This was a Second Revision that has been modified or deleted as the result of Second Correlating Revision: SCR-60-NFPA

Transcription

1 of 78 12/9/ :32 AM Committee Comment No NFPA [ Detail ] This was a Second Revision that has been modified or deleted as the result of Second Correlating Revision: SCR-60-NFPA Add new sections: Risk Analysis for Mass Notification Business occupancies requiring a fire alarm system in accordance with shall conduct a risk analysis to determine the need for a mass notification system in accordance with Section Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SAF-MER Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Sep 12 16:59:41 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The proposed new section uses an existing threshold in the Code to tie into the provisions requiring a risk analysis for mass notification. Current thresholds require fire alarm systems for new business occupancies under three conditions which also represent a reasonable threshold for when a risk analysis for mass notification shall be provided. This provision would cover buildings of three or more stores in height, buildings with a total occupant load of 300 or more occupants or buildings with 50 or more occupants above or below the level of exit discharge. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 27 Eligible Voters 4 Not Returned 20 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 3 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Burrus, William J. Donovan, Scott Jacobs, Scott Martin, Jeff Affirmative All Aaby, Mark J. Bellamy, Tracey D. Bush, Kenneth E. Cole, Anthony W. Dawe, Nicholas A. Page 1 of 90

2 of 78 12/9/ :32 AM Dodge, David A. Freels, Douglas R. Garzone, Joseph R. Gauvin, Daniel J. Gumkowski, Anthony C. Humble, Jonathan Jackson, Ricky R. McKeon, Thomas W. Schultz, Terry Shirey, Jeffrey Smith, James B. Stocker, Warren G. Tidwell, J. L. (Jim) Vosicky, John Yonkers, Ernest D. Negative with Comment Derr, Kevin L. The justification for the need of a risk assessment is based on emergency events other than fire. The primary events referenced were threats to homeland security, i.e. terrorism. The ability to provide occupants real-time emergency communication during these types of events has been cited as a key benefit. However, the requirements, as written, do not provide definitive requirements and will be difficult to enforce. For example, what is the role of the AHJ? Are they required to review and approve a risk assessment? The requirement for mass notification systems should be definitive and/or more owner driven. An annex section would be more appropriate for this revision. Frable, David W. I cannot support this public comment that requires a risk analysis be performed to determine the need for a mass notification system in all new business occupancies strictly based on when a fire alarm system is required to be installed. This comment goes well beyond the intent for determining which buildings and/or structures are deemed at a higher than normal risk of being subjected to acts characterized as terrorist threats that warrant a mass notification system. No technical justification or cited events have been provided to justify this threshold trigger for requiring a risk analysis. In addition, this public comment seems contrary to the direction the Technical Committee took on Second Revision No. SR-6502 which also requires a risk analysis to be completed in a business occupancy. Lastly, the public comment is contrary to the direction the Technical Committee on Fundamentals proposed in Chapter 11 regarding what threshold triggers a risk analysis for a mass notification system in a high-rise building. The threshold used for a high-rise building was based on NFPA 5000, Section and its annex material when it discusses associated events that have a comparable impact on a building and its occupancy and when a risk assessment may be appropriate for buildings at risk. To strictly base requiring a risk assessment based on when a fire alarm system is required is not reasonable, appropriate, or cost effective to determine a building at risk. Rice, Sarah A. We are putting in a requirement for a risk analysis to be done that is more restrictive that what is required for a high-rise building. Page 2 of 90

3 of 78 12/9/ :32 AM Committee Comment No NFPA [ Detail ] This was a Second Revision that has been modified or deleted as the result of Second Correlating Revision: SCR-61-NFPA Add new sections: * A risk analysis to determine the need for a mass notification system in accordance with Section 9.14 shall be conducted for buildings containing a classroom where the building is owned, rented, leased, or operated by a college or university. A It is not the intent of this section to require a new risk analysis where an existing risk analysis addresses the issues or arrangements associated with a new building. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SAF-MER Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Sep 12 17:02:19 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The proposed new section uses an existing threshold in the Code to tie into the provisions requiring a risk analysis for mass notification. Current thresholds require fire alarm systems for new business occupancies under three conditions which also represent a reasonable threshold for when a risk analysis for mass notification shall be provided. This provision would cover buildings of three or more stores in height, buildings with a total occupant load of 300 or more occupants or buildings with 50 or more occupants above or below the level of exit discharge Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 27 Eligible Voters 4 Not Returned 18 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 4 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Burrus, William J. Donovan, Scott Jacobs, Scott Martin, Jeff Affirmative All Bellamy, Tracey D. Cole, Anthony W. Dawe, Nicholas A. Dodge, David A. Page 3 of 90

