Servicing of gas- or oil-burning heating systems (8) Chimney sweep operations (9) Installation, inspection, or servicing of range-hood systems SUBSTANTIATION: Better clarifies that it also includes life safety. COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION:Accept (Log #71) 1-12-(Table (c) [ (19)]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Rick Thornberry, The Code Consortium Inc. / Rep. American Pyrotechnics Association (APA) COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:1-57 RECOMMENDATION: Accept the proposal as it was originally submitted. (Log #60) 1-14-(Chapter 2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Eddie Phillips, Southern Fire Code Development Committee COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:1-190 RECOMMENDATION: Utilize paragraph citation format for references to NFPA 5000 in Chapter 2, Section 2.2. SUBSTANTIATION: The current reference to NFPA 5000 in Chapter 2, Section 2.2 adopts the entire NFPA 5000 document. Utilization of paragraph citation will adopt only the specific extracted and referenced sections that are needed in NFPA 1 from NFPA By utilizing paragraph extraction in referencing NFPA 5000 within NFPA 1, potential conflicts between NFPA 1 and other adopted building codes will be significantly reduced. See the Committee Statement on 1-21 (Log #419). COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION:Accept COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is the Committee s intent to have extracts paragraphs with tags to NFPA 5000, NFPA Building Code and to list those paragraphs as the only enforceable paragraphs under NFPA 5000, Chapter 2. This is to facilitate using NFPA 1 UFC with any building code.

6 COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: DOBSON: The adoptability and enforceability of NFPA 1 will be effected by a direct reference to a specific building code. We should be concerned, at this point, only with success of NFPA 1. The direct reference to 5000 will create a point of confusion for AHJs when they have adopted a building code other than Further there are still many inconsistencies between the two codes. Considering this and the fact that 5000 will not be the adopted building code in most cases, we should be realistic about how this could affect the adoptability and clarity of NFPA 1. The provisions accepted by this committee from 5000 will still be enforceable. So the effect and intent of the code does not change by removing the direct tag reference and specific references to NFPA It is our opinion that the provisions that have been adopted or extracted into 1 from 5000 should be done so without a specific tag and specific references to NFPA 5000 should be changed to the adopted building code. In the future these tags and references could be reinserted if there are changes in adoption environments. The current introduction of the tags and references and this code is premature and will hurt the marketability of NFPA 1 as a Fire Code. (Log #73) 1-15-(Chapter 2 [40-1.1]) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Rick Thornberry, The Code Consortium Inc. / Rep. American Pyrotechnics Association (APA) COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:1-424 RECOMMENDATION: Accept the Proposal as originally submitted but change the edition date to SUBSTANTIATION: Since the cycle for updating NFPA 1124 has slipped to the same cycle as this code, the appropriate edition for referencing in this code would be the 2003 edition. It will be voted on during the same Technical Committee Reports Session as this code, so it can be appropriately correlated. It is extremely important that this edition be referenced since it contains the necessary regulations for the retail sales of consumer fireworks which are relied upon in Chapter 16. COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION:Accept in Principle COMMITTEE STATEMENT: References to NFPA documents are updated as an editorial function when the document is issued. NFPA 1124, 2003 edition, is in the same cycle as NFPA 1 and has not been issued by NFPA at this time. AFFIRMATIVE: 30 NEGATIVE: 1 EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: BULOW: It just seems out of practice to extract text that has not even been accepted by the technical committee, let alone the membership at the TC Report Session. There seems to be no apparent urgency to get this into a cycle ahead of itself. (Log #59) 1-16-(2.2) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Eddie Phillips, Southern Fire Code Development Committee COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:1-87; 1-6 RECOMMENDATION: Delete reference to NFPA SUBSTANTIATION: References to NFPA 5000 are contrary to the Committee s position that there would be no reference to any specific building code. Reference to NFPA 5000 will create inherent conflict in jurisdictions that have adopted another building code as the Fire Prevention Code has been adopted for use with all 4 of the model building codes. COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION:Accept in Principle COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and Statement on Comment 1-14 (Log #60). (Log #61) 1-17-(Chapter 3) : Reject SUBMITTER: Eddie Phillips, Southern Fire Code Development Committee COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:1-87 RECOMMENDATION: Delete references to NFPA 5000 with Chapter 3. Do not delete the extracted text, just delete the extraction reference. SUBSTANTIATION: References to NFPA 5000 are contrary to the Committee s position that there would be no reference to NFPA 5000 or to a specific building code within the Fire Prevention Code. COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION:Reject COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and Committee Statement on Comment 1-14 (Log #60) showing extract references are consistent with the treatment of other extracted definitions currently in this Code. 470 (Log #CC14) 1-18-(Chapter 3) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fire Prevention Code, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:1-1 RECOMMENDATION: Reverse the terms in the cross reference for the following terms identified in Chapter 3 in the NFPA 1 UFC ROP Draft as follows: 1. In 3.3.7, reverse the cross reference term from Alarm Signal to See 3.3.x Signal, Alarm. 