MEMORANDUM. Technical Committee on Alternative Approaches to Life Safety. NFPA 101A First Draft Technical Committee FINAL Ballot Results (A2018)

Transcription

1 National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA Phone: Fax: MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Technical Committee on Alternative Approaches to Life Safety Kelly Carey, Project Administrator DATE: October 31, 2016 SUBJECT: NFPA 101A First Draft Technical Committee FINAL Ballot Results (A2018) According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass ballot. 14 Members Eligible to Vote 3 Members Not Returned (Kowalenko, Morris, Valentine) 6 Members Voted Affirmative (with comment: Elvove, Humble, Koffel) 5 Members Voted Negative on one or more Revisions (Carson, Edwards, Elvove, Koffel, Larrimer) 0 Members Abstained on one or more Revisions The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the explanation of the vote for each revision. To pass ballot, each revision requires: (1) a simple majority of those eligible to vote and (2) an affirmative vote of 2 /3 of ballots returned. See Sections (c) and of the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards.

2 First Revision No. 21 NFPA 101A 2016 [ Global Input ] In Figure 7.5, revise Worksheet 7.5.4A in the "1 Story" row, Refuge Requirement (Sc), by changing the entry 15 to 13. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Gregory Harrington Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Aug 18 11:30:25 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Currently, a new single story Type V(111) biulding with no deficiencies will not pass the Statement: FSES because it fails under the Refuge Requirement safety parameter. If the Refuge Requirement safety parameter is reduced from 15 to 13, it will pass. A new building, built in accordance with NFPA 101, should pass the FSES. Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 14 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 9 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Kowalenko, Henry Morris, Scott P. Valentine, Victoria B. Affirmative All Beebe, Chad E. Biller, Justin B. Page 1 of /65

3 Crowley, Michael A. Edwards, Michael L. Humble, Jonathan Koffel, William E. Larrimer, Peter A. Szachnowicz, Aleksy L. Versteeg, Joseph H. Affirmative with Comment Elvove, Joshua W. Concur with Mr. Carson's thoughts, however, until such time as we can evaluate the numbers (which I hope can be done before the second draft meeting), this correction is needed. Negative with Comment Carson, Wayne G. Chip This is an example of "fudging" the numbers to make a particular issue pass without a full review of the number valuation. This is a bad practice as these arbitrary changes to the FSES can adversely affect the validity of the evaluation system and can be cumulative over multiple editions of the FSES. A full review and analysis of the FSES is needed to justify a change in the values, not just "fudging" the numbers to force the FSES to work. Page 2 of /65

4 First Revision No. 3 NFPA 101A 2016 [ Section No ] 1.3.1* This guide consists of a number of alternative approaches to life safety applicable to new and existing buildings. Each chapter is a different system independent of the others and is to be used in conjunction with the edition of NFPA 101. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Gregory Harrington Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Aug 16 11:28:22 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The FR clarifies that NFPA 101A applies to new and existing buildings, and also updates the referenced edition year of NFPA 101. Public Input No. 9 NFPA 101A 2016 [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 14 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 9 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 2 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Kowalenko, Henry Morris, Scott P. Valentine, Victoria B. Affirmative All Beebe, Chad E. Biller, Justin B. Page 3 of /65

5 Carson, Wayne G. Chip Crowley, Michael A. Edwards, Michael L. Humble, Jonathan Larrimer, Peter A. Szachnowicz, Aleksy L. Versteeg, Joseph H. Negative with Comment Elvove, Joshua W. We're better off being silent in this paragraph rather than specifically stating that the document applies to both new and existing buildings. By leaving text as is, the FSES might not be overly used for new construction equivalencies, where it s not really meant to apply. However, this issue might be clarified by an annex note which can be added during the second draft meeting. Koffel, William E. The language to be added is not consistent with the intent of NFPA 101. While the FSES may be used for new buildings, NFPA 101 intends to restrict the use of the FSES for new buildings (see A ) The language was added to NFPA 101 to prevent people from intentionally designing a building that does not comply with NFPA 101 but then requesting that it be accepted using NFPA 101A. A In determining equivalency for conversions, modernizations, renovations, or unusual design concepts of hospitals or nursing homes, the authority having jurisdiction is permitted to accept evaluations based on the health care occupancies for safety evaluation system (FSES) of NFPA 101A, Guide on Alternative Approaches to Life Safety, utilizing the parameters for new construction. Page 4 of /65