4 of 78 12/9/ :32 AM Freels, Douglas R. Garzone, Joseph R. Gauvin, Daniel J. Gumkowski, Anthony C. Humble, Jonathan Jackson, Ricky R. McKeon, Thomas W. Schultz, Terry Shirey, Jeffrey Smith, James B. Stocker, Warren G. Tidwell, J. L. (Jim) Vosicky, John Yonkers, Ernest D. Negative with Comment Bush, Kenneth E. This provision could be interpreted to require a risk analysis to determine the need for a mass notification system without establishing the need for a building fire alarm system. There are no specifications on the nature, sizes, or intended uses of classrooms which would trigger this requirement. In addition, the ownership of a building is many times difficult to determine, particularly where there are multiple or temporary tenant spaces available. Derr, Kevin L. The justification for the need of a risk assessment is based on emergency events other than fire. The primary events referenced were threats to homeland security, i.e. terrorism. The ability to provide occupants real-time emergency communication during these types of events has been cited as a key benefit. However, the requirements, as written, do not provide definitive requirements and will be difficult to enforce. For example, what is the role of the AHJ? Are they required to review and approve a risk assessment? The requirement for mass notification systems should be definitive and/or more owner driven. An annex section would be more appropriate for this revision. Frable, David W. Agree with negative comment submitted by Mr. Bush. In addition, the Technical Committee statement does not address the proposed comment appropriately. Rice, Sarah A. The points made in the negative ballots are valid. Abstention Aaby, Mark J. In accordance with the policy of the Standards Council, I have abstained from voting on the item. Page 4 of 90

5 of 78 12/9/ :32 AM Committee Comment No NFPA [ Section No ] This was a Second Revision that has been modified or deleted as the result of Second Correlating Revision: SCR-6-NFPA * Grab Bars for Bathtubs, Bathtub-Shower Combinations, and Showers General Where Where required by Chapters 11 through 43, new bathtubs, bathtub-shower combinations, or showers, for use by occupants, and showers shall be provided with grab bars complying with through , except as otherwise permitted for showers in unless otherwise permitted by , with all dimensions referring to the centerline of the grab bar unless otherwise stipulated * Where a dedicated shower does not expose users to changes in elevation exceeding Grab bars shall not be required in showers where the transition from the room floor to the shower floor does not exceed 0.5 in. (13 mm), as described in , and it provides slip resistance for all surfaces when wet, as a foreseeable condition described in in height and all shower surfaces are slip resistant when wet , the requirements of Where provided, grab bars shall comply with through shall apply only if grab bars are installed.1.4 All dimensions shall be measured to the centerline of the grab bar unless otherwise stated Vertical Grab Bar or Pole. A vertical grab bar shall be provided either installed on the control end wall or the end wall opposite the control end wall of the bathtub, bathtub-shower combination, or shower as specified in accordance with , or as a free-standing external pole as specified in shall be provided as an external vertical pole in accordance with * End Wall Vertical Grab Bar on Control End Wall. (A) A vertical grab bar, with a minimum length of Bars. End wall vertical grab bars shall comply with all of the following: (1) Vertical grab bars shall have a length of not less than 36 in. (914 mm). (2) Vertical grab bars shall be located between 24 in. (610 mm), and its lower end between 36 and 39 (1) and 27 in. ( 915 and 990 (1) 686 mm) above the finished floor, (1) measured to the lower end. Page 5 of 90

6 of 78 12/9/ :32 AM (2) Vertical grab bars shall be installed on the entry/egress (1) open side of the control end wall of the (1) bathtub, bathtub-shower combination, or shower unitthe grab bar (1) used for entry and egress. (B) (1) Vertical grab bars shall be located at least 6 (1) between 9 in. ( 150 (1) 228 mm) and 12 in. (305 mm) from the open entry and egress side of the bathtub, bathtub-shower combination, or shower, measured horizontally, from any shower curtain rod fixing point on the wall (1) from the exterior plane of the bathtub, bathtub-shower combination, or shower * Vertical Grab Bar as Free Standing, Vertical Pole. A vertical External Vertical Poles. Vertical, pole-type grab grabs bar shall be fixed to the floor and either the room ceiling or an adjacent wall and shall comply with all of the following: (1) Poles shall be installed outside of the bathtub, bathtub-shower combination, or shower unit. (2) Poles shall be located within 6 in. (150 mm), measured horizontally, of the outside of the outer edge of the bathtub, bathtubshower combination, or shower and (1). (2) Poles shall be located within 30 in. (760 mm), measured horizontally, of the vertical plane of the control end wall if there is such a wall (1) Back Wall Grab Bar. For bathtubs and bathtub-shower combinations bounded on three sides by walls, a grab bar shall be provided on the back wall either as a diagonal grab bar as specified in accordance with or as a horizontal grab bar as specified in accordance with shall be provided on the back wall * Back Wall Diagonal Grab Bar on Back Wall. (A) A diagonal grab bar shall be installed on the back wall with a minimum length of Bars. D iagonal grab bars shall comply with all of the following: (1) Diagonal grab bars shall have a length of not less than 24 in. (600 mm) with its higher end placed closer (1). (2) Diagonal grab bars shall be located so the higher end is closest to the control end wall Page 6 of 90