2. In , reverse the cross reference term from Bulk Oxygen System to See 3.3.x System, Bulk Oxygen. 3. In , add the words See 3.3.x in the cross reference term to read See 3.3.x Use, Closed System. 4. In , reverse the cross reference term from Combustible Liquid to See 3.3.x Liquid, Combustible. 5. In , reverse the terms in the definition entry from ASME Container to Container, ASME. The cross reference is correct as stated in the NFPA 1 UFC ROP Draft. 6. In , reverse the cross reference term from Control Area to See 3.3.x Area, Control. 7. In , reverse the cross reference term from Cryogenic Liquid to See 3.3.x Liquid, Cryogenic. 8. In , reverse the cross reference term from Fire Alarm System to See 3.3.x System, Fire Alarm. 9. In , reverse the cross reference term from Fire Compartment to See 3.3.x Compartment, Fire. 10. In , reverse the cross reference term from Hazardous Material to See 3.3.x Material, Hazardous. 11. In , reverse the cross reference term from Horizontal Exit to See 3.3.x Exit, Horizontal. 12. In , reverse the cross reference term from Indicating Valve to See 3.3.x Valve, Indicating. 13. In , reverse the cross reference term from Inside Liquid Storage Area to See 3.3.x Area, Inside Liquid Storage. 14. In , reverse the cross reference term from Open System Use to See 3.3.x Use, Open system. 15. In , reverse the cross reference term from Organic Peroxide Storage Area to See 3.3.x Area, Organic Peroxide Storage. 16. In , reverse the cross reference term from Private Building to See 3.3.x Building, Private. 17. In , reverse the cross reference term from Sales Display Area to See 3.3.x Area, Sales Display. 18. In , reverse the cross reference term from Simple Asphyxiant Gas to See 3.3.x Gas, Simple Asphyxiant. 19. In , reverse the cross reference term from Smoke Compartment to See 3.3.x Compartment, Smoke. 20. In , reverse the cross reference term from Smoking Area to See 3.3.x Area, Smoking. 21. In , reverse the cross reference term from Special Use to See 3.3.x Use, Special. 22. In , reverse the cross reference term from Spray Area to See 3.3.x Area, Spray. 23. In , reverse the cross reference term from Standpipe System to See 3.3.x System, Standpipe. 24. In , reverse the cross reference term from Toxic Material to See 3.3.x Material, Toxic. 25. In , reverse the cross reference term from Unstable (Reactive) Material to See 3.3.x Material, Unstable (Reactive). 26. In , reverse the cross reference term from Vapor Processing System to See 3.3.x System, Vapor Processing. 27. In , reverse the cross reference term from Vapor Recovery System to See 3.3.x System, Vapor Recovery. 28. In , revise the cross reference term from Liquid Warehouse to See 3.3.x Area, Liquid Warehouse. SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee editorially revised the identified cross-references to assist the user in locating terms by effective crossreferencing. COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION:Accept (Log #CC22) 1-19-(3, Additional Definitions) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fire Prevention Code, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:1-6 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following definitions for Performance- Based provisions and associated Annex notes from NFPA 101 into Section 3.4, and renumber accordingly:

7 3.4.3 Design Fire Scenario. See 3.4.x, Fire Scenario, Design. 3.4.x Fire Scenario, Design. A fire scenario used for evaluation of a proposed design Safety Margin. The difference between a predicted value and the actual value where a fault condition is expected Sensitivity Analysis. See 3.4.x, Analysis, Sensitivity * Design Specifications. Building characteristics and other conditions that are under the control of the design team. A Design Specifications. Design specifications include both hardware and human factors, such as the conditions produced by maintenance and training. For purposes of performance-based design, the design specifications of interest are those that affect the ability of the building to meet the stated goals and objectives. 3.4.x Analysis, Sensitivity. An analysis performed to determine the degree to which a predicted output will vary given a specified change in an input parameter, usually in relation to models Stakeholder. An individual, or representative of same, having an interest in the successful completion of a project Uncertainty Analysis. See 3.4.x, Analysis, Uncertainty Design Team. A group of stakeholders including, but not limited to, representatives of the architect, client, and any pertinent engineers and other designers * Exposure Fire. A fire that starts at a location that is remote from the area being protected and grows to expose that which is being protected. A Exposure Fire. An exposure fire usually refers to a fire that starts outside a building, such as a wildlands fire or vehicle fire, and that consequently exposes the building to a fire * Fire Model. A structured approach to predicting one or more effects of a fire. A Fire Model. Due to the complex nature of the principles involved, models are often packaged as computer software. Any relevant input data, assumptions, and limitations needed to properly implement the model will be attached to the fire models * Fire Scenario. A set of conditions that defines the development of fire, the spread of combustion products throughout a building or portion of a building, the reactions of people to fire, and the effects of combustion products. A Fire Scenario. A fire scenario defines the conditions under which a proposed design is expected to meet the fire safety goals. Factors typically