6 First Revision No. 4 NFPA 101A 2016 [ Section No ] This edition of NFPA 101A contains alternative approaches that are tied to NFPA 101. Each of these systems approaches, where approved by the AHJ, is recognized by in Annex A of the Life Safety Code, in its Annex A, as a method that can be used to assist the authority having jurisdiction in determining equivalent compliance with various chapters of the Code. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Gregory Harrington Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Aug 16 11:34:37 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: The revisions clarify the intent of the paragraph. Response Message: Public Input No. 47 NFPA 101A 2016 [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 14 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Kowalenko, Henry Morris, Scott P. Valentine, Victoria B. Affirmative All Beebe, Chad E. Biller, Justin B. Carson, Wayne G. Chip Page 5 of /65

7 Crowley, Michael A. Edwards, Michael L. Elvove, Joshua W. Humble, Jonathan Koffel, William E. Larrimer, Peter A. Szachnowicz, Aleksy L. Versteeg, Joseph H. Page 6 of /65

8 First Revision No. 19 NFPA 101A 2016 [ New Section after ] 1.3.5* Previously approved fire safety evaluation systems (FSESs) are permitted to be continued in use where permitted by the authority having jurisdiction. Supplemental Information File Name 101A_FR 19_Attachment.docx Description New A Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Gregory Harrington Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Aug 18 10:00:45 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee The intent of the FR is explained by the proposed A.1.3.5, as follows: The intent of this Statement: criterion is to allow previously approved FSESs, which demonstrated compliance with previous editions of NFPA 101, to be continued in use without re evaluation subject to approval of the AHJ. Where modification of the facility would be impractical in the judgment of the AHJ, e.g., construction type issues, a previous edition of the FSES in NFPA 101A could be utilized to demonstrate that a reasonable degree of safety is provided. Subject to the approval of the AHJ, this could apply to existing buildings, including spaces involving renovation, modification, or reconstruction. See of NFPA 101 for additional information regarding modifications of requirements for existing buildings. Response Message: Public Input No. 48 NFPA 101A 2016 [New Section after 4.7.7] Public Input No. 51 NFPA 101A 2016 [New Section after 4.1.3] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 14 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 7 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 3 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Page 7 of /65

9 Not Returned Kowalenko, Henry Morris, Scott P. Valentine, Victoria B. Affirmative All Beebe, Chad E. Biller, Justin B. Crowley, Michael A. Humble, Jonathan Larrimer, Peter A. Szachnowicz, Aleksy L. Versteeg, Joseph H. Affirmative with Comment Elvove, Joshua W. The change to is ok, but some of the language in the annex needs to be reworked as it could lead to maintaining serious deficiencies in place, when there could be opportunities for correcting them during reconstruction. It is recognized that this new language would allow a building to continue to exist as is, even if not in compliance with the edition of NFPA 101 that applies with NFPA 101A, but this provision does require AHJ permission. If this language opens Pandora's box, however, it might best to revise this text during the second draft meeting. Note: the committee statement should have included the rationale from the two public inputs (PI 48 & 51) that prompted the committee to make this change as the two public inputs did provide examples of why this change was made. Negative with Comment Carson, Wayne G. Chip This new section of NFPA 101A totally disregards the intended purpose of the FSES. Section states "Each of these systems is recognized by the Life Safety Code, in its Annex A, as a method that can be used to assist the authority having jurisdiction in determining equivalent compliance with various chapters of the Code." This evaluation method has been put forth from its beginning as a method of determining equivalent compliance with a specific edition of NFPA 101. Section specifies that edition. This new section permits an existing occupancy that is non compliant with NFPA 101 and is documented to NOT have an equivalent level of safety as determined by using the appropriate edition of NFPA 101A, to be considered acceptable based on a prior edition of NFPA 101. The only reason that the development of NFPA 101A follows the development of NFPA 101by a year is so that the parameters and values within NFPA 101A accurately reflect the changes that been made to NFPA 101. This assures a proper evaluation of a facility as to whether or not an equivalent level of life safety exists based on a specific edition of NFPA 101. This proposal essentially disregards the additional safeguards incorporated in more recent editions of NFPA 101. These additional safeguards have been determined to be essential for inclusion in NFPA 101 through the NFPA s standards development process. This new code section now turns the proper use of NFPA 101A upside down and permits the continued use of an FSES that demonstrated equivalent life safety with a prior edition of NFPA 101 before these new safeguards were included. This is a wholesale disregard for the purpose of NFPA 101A. Edwards, Michael L. I understand a building owner's position that once a fire/life safety plan is approved it should be allowed to continue as approved; however, NFPA 101A must reflect the requirements of NFPA 101. If NFPA 101 adds retroactive provisions to existing occupancy chapters, NFPA 101A must reflect those Page 8 of /65