7 of 78 12/9/ :32 AM and (1). (2) Diagonal grab bars shall be located a maximum of 12 in. (305 mm) from the control end wall, with a height of 25 to (1). (2) Diagonal grab bars shall be located 25 in. (635 mm) minimum and 27 in. ( 635 to (1) 685 mm) maximum above the rim of the bathtub. (B) The lower end of the diagonal grab bar (1) Diagonal grab bars shall be located at a height of 8 to (1) so the lower end is 8 in. (203 mm) minimum and 10 in. ( 205 to 255 (1) 254 mm) maximum above the rim of the bathtub and 28 to (1). (2) Diagonal grab bars shall be located 28 in. (711 mm) minimum and 30 in. ( 710 to (1) 760 mm) maximum from the control end wall Back Wall Horizontal Grab Bar on Back Wall.A horizontal grab bar shall be installed on the back wall at a height of 8 to. Horizontal grab bars shall comply with all of the following: (1) Horizontal grab bars shall be located 8 in. (205 mm) minimum and 10 in. ( 205 to (1) 255 mm) maximum above the bathtub rim with (1). (2) Horizontal grab bars shall be located so one end located a maximum of (1) is 12 in. (305 mm) maximum from the control end wall and the other end is located a maximum of (1) 24 in. (610 mm) maximum from the opposite, or head, end of the bathtub * Grab Bar Details Grab Grab bars shall be circular in cross section with a minimum diameter of in. (32 mm) and a maximum diameter of 2 in. (51 mm) If Where attached to a wall, the grab bar bars shall provide a minimum Page 7 of 90

8 of 78 12/9/ :32 AM clearance for hand grasp of in. (38 mm) for hand grasp minimum The size and clearance dimensions required by and shall be provided, as a minimum, within the height requirements range and the minimum length requirements range of the other provisions of Grab Bar Structural Loading.Grab bars shall be designed and constructed to the structural loading conditions in accordance with the building code. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SAF-MEA Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jun 20 10:51:58 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: NFPA's Disability Access Review and Advisory Committee (DARAC) supports the concept of the first revision but has voted unanimously to propose re-writing the section so that it is workable, clear, and concise. The SR incorporates PC 146 and 170 and editorial revisions for consistency with the Code. Public Comment No. 146-NFPA [Section No ] Public Comment No. 170-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 0 Not Returned 24 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 4 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Affirmative All Alles, Ryan Badeau, Charles A. Barlow, Charles V. Chan, Mark Collins, David S. Day, Richard L. Dove, Paul L. Guest, Rita C. Hoskins, Bryan Lawrence Hu, Xianxu (Sherri) Page 8 of 90

9 of 78 12/9/ :32 AM Jackson, Waymon Marcyjanik, Brian A. Nuschler, Gary L. Pappas, Denise L. Peacock, Richard D. Perry, Robert R. Quinterno, Vincent Saks, Kenneth Schwarzenberg, Roy W. Shulman, Michael S. Simard, J. Francois Tierney, Michael Versteeg, Joseph H. de Vries, David A. Affirmative with Comment Crowley, Michael A. This appears to be outside the Scope and Purpose of NFPA 101 Pauls, Jake There are some defects with SR-5002 that arise because of the way the Technical Committee addressed the two public comments, one dealing only with editorial changes and the other (mine, PC170) dealing with both technical changes and editorial changes based on early editorial input from the submitter of the other PC. It is not yet clear to me all that was apparently missed from both PCs as addressed in SR I do not want to vote negative on this issue but will use my prerogative of submitting an amending motion for membership action in June My comment now is simply to make clear that some additional revision, based on PC170, appears appropriate. Here is one example of what I refer to, in relation to the vertical pole option; this is based on my PC170 and provides what I would like to see as the final, adopted text of the section to add the option in (1) or bathtub wall after floor : * Vertical Pole. A vertical, pole-type grab bar shall be: 1. fixed to either the floor or bathtub wall and to either the room ceiling or an adjacent wall; 2. located within 6 in. (150 mm), measured horizontally, of the bathtub, bathtub-shower combination or shower; and 3. located within 30 in. (760 mm), measured horizontally, of the vertical plane of the control end wall. Negative with Comment Bush, Kenneth E. Although the presence of grab bars at showers and tubs may be a reasonable requirement for overall occupant safety, and while it is understood that the Scope of the Life Safety Code has been expanded to address additional occupant safety measures, these requirements should not be a part of this document. It is beyond the scope of the responsibility of fire officials to inspect and approve the installation of this type of protection. In addition, the consideration of these spaces as part of the required means of egress introduces a number of issues; to include adequacy of headroom, the levelness and slip resistance of walking surfaces, the operation of tub and shower opening protectives to include swinging and sliding doors and curtains, latches and locking devices installed for security measures, and levels of illumination, that are not regulated by current Code provisions. These issues are of particular importance where curbs or sides are installed to control the spread of water during normal operations, and where the installation of grab bars or poles could be considered as an obstruction to egress travel or reduction to required egress capacity. Frable, David W. I agree with negative comments submitted by Messrs. Bush and Lathrop. Lampella, Gary Of concern is the statement that all new bathtubs, bathtub-shower combinations and showers be provided with grab bars will include replacements. These will be regulated by the plumbing code with no reference back to these sections. We also have concerns with replacement (new) fixtures as there was committee discussion on retrofitting grab bars and the proponent mentioned a test for an epoxy/glue attachment in-lieu of the typical mechanical attachment to solid blocking/backing. We have reservations about promoting this type of attachment. An epoxy/glue attachment is only as strong as the surface it is attached to, not just new construction. We would suggest maybe adding an explanatory note indicating epoxy/glue attachments may not meet the structural loading requirements and mechanical attachment to solid blocking/backing is the preferred method. There is also the issue of the proposed vertical grab bars, especially those from the floor to the ceiling, which will be inviting for children to climb. This will more than likely lead to the unintended consequence of serious injuries due to the misuse of the grab bars in dwelling units. It is obvious that the ramifications of this major change to the nation s living spaces has not been fully vetted. We are not convinced that these devices should be regulated by the person enforcing this code, which would be the fire code official. We are also concerned about putting these requirements in the means of egress chapters while other activities in and around a bathroom are not specifically regulated. Such as, transferring from a chair to a wheelchair, getting on and off a bed and other daily functions that pose a safety risk to many persons. We think the issue of new tub/showers, retrofits and inserting the language in the means of egress chapters should be addressed prior to insertion into the code. Lathrop, James K. This material is adequately covered in the residential occupancies and does not belong in Chapter 7. Page 9 of 90