include fuel characteristics, ignition sources, ventilation, building characteristics, and occupant locations and characteristics. The term fire scenario includes more than the characteristics of the fire itself but excludes design specifications and excludes any characteristics that do not vary from one fire to another; the latter are called assumptions. The term fire scenario is used here to mean only those specifications required to calculate the fire s development and effects but, in other contexts, the term might be used to mean both the initial specifications and the subsequent development and effects (that is, a complete description of fire from conditions prior to ignition to conditions following extinguishment) * Fuel Load. The total quantity of combustible contents of a building, space, or fire area. A Fuel Load. Fuel load includes interior finish and trim Input Data Specification. Information required by the verification method Occupant Characteristics. The abilities or behaviors of people before and during a fire * Performance Criteria. Threshold values on measurement scales that are based on quantified performance objectives. A Performance Criteria. Performance criteria are stated in engineering terms. Engineering terms include temperatures, radiant heat flux, and levels of exposure to fire products. Performance criteria provide threshold values used to evaluate a proposed design * Proposed Design. A design developed by a design team and submitted to the authority having jurisdiction for approval. A Proposed Design. The design team might develop a number of trial designs that will be evaluated to determine if they meet the performance criteria. One of the trial designs will be selected from those that meet the performance criteria for submission to the authority having jurisdiction as the proposed design. The proposed design is not necessarily limited to fire protection systems and building features. It also includes any component of the proposed design that is installed, established, or maintained for the purpose of life safety, without which the proposed design could fail to achieve specified performance criteria. Therefore, the proposed design often includes emergency procedures and organizational structures that are needed to meet the performance criteria specified for the proposed design Safety Factor. A factor applied to a predicted value to ensure that a sufficient safety margin is maintained Verification Method. A procedure or process used to demonstrate or confirm that the proposed design meets the specified criteria. SUBSTANTIATION: These additional definitions from NFPA 101 clarify terms used in Chapters 4 and 5, and are used in Section The Committee believes that they were inadvertently left out of the NFPA 1 UFC ROP Draft. COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION:Accept (Log #CC16) 1-20-(3, and ) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fire Prevention Code, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:1-3 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Extract the definition of Incompatible Materials from NFPA 5000, NFPA Building Code, into Chapter 3 of NFPA 1 UFC ROP Draft to read: Incompatible Materials. Materials which, when in contact with each other, have the potential to react in a manner that generates heat, fumes, gases or byproducts which are hazardous to life or property. (5000: ) 2. Delete from the NFPA 1 UFC ROP Draft. 3. Move the hazardous materials performance-based provisions from NFPA 5000, NFPA Building Code, to Chapter 5 (5.1.12). SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee added a definition from NFPA 5000, NFPA Building Code, that is essential for application of the hazardous materials provisions in NFPA 1 UFC. This definition is broader than the definition extracted from NFPA 430, Code for the Storage of Liquid and Solid Oxidizers, that was deleted. It also correlates with NFPA For the hazardous materials performance-based provisions, see comment 1-26 (Log #CC24). COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION:Accept (Log #12) 1-21-(Chapter 3 [Chapter 36]) : Reject SUBMITTER: Marshall A. Klein, Marshall A. Klein & Assoc., Inc. / Rep. NMHC COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:1-103 RECOMMENDATION: Please reconsider and accept my original recommended definition for wildland, taken from 2003 International Urban-Wildland Interface Code: Wildland: An area in which development is essentially nonexistent, except for roads, railroads, power lines, and similar facilities. OR use the following definition from 901, Section : Wildland: Land in an uncultivated, more or less natural state and covered by timber, woodland, brush, and/or grass. SUBSTANTIATION: I did a code search on the NFPA Standards/Codes CD-ROM for wildland and came up with 337 hits. Only one of the hits had a definition of wildland, and that was NFPA 901, Standard Classifications for Incident Reporting and Fire Protection Data, Section , as shown above. It is important for the user of the NFPA 1 Code to have a definition in order to apply its requirements properly under Chapter 37 (17), Wildland Urban Areas. In order for NFPA 901 to be used properly, the NFPA 901 Committee defined wildland in its Code, even though NFPA 299 did not define the term. So precedent for defining wildland has been set by the NFPA 901 Committee. I personally find the definition originally recommended (Code Proposal 1-103), taken from the 2003 International Urban-Wildland Interface Code, more descriptive and better suited for the Fire Code. However, for uniform application of Chapter 37 (17), the definition from NFPA 901 is certainly better than no definition for wildland in the Fire Code. COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION:Reject COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Wildland/Urban Interface is a defined term in NFPA 1 ROP UFC definitions (See of the NFPA 1 UFC Draft), therefore there is no need to define wildland.