10 retroactive provision, or it is not an Alternate/Equal Approach. Complying with a previous FSES indicates an alternative method of compliance with a previous edition of NFPA 101, not necessarily the edition in effect. If compliance with a previous FSES is deemed appropriate for a facility by the AHJ and other stakeholders, it can be handled through the Chapter 1 provisions of NFPA 101. Koffel, William E. Public Input 51 appears to have been submitted on behalf of the long term care industry due to changes between the 2000 and 2012 Editions of NFPA 101. More recent editions of NFPA 101 require that existing long term care facilities be protected with automatic sprinkler systems and as such, the mandatory values in NFPA 101A have been revised to reflect the new requirement. An FSES prepared using the 2001 Edition of NFPA 101A should not be used to demonstrate "equivalency" to the 2012 Edition of NFPA 101. In fact, the language proposed states that equivalency might not be achieved but a "reasonable" level of safety might be provided. NFPA 101A is referenced in NFPA 101 as a means of demonstrating equivalency which is not necessarily the same as a previously determined reasonable level of safety. As such, this First Revision needs to be evaluated by the Life Safety Correlating Committee as it seems to be inconsistent with the intent of references within NFPA 101 to NFPA 101A. It is recognized that NFPA 101 may from time to time change the required level of protection or safety. When it does, the FSES needs to be revised to reflect the same change as required by NFPA 101. The reference to of NFPA 101 does not justify the change. That paragraph allows the AHJ to modify the Code when deemed appropriate. If the AHJ uses 4.6.5, the FSES is not necessary. As a firm we completed several FSES evaluations for long term care facilities between the publication of the NPRM and the Final Rule adopting the 2012 Edition. In each instance the facility was advised that while equivalency was determined based upon the 2000 Edition of NFPA 101, the FSES would not result in equivalency to the 2012 Edition. This issue has been well known for several years and should not be the basis for such a philosophical change in the use of NFPA 101A, especially since the proposed change goes well beyond existing long term care facilities. Any existing FSES could be accepted for any newer edition of NFPA 101 based upon this language. It should also be noted that the language would permit one to demonstrate equivalency to the 2012 Edition of NFPA 101 even if the existing long term care facility was not protected with an automatic sprinkler system. This is due to the fact that the previous FSES would have used mandatory values as determined at a time when sprinkler protection was not required by NFPA 101. If this language in included in the First Revision of NFPA 101A, I would support the Public Input that proposed to withdraw NFPA 101A if it were submitted as a Public Comment. Page 9 of /65