10 0 of 78 12/9/ :32 AM Abstention Di Pilla, Steven - Page 10 of 90

11 1 of 78 12/9/ :32 AM Committee Comment No NFPA [ Section No ] This was a Second Revision that has been modified or deleted as the result of Second Correlating Revision: SCR-19-NFPA Two releasing operations shall be permitted for educational occupancy classroom doors secured against unwanted entry in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 15. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SAF-MEA Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jun 20 10:04:56 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: It is the position of the TC on Means of Egress that increasing the number of latch/lock releasing operations is dangerous and could create a hazard to occupants. Technology exists that will meet the current code requirement for not more than one latch/lock releasing operation. The need for multiple operations is contrary to decades of experience resulting in fatalities in schools and other buildings. Single-action egress is an important aspect of life safety for all emergencies. Public Comment No. 42-NFPA [New Section after ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 0 Not Returned 26 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 2 Abstention Affirmative All Alles, Ryan Badeau, Charles A. Barlow, Charles V. Chan, Mark Collins, David S. Crowley, Michael A. Day, Richard L. Dove, Paul L. Guest, Rita C. Hoskins, Bryan Lawrence Hu, Xianxu (Sherri) Jackson, Waymon Lampella, Gary Marcyjanik, Brian A. Page 11 of 90

12 2 of 78 12/9/ :32 AM Nuschler, Gary L. Pappas, Denise L. Pauls, Jake Peacock, Richard D. Perry, Robert R. Quinterno, Vincent Saks, Kenneth Schwarzenberg, Roy W. Shulman, Michael S. Simard, J. Francois Tierney, Michael Versteeg, Joseph H. Affirmative with Comment Frable, David W. I agree with the affirmative comment submitted by Mr. de Vries de Vries, David A. Recognizing that there is a security issue that the Education TC is trying to address and that having a deadbolt on the classroom door will enhance that security, it should be recognized that there is hardware available that allows a deadbolt in addition to a primary latching mechanism, but both can be released with a single action. This subject should be revisited through the correlating committee. Negative with Comment Bush, Kenneth E. The permission to add one operation for hardware installed on existing doors in existing Educational Occupancies represents a reasonable compromise to the installation of devices where existing locking or latching hardware do not provide for desired levels of security. The operational characteristics and locations of such additional locking devices can be adequately regulated to prevent the use of make-shift devices which not only violate current code provisions, but also introduce additional security and safety hazards that may be difficult to control and enforce. Abstention Di Pilla, Steven - Lathrop, James K. Although not positive, it could be interpreted that we have a client with interest in this. Page 12 of 90

13 3 of 78 12/9/ :32 AM Committee Comment No NFPA [ Section No ] This was a Second Revision that has been modified or deleted as the result of Second Correlating Revision: SCR-21-NFPA Penetrations shall be installed be protected in accordance with a tested system, and installed and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer s instructions. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SAF-FIR Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 21 10:23:31 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: A penetration needs to be protected, not installed. Response Message: Public Comment No. 62-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 27 Eligible Voters 6 Not Returned 20 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Butcher, Richard C. Dudley, Jeffry T. Gerdes, Ralph D. Goldhammer, Edward S. Jones, Adam C. Kim, Young H. Affirmative All Cahanin, Gregory J. Dawe, Nicholas A. Francis, Sam W. Gencarelli, Michael O. Gump, Jack A. Hall, William J. Hopper, Howard Hugo, Jeffrey M. Page 13 of 90