11 A The intent of this criterion is to allow previously approved FSESs, which demonstrated compliance with previous editions of NFPA 101, to be continued in use without re-evaluation subject to approval of the AHJ. Where modification of the facility would be impractical in the judgment of the AHJ (e.g., construction type issues), a previous edition of the FSES in NFPA 101A could be utilized to demonstrate that a reasonable degree of safety is provided. Subject to the approval of the AHJ, this could apply to existing buildings, including spaces involving renovation, modification, or reconstruction. See of NFPA 101 for additional information regarding modifications of requirements for existing buildings. Page 10 of 69

12 First Revision No. 24 NFPA 101A 2016 [ Section No. 2.2 ] 2.2 NFPA Publications. National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, edition. NFPA 13D, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One and Two Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes, edition. NFPA 13R, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Low Rise Residential Occupancies, edition. NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, edition. NFPA 90A, Standard for the Installation of Air Conditioning and Ventilating Systems, edition. NFPA 92, Standard for Smoke Control Systems, edition. NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, edition. NFPA 204, Standard for Smoke and Heat Venting, edition. NFPA 220, Standard on Types of Building Construction, edition. NFPA 252, Standard Methods of Fire Tests of Door Assemblies, edition. NFPA 257, Standard on Fire Test for Window and Glass Block Assemblies, edition. NFPA 265, Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Room Fire Growth Contribution of Textile or Expanded Vinyl Wall Coverings on Full Height Panels and Walls, edition. NFPA 286, Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Contribution of Wall and Ceiling Interior Finish to Room Fire Growth, edition. NFPA 551, Guide for the Evaluation of Fire Risk Assessments, edition. NFPA 5000, Building Construction and Safety Code, edition. NFPA Fire Protection Handbook, 20th edition. NFPA SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 4th edition. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Gregory Harrington Organization: National Fire Protection Assoc Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Aug 29 14:58:34 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Referenced publication updates. Response Message: Page 11 of /65

13 Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 14 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 9 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 2 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Kowalenko, Henry Morris, Scott P. Valentine, Victoria B. Affirmative All Beebe, Chad E. Biller, Justin B. Carson, Wayne G. Chip Crowley, Michael A. Edwards, Michael L. Humble, Jonathan Larrimer, Peter A. Szachnowicz, Aleksy L. Versteeg, Joseph H. Negative with Comment Elvove, Joshua W. Concur with Mr. Koffel. Note: this first revision was created after the committee met and thus was not vetted by the committee. Koffel, William E. NFPA 101A has special permission to reference editions of NFPA codes and standards other than the most recent. Since NFPA 101A is intended to demonstrate equivalency to a specific edition of NFPA 101, the documents references in Chapter 2 should be consistent with the editions referenced in the 2018 Edition of NFPA 101. Page 12 of /65

14 First Revision No. 5 NFPA 101A 2016 [ Section No ] ASTM Publications. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA , ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, b. ASTM E119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, 2012a Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Gregory Harrington Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Aug 16 11:43:12 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Referenced publication updates. Response Message: Public Input No. 1 NFPA 101A 2016 [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 14 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Kowalenko, Henry Morris, Scott P. Valentine, Victoria B. Affirmative All Beebe, Chad E. Page 13 of /65

15 Biller, Justin B. Carson, Wayne G. Chip Crowley, Michael A. Edwards, Michael L. Elvove, Joshua W. Humble, Jonathan Koffel, William E. Larrimer, Peter A. Szachnowicz, Aleksy L. Versteeg, Joseph H. Page 14 of /65

16 First Revision No. 25 NFPA 101A 2016 [ Section No ] SFPE Publications. Society of Fire Protection Engineers, 7315 Wisconsin Avenue, SFPE, 9711 Washington Blvd., Suite 620E 380, Bethesda Gaithersburg, MD SFPE Engineering Guide to Fire Risk Assessment. SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 5th edition, Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Gregory Harrington Organization: National Fire Protection Assoc Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Aug 29 15:13:12 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Referenced publication update. Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 14 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Kowalenko, Henry Morris, Scott P. Valentine, Victoria B. Affirmative All Beebe, Chad E. Biller, Justin B. Carson, Wayne G. Chip Page 15 of /65

17 Crowley, Michael A. Edwards, Michael L. Elvove, Joshua W. Humble, Jonathan Koffel, William E. Larrimer, Peter A. Szachnowicz, Aleksy L. Versteeg, Joseph H. Page 16 of /65

18 First Revision No. 6 NFPA 101A 2016 [ Section No ] UL Publications. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL , ANSI/UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, 2008, Revised revised Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Gregory Harrington Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Aug 16 11:45:17 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Referenced publication update. Response Message: Public Input No. 49 NFPA 101A 2016 [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 14 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Kowalenko, Henry Morris, Scott P. Valentine, Victoria B. Affirmative All Beebe, Chad E. Biller, Justin B. Carson, Wayne G. Chip Page 17 of /65

19 Crowley, Michael A. Edwards, Michael L. Elvove, Joshua W. Humble, Jonathan Koffel, William E. Larrimer, Peter A. Szachnowicz, Aleksy L. Versteeg, Joseph H. Page 18 of /65

20 First Revision No. 26 NFPA 101A 2016 [ Section No. 2.4 ] 2.4 References for Extracts in Advisory Sections. NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, 2018 edition. NFPA 5000, Building Construction and Safety Code, 2015 edition. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Gregory Harrington Organization: National Fire Protection Assoc Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Aug 29 15:18:43 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Referenced publication update. Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 14 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 9 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Kowalenko, Henry Morris, Scott P. Valentine, Victoria B. Affirmative All Beebe, Chad E. Biller, Justin B. Carson, Wayne G. Chip Crowley, Michael A. Page 19 of /65

21 Edwards, Michael L. Elvove, Joshua W. Larrimer, Peter A. Szachnowicz, Aleksy L. Versteeg, Joseph H. Affirmative with Comment Humble, Jonathan There is a need to correlate this with FR24 by modifying the edition date of NFPA 5000 from 2015 to Koffel, William E. Why was NFPA 5000 not updated to the 2018 Edition? Page 20 of /65

22 First Revision No. 22 NFPA 101A 2016 [ New Section after 3.3 ] Modification. The reconfiguration of any space; the addition or elimination of any door or window; the addition or elimination of load bearing elements; the reconfiguration or extension of any system; or the installation of any additional equipment. [ 101, 2018] Reconstruction. The reconfiguration of a space that affects an exit or a corridor shared by more than one occupant space; or the reconfiguration of a space such that the rehabilitation work area is not permitted to be occupied because existing means of egress and fire protection systems, or their equivalent, are not in place or continuously maintained. [ 101, 2018] Renovation. The replacement in kind, strengthening, or upgrading of building elements, materials, equipment, or fixtures that does not result in a reconfiguration of the building spaces within. [ 101, 2018] Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Gregory Harrington Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Aug 18 11:49:04 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee The FR extracts selected definitions from NFPA 101 to NFPA 101A. However, it is noted Statement: that 101A provides a general reference to Section 3.3 of 101 for all other general definitions. The inclusion of these selected definitions should be reconsidered at the public comment stage. Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 14 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 9 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 2 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Page 21 of /65

23 Not Returned Kowalenko, Henry Morris, Scott P. Valentine, Victoria B. Affirmative All Beebe, Chad E. Biller, Justin B. Carson, Wayne G. Chip Crowley, Michael A. Edwards, Michael L. Humble, Jonathan Koffel, William E. Szachnowicz, Aleksy L. Versteeg, Joseph H. Negative with Comment Elvove, Joshua W. Concur with Mr. Larrimer. Note: this first revision was created after the committee met and thus was not vetted by the committee. Larrimer, Peter A. There appears to be no reason to select these few definitions from NFPA 101 when NFPA 101A already references all definitions in Chapter 3 of NFPA 101. Page 22 of /65