14 4 of 78 12/9/ :32 AM Humble, Jonathan Jackson, Waymon Klein, Marshall A. Lovell, Vickie J. McHugh, Jr., William J. McKeon, Thomas W. Morin, Kevin D. Morris, Jeramie W. Rhodes, Brian T. Roeper, Kurt A. Shino, Gregory K. Stashak, Catherine L. Abstention Koffel, William E. In accordance with the policy of the Standards Council, I have abstained from voting on this item. However, it should be noted that with the correction made by the Second Revision, the phrase "in accordance" with should also be deleted. Page 14 of 90

15 5 of 78 12/9/ :32 AM Committee Comment No NFPA [ Section No ] This was a Second Revision that has been modified or deleted as the result of Second Correlating Revision: SCR-22-NFPA Where designs take transmission of vibrations into consideration, any vibration isolation shall meet one of the following conditions: It shall be provided on either side of the smoke partition. It shall be designed for the specific purpose Vibration isolation equipment or systems. Where the vibration isolation of equipment or systems are employed, the vibration restraint(s) shall be located outside of the partition, wall or floor assembly for which the equipment or systems are passing through. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SAF-FIR Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 21 11:16:54 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: At the 30 July 2015 NFPA FIR meeting the committee had deliberated the various concerns with the Public Input No. 125 (NFPA 5000), and how to address the concerns of the proponent and our own concerns. The proponent to PI-125 requested Section of NFPA 5000 be deleted without substitution, and stated in his reason statement the following: This provision does not address anything. No purpose seems to be served by this section. It does not appear to limit anything nor impart meaningful guidance to the provision of vibration isolation. The NFPA FIR did not find that there was a compelling need to delete without substitution this provision, and the proponent only addressed one of many sections with the identical content, which led to the NFPA FIR rejecting this proposal. However, discussions during the FIR meeting did reveal that the proponent may have had a point with respect to the current language used to describe the requirement versus the intent for this provision. It was felt that the original submitter did have a point. The existing language does not clearly address the focus of this section, that of prohibiting vibration isolation equipment and systems from being installed within partitions, wall or floor assemblies. The intent is to require that such equipment or systems be installed on either side of the subject partition or assembly. Equipment and systems can include, but not be limited to, flexible duct connectors, flexible pipe pump connectors, pipe isolators, or flexible conduit. This proposal also wishes to modify that work with this proposal under Public Input No. 265 (NFPA 101), and Public Input No. 92 (NFPA 5000). The basis for this is that the 2015 proposed language uses the phrase vibration isolation which is a global referral, versus using the term restraints which is what the system represents. Second, it was felt there was no need for sub-item #2 which states it shall be designed for the specific purpose since that is covered under the manufacture s literature and warranty. Note: Response Message: The Public Comment was initially accepted by the TC and resulted in Second Revision (SR) # However, the Correlating Committee subsequently overturned the SR # 2510 relegating the SR to CC # Additionally, the Correlating Committee may or may not have created a Second Correlating Revision (SCR) # SCR-22-NFPA Accordingly, a NITMAM could be submitted to accept the resulting CC since this accomplishes that same action as 'accepting" the PC or to reject the SCR. Public Comment No. 101-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot Page 15 of 90

16 6 of 78 12/9/ :32 AM 27 Eligible Voters 6 Not Returned 21 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Butcher, Richard C. Dudley, Jeffry T. Gerdes, Ralph D. Goldhammer, Edward S. Jones, Adam C. Kim, Young H. Affirmative All Cahanin, Gregory J. Dawe, Nicholas A. Francis, Sam W. Gencarelli, Michael O. Gump, Jack A. Hall, William J. Hopper, Howard Hugo, Jeffrey M. Humble, Jonathan Jackson, Waymon Klein, Marshall A. Koffel, William E. Lovell, Vickie J. McHugh, Jr., William J. McKeon, Thomas W. Morin, Kevin D. Morris, Jeramie W. Rhodes, Brian T. Roeper, Kurt A. Shino, Gregory K. Stashak, Catherine L. Page 16 of 90

17 7 of 78 12/9/ :32 AM Committee Comment No NFPA [ Section No ] This was a Second Revision that has been modified or deleted as the result of Second Correlating Revision: SCR-23-NFPA Where designs take transmission of vibrations into consideration, any vibration isolation shall meet one of the following conditions: It shall be provided on either side of the smoke barrier. It shall be designed for the specific purpose Vibration isloation equipment or systems. Where the vibration isloation of equipment or systems are employed, the vibration restraint(s) shall be located outside of the partition, wall or floor assembly for which the equipment or systems are passing through. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SAF-FIR Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 21 12:05:05 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: At the 30 July 2015 NFPA FIR meeting the committee had deliberated the various concerns with the Public Input No. 125 (NFPA 5000), and how to address the concerns of the proponent and our own concerns. The proponent to PI-125 requested Section of NFPA 5000 be deleted without substitution, and stated in his reason statement the following: This provision does not address anything. No purpose seems to be served by this section. It does not appear to limit anything nor impart meaningful guidance to the provision of vibration isolation. The NFPA FIR did not find that there was a compelling need to delete without substitution this provision, and the proponent only addressed one of many sections with the identical content, which led to the NFPA FIR rejecting this proposal. However, discussions during the FIR meeting did reveal that the proponent may have had a point with respect to the current language used to describe the requirement versus the intent for this provision. It was felt that the original submitter did have a point. The existing language does not clearly address the focus of this section, that of prohibiting vibration isolation equipment and systems from being installed within partitions, wall or floor assemblies. The intent is to require that such equipment or systems be installed on either side of the subject partition or assembly. Equipment and systems can include, but not be limited to, flexible duct connectors, flexible pipe pump connectors, pipe isolators, or flexible conduit. This proposal also wishes to modify that work with this proposal under Public Input No. 265 (NFPA 101), and Public Input No. 92 (NFPA 5000). The basis for this is that the 2015 proposed language uses the phrase vibration isolation which is a global referral, versus using the term restraints which is what the system represents. Second, it was felt there was no need for sub-item #2 which states it shall be designed for the specific purpose since that is covered under the manufacture s literature and warranty. Note: Response Message: The Public Comment was initially accepted by the TC and resulted in Second Revision (SR) # However, the Correlating Committee subsequently overturned the SR # 2513 relegating the SR to CC # Additionally, the Correlating Committee may or may not have created a Second Correlating Revision (SCR) # SCR-23-NFPA Accordingly, a NITMAM could be submitted to accept the resulting CC since this accomplishes that same action as 'accepting" the PC or to reject the SCR. Public Comment No. 99-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot Page 17 of 90

18 8 of 78 12/9/ :32 AM 27 Eligible Voters 6 Not Returned 20 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Butcher, Richard C. Dudley, Jeffry T. Gerdes, Ralph D. Goldhammer, Edward S. Jones, Adam C. Kim, Young H. Affirmative All Cahanin, Gregory J. Dawe, Nicholas A. Francis, Sam W. Gencarelli, Michael O. Gump, Jack A. Hall, William J. Hopper, Howard Hugo, Jeffrey M. Humble, Jonathan Jackson, Waymon Klein, Marshall A. Koffel, William E. Lovell, Vickie J. McKeon, Thomas W. Morin, Kevin D. Morris, Jeramie W. Rhodes, Brian T. Roeper, Kurt A. Shino, Gregory K. Stashak, Catherine L. Negative with Comment McHugh, Jr., William J. Draftstopping materials should be very fire resistant to protect gasses hot enough to possibly cause ignition from travelling through concealed spaces. Page 18 of 90

19 9 of 78 12/9/ :32 AM Committee Comment No NFPA [ Section No ] This was a Second Revision that has been modified or deleted as the result of Second Correlating Revision: SCR-24-NFPA * Integrated Systems Fire Protection and Life Safety System Test. Where required by Chapters 11 through 43, and where two or more fire protection or life safety systems are integrated with other building systems and equipment, the integrated systems shall be tested system test shall verify the proper operation and function of such systems in accordance with NFPA 4. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SAF-BSF Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 21 10:31:34 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The intent of this proposal is to clarify when integrated testing of fire protection systems is required. The challenge in writing a specific requirement for testing of integrated systems is ensuring that required testing of integrated features is scaled in a manner that is reasonable for a wide range of applications. The revised language addresses this concern. Public Comment No. 187-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 29 Eligible Voters 6 Not Returned 21 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 2 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Chen, Flora F. Donga, Paul M. Klepitch, David L. Klinker, Richard L. Noveh, James Szmanda, Michael R. Affirmative All Bradley, Harry L. Brock, Pat D. Dale, Stephen E. Dempsey, Bryan Grill, Raymond A. Hammerberg, Thomas P. Page 19 of 90