24 First Revision No. 7 NFPA 101A 2016 [ Section No ] A story that is not subdivided by horizontal exits or smoke barriers is considered a single zone. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Gregory Harrington Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Aug 16 13:59:32 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The statement is identical existing in fire/smoke/zone definition stated in section It is recommended to be deleted to avoid repetition. Public Input No. 20 NFPA 101A 2016 [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 14 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Kowalenko, Henry Morris, Scott P. Valentine, Victoria B. Affirmative All Beebe, Chad E. Biller, Justin B. Carson, Wayne G. Chip Page 23 of /65

25 Crowley, Michael A. Edwards, Michael L. Elvove, Joshua W. Humble, Jonathan Koffel, William E. Larrimer, Peter A. Szachnowicz, Aleksy L. Versteeg, Joseph H. Page 24 of /65

26 First Revision No. 1 NFPA 101A 2016 [ Section No ] Page 25 of /65

27 Page 26 of /65

28 Most health care facilities have repetitive arrangements so that a complete picture can be developed by evaluating typical zones until all combinations are evaluated. The zones selected should include the following: (1) Each type of patient zone having a different type of mobility, density, or attendant ratio, as specified in Worksheet (2) Each zone that represents a significantly different type of construction, finish, or protection system (3) Zones containing special medical treatment or support activities (e.g., operating suites, intensive care units, laboratories) (4) Zones not involving housing, treatment, or customary access for four or more inpatients simultaneously who are incapable of self preservation; such zones should be evaluated as follows: (a) (b) (c) Any zone, whether or not used for patient egress, shall be permitted to be evaluated on the same basis as a patient use zone. In such case cases, the value of factor F in Worksheet shall be assigned the value of factor L ( Zone Location ) from Worksheet In such cases, Safety Parameter 10, Emergency Movement Routes, from Worksheet shall be graded deficient if the exit capacity is less than that prescribed for the actual occupancy of the space and <2 routes if less than 75 percent of the prescribed exit capacity is present. If the zone is separated by 2 hour fire rated construction from all patient use zones, ( including any members that bear the load of a patient use zone), and if any communicating openings through the 2 hour fire rated construction are protected by hour fire protection rated fire doors, the zone shall be permitted to be excluded from evaluation. In such case cases, that space shall conform with the portion of the Life Safety Code appropriate to its use. In addition, appropriate charges under Safety Parameter 8, Hazardous Areas, in Worksheet shall be charged against other zones in the facility. Evaluation of any unoccupied story or stories located above the highest floor used for health care occupancy is not required, provided each such unoccupied story meets the construction requirements of ( of NFPA 101) for new buildings or ( of NFPA 101) for existing buildings, or if each unoccupied story is protected by automatic sprinklers. (5) Patient sleeping rooms or suites exceeding 1000 ft 2 (92.9 m 2 ) of floor area should be evaluated as follows: (a) If the room or suite has a single exit access door, it should be evaluated as a single dead end zone. (b) A patient sleeping room or suite of sleeping rooms exceeding the 5000 ft 2 (460 m 2 ) limitation of (A) ( of NFPA 101) should be evaluated as a separate zone that is not a suite. Safety parameters 4 and 5 from Worksheet should be scored as 0 for this zone. (c) A patient sleeping room or suite of sleeping rooms exceeding the 7500 ft 2 (700 m 2 ) limitation of (B) or (B) ( of NFPA 101) should be evaluated as a separate zone that is not a suite. Safety parameters 4 and 5 from Worksheet should be scored as 0 for this zone. (d) A patient sleeping room or suite of sleeping rooms exceeding the 10,000 ft 2 (930 m 2 ) limitation of (C) or (C) ( of NFPA 101) should be evaluated as a separate zone that is not a suite. Safety parameters 4 and 5 from Worksheet should be scored as 0 for this zone. (6) Patient care nonsleeping rooms or suites exceeding 2500 ft 2 (230 m 2 ) of floor area should be evaluated as follows: (a) If the room or suite has a single exit access door, it should be evaluated as a single dead end zone. Page 27 of /65