20 0 of 78 12/9/ :32 AM Hutton, Claude O. Jardin, Joseph M. Kellett, Michael Killian, David A. Lazarz, Daniel J. McKeon, Thomas W. Nuschler, Gary L. Panowitz, Scott E. Reiswig, Rodger Roberts, Richard Jay Ruchala, Kurt A. Shudak, Lawrence J. Warner, Todd W. Wren, Carl D. Wyatt, David M. Negative with Comment Hugo, Jeffrey M. The negative ballot is cast for several reasons. The result of the proposed text is far reaching and will have multiple and inconsistent outcomes when it is enforced by local authorities having jurisdiction. Testing systems to ensure function is not the issue here, but the lack of extracting appropriate and key definitions from NFPA 4 and clarifications on how NFPA 4 interacts with NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000 is. The term "integrated system" is not defined in NFPA 101 and the definition in NFPA 4 is very unclear as to the extent of the testing, especially as explained by the annex text (A ) in NFPA 4. Furthermore, the "life safety system" and "fire protection system" is also not defined in NFPA 101 or NFPA These definitions are important to go forward with this language to provide uniform enforcement. Having the threshold set at "...two of more...systems" to initiate NFPA 4 is too low. It is very important to note that if this proposal goes forward, it will conflict with the other model building and fire codes (IBC/IFC, proposal F145-16) that are developing their 2018 editions. The IFC/IBC is limiting NFPA 4 to high rise buildings (as is the First Draft Report, NFPA 101, Section ) and where smoke control systems are integrated. It is common in several states that the IBC and NFPA 101 is used across multiple jurisdictions. Having conflicting requirements between the documents is not new, but the extent of testing integrated systems should be consistent for building owners, contractors, and authorities having jurisdiction. Larrimer, Peter A. The original justification provided in Public Input No. 280 for this requirement was as follows: "Since NFPA 4 is now a standard, it is important to have it referenced in the Codes. This will improve adoption." New requirements should not be added to a minimum code unless proper justification is provided. Adequate justification was never provided to add this to NFPA 101. At the public comment stage, the committee provides the following statement: The intent of this proposal is to clarify when integrated testing of fire protection systems is required. The challenge in writing a specific requirement for testing of integrated systems is ensuring that required testing of integrated features is scaled in a manner that is reasonable for a wide range of applications. The revised language addresses this concern. However, the revised language provides no scaling at all. The requirement applies when two or more fire protection and life safety systems are integrated (if required by an occupancy chapter). There will be very few if any facilities that don t have two or more fire protection and life safety systems that are integrated based on the definitions in NFPA 4. When a fire alarm system is tied to an elevator, it is an integrated system. When a sprinkler system activates a fire alarm system, it is an integrated system. There is no scaling. All installed systems will fall under the requirement as written. No negative issues with integrated systems have been identified to justify adding these requirements to the Life Safety Code. Page 20 of 90

21 1 of 78 12/9/ :32 AM Committee Comment No NFPA [ New Section after ] This was a Second Revision that has been modified or deleted as the result of Second Correlating Revision: SCR-27-NFPA Risk Analysis for Mass Notification Systems. For high-rise buildings with a total occupant load of 5000 or more persons, or where the floor of an occupiable story is greater than 420 ft (128 m) above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access, a risk analysis for mass notification systems shall be provided in accordance with Section Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SAF-FUN Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Jun 22 10:25:09 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The thresholds (5000 occupants and 420 ft building height) are intended to correlate with information from NFPA 5000, A The building height measurement is consistent with the definition of 'high rise building'. See the submitter's statement on PC-164. Public Comment No. 164-NFPA [New Section after ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 28 Eligible Voters 6 Not Returned 22 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Blum, Andrew Carson, Wayne G.?Chip? Gerdes, Ralph D. Jacoby, David J. Meisman, Jeannene Yvonne Saba, Patrick S. Affirmative All Al Zeyara, Nasser Ahmed Cheng, Amy Y. DiCristina, Salvatore Finnegan, Daniel P. Frable, David W. Page 21 of 90

22 2 of 78 12/9/ :32 AM Gencarelli, Michael O. Groner, Norman E. Hugo, Jeffrey M. Humble, Jonathan Jelenewicz, Chris Klein, David P. Laramee, Scott T. Lathrop, James K. Lovell, Vickie J. McKeon, Thomas W. Murga, Ricardo Pauls, Jake Puchovsky, Milosh T. Reiswig, Rodger Roberts, Jon G. Tyree, David P. Wydeveld, Steven F. Page 22 of 90

23 3 of 78 12/9/ :32 AM Committee Comment No NFPA [ Section No ] This was a Second Revision that has been modified or deleted as the result of Second Correlating Revision: SCR-29-NFPA * Classroom Door Locking to Prevent Unwanted Entry. The. Classroom doors shall be permitted to be locked to prevent unwanted entry provided that the locking means is approved and all of the following conditions are met: (1) (2) The locking means can shall be capable of being engaged without opening the door. (3) The unlocking and unlatching from the classroom side of the door can be accomplished without the use of a key or tool, tool, or special knowledge or effort. (4) The unlocking and unlatching requires releasing mechanism shall open the door leaf with not more than one releasing operation. (5) The releasing mechanism for unlocking and unlatching means are mounted shall be located at a height not less than 34 in. (865 mm) and not exceeding 48 in. (1220 mm) above the finished floor. (6) Locks, if remotely engaged, can shall be unlocked unlockable from the classroom side of the door without the use of a key, tool, or special knowledge or effort. (7) The door is capable of being unlocked and opened from outside the room by staff with the necessary key or other credential. (8) The locking means does shall not modify the door closer, panic hardware, or fire exit hardware. (9) Modifications to fire door assemblies, including door hardware, shall be in accordance with NFPA 80. (10) The emergency action plan, required by , addresses shall address the use of the locking and unlocking means from within and outside the room. (11) Staff is drilled in the engagement and release of the locking means, from within and outside the room, as part of the emergency egress drills required by Supplemental Information File Name A docx Description Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: SAF-END Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jul 26 13:56:33 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: The Committee supports the First Draft text with minor modifications as directed by the Correlating Committee. During the First Draft, the section was inadvertantly added with no charging statement. A statement has been added to the front of the Section to clarify that classroom doors are permitted to be locked to prevent unwanted entry only if the locking means is approved and all of the criteria in the list are met. The committee used some of the changes as proposed in Public Comment No.183 as the basis for edits to the section. Numbered items were updated with the word "shall" for editorial correction. Text was added to clarify that the unlocking and unlatching operation in the classroom cannot require the use of key, tool, special knowledge or effort which is consistent with other locking and latching provisions in Chapter 7. A minimum height for the location of the releasing mechanism, consistent with Chapter 7, was added to ensure that the mechanism was not located on the floor or low on the door and the text was updated to clarify that it is the releasing mechanism that must be located within the 34-48" range. Item 7 has been updated to delete 'by staff' from the First Revision as it was too specific. It may not just be staff opening the door, it could be first responders for example. The Workshop on School Safety, Codes and Security Final Report documented the need to lock classroom doors against Page 23 of 90

24 4 of 78 12/9/ :32 AM unwanted entry and accepted the need that a second locking means may be needed for existing buildings. The multiple provisions proposed as part of / address the concerns for accomplishing door locking in a safe manner. The detailed criteria will weed out the dangerous hardware and locking means being promoted in the marketplace by those unfamiliar with traditional egress needs. Response Message: Annex: While the Section is written to apply only to classroom doors, newly proposed Annex language explains to AHJs and facilities how the section may be useful in other areas of educational occupancies that may also need to be secured. Public Comment No. 183-NFPA [Section No ] Public Comment No. 20-NFPA [New Section after ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 22 Eligible Voters 1 Not Returned 18 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Wolf, Ann Marie A. Affirmative All Aaby, Mark J. Dannaway, Samuel S. Day, Richard L. Dubrowski, Victor L. Frangiamore, Keith S. Gandy, Max L. Haidacher, Jeffrey L. Hansen, Raymond N. Hopper, Howard Kasmauskas, Dominick G. Lazebnik, Rosa Longhitano, Alfred J. Marks, Maria B. Merck, Richard E. Roeper, Kurt A. Savage, Sr., Michael L. Sinsigalli, Michael L. Szachnowicz, Aleksy L. Affirmative with Comment Ellis, Jason Our jurisdiction (along with several in our state) has been dealing with the conflicting issue of security versus life safety for some time now. Although fire and police in our area have worked hard to maintain a professional relationship with an overall goal of protecting our stakeholders, the process of initiating security measures and maintaining fire/life safety code requirements has been daunting. The provisions proposed as part of will allow us to ensure that locking hardware will meet the provisions of the fire code while establishing the security considerations of our university as well as agencies throughout our state. Security organizations are championing locking devices with little or no regard for the existing fire code requirements. There is no solicitation of local fire authorities for these mechanisms (including installation) to address or meet existing fire and life safety code requirements. Adoption of these provisions is a positive step to addressing these issues. Stashak, Catherine L. Page 24 of 90

25 5 of 78 12/9/ :32 AM The conflict between security and life safety has come to a head in recent years and it can no longer be ignored. There have been too many incidents that has created substantial concern with families of students and staff that occupy educational buildings. The fire authorities need to be able to address the fears of families, staff, and students while at the same time continue to provide a viable means of egress for evacuation or relocation purposes. Two efforts have been started in which I have participated in both: The Workshop on School Safety, Codes and Security, (December 2014) where the Final Report documented the need to lock classroom doors against unwanted entry and accepted the need that a second locking means may be needed for new and existing buildings. Another important effort (which is still ongoing) is seen by ASIS International and the NFPA to create either a document to address in totality the combined security/life safety needs of buildings. This effort sees the need for security and life safety authorities need to work together, inserting language in the already existent model codes that will create buildings that work both ways: Prevent unwanted intruders but also permit safe and timely egress if needed with human and life safety as the first priority.the multiple provisions proposed as part of will weed out the dangerous locking hardware being promoted in the marketplace. This is a common code question submitted to my agency and 99.9% the widgets that are being promoted are even more dangerous, not allowing students the ability to open doors in the event of fire so they can evacuate or preventing first responders from gaining entry. Without guidance from the AHJ from a model code organization, such as NFPA,they will continue to be installed. Security organizations are promoting these security devices without any consideration or discussion with the local fire authorities and even assisting with financing for their installation, again without notifying the local fire authorities. This has been happening for years (the biggest push started after Sandy Hook). Again, the security concerns of families and staff has reached a point where if we return to existing language, these more dangerous security widgets will continue to be installed. Negative with Comment Mertens, Matthew J. While the proposed changes may be helpful in that it puts conditions for these actions in one place, the IFMA board is in opposition to this change for the following reasons: 1. That any modifications to doors will likely result in a violation of the listing for rated doors 2. Existing locking provisions allow adequate locking, admittedly the owner will be required to update or replace the hardware, but this will allow for the proper hardware to be incorporated into the door and to be compliant with the code 3. We remain concerned about the ability of responders to gain entry to secure the incident 4. And, the additions to the new construction are not justified since existing locking hardware exists that can be part of the door and be compliant with the current code. Page 25 of 90