29 (b) (c) (d) A patient care nonsleeping room or suite of nonsleeping rooms exceeding the 10,000 ft 2 (930 m 2 ) limitation of ( of NFPA 101) should be evaluated as a separate zone that is not a suite. Safety parameters 4 and 5 from Worksheet should be scored as 0 for this zone. A patient care nonsleeping room or suite of nonsleeping rooms exceeding the 12,500 ft 2 (1160 m 2 ) limitation of (A) or (A) ( of NFPA 101) should be evaluated as a separate zone that is not a suite. Safety parameters 4 and 5 from Worksheet should be scored as 0 for this zone. A patient care nonsleeping room or suite of nonsleeping rooms exceeding the 15,000 ft 2 (1390 m 2 ) limitation of (B) or (B) ( of NFPA 101) should be evaluated as a separate zone that is not a suite. Safety parameters 4 and 5 from Worksheet should be scored as 0 for this zone. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Gregory Harrington Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Aug 16 09:52:36 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee The FR adds guidance on the evaluation of oversized suites as recommended by the Fire Statement: Protection Research Foundation report, "Validation of the Fire Safety Evaluation System (FSES) in the 2013 Edition of NFPA 101A, FPRF Final Report." Response Message: Public Input No. 54 NFPA 101A 2016 [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 14 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 8 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 3 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Kowalenko, Henry Morris, Scott P. Valentine, Victoria B. Affirmative All Page 28 of /65

30 Beebe, Chad E. Biller, Justin B. Carson, Wayne G. Chip Crowley, Michael A. Edwards, Michael L. Humble, Jonathan Szachnowicz, Aleksy L. Versteeg, Joseph H. Negative with Comment Elvove, Joshua W. (Oversized) Suites need to be addressed, but this change may cause more issues than it corrects and thus should be rejected until the committee can come up with better language (hopefully) during the second draft meeting. Koffel, William E. The proposed changes to how oversized suites are addressed does not make sense. If corridor walls and doors are evaluated as smoke resistive, what parameter value is evaluated as less than code complying to address the fact that the suite is larger than permitted by NFPA 101. This approach would allow any oversized suite, provided it was not greater than 150 ft. in length, to pass the FSES without any compensating feature unless another condition (such as hazardous areas) also was not in compliance with NFPA 101. Larrimer, Peter A. The change directs the user of the FSES to evaluate an oversized suite or room as other than a suite and automatically assigns a value of (0) for Safety Parameters 4 and 5 on worksheet However, this scoring would effectively equate to having a suite with corridor walls with doors in the corridor walls that resist the passage of smoke when it is very likely that the space inside the suite doesn t have corridor walls nor corridor doors that resist the passage of smoke. It is hard to understand how we can arbitrarily score Safety Parameters 4 and 5 as zero when the suite size exceeds the maximum allowed in NFPA 101 and evaluate the suite as if it had code compliant corridors. In that scenario, if the oversized suite had two ways out, which is a requirement of NFPA 101, it doesn t appear that the suite would have any deficiencies that provide a bad safety parameter score on Worksheet and all oversized suites zones evaluated in this manner would likely pass the FSES. In addition, a suite is required to be separated from an actual healthcare corridor by a wall and door that meets the rules for corridors even if there are no corridor requirements within the suite. This doesn t appear to be addressed. While the existing verbiage might not be clear on how to address suites, more guidance than what has been provided in this first revision seems to be needed. Maybe the FSES should not be permitted to be used to address suite deficiencies. Page 29 of /65

31 First Revision No. 8 NFPA 101A 2016 [ Section No ] Story Factor. The measured zone s location shall be considered to be on the first story if the story has direct access to the exterior at or within less than one half story height above or below grade. If a building is on a sloping grade, each story that has such exterior access shall be considered as a first story for the purpose of measuring fire zones on those stories. The measured zone shall be considered to be on the second to third story range and the fourth to sixth story range, based on the height of the zone above the nearest at grade story. The zone shall be considered to be above the sixth story if it is more than six stories above the nearest at grade story. The risk factor value for zones in basements is the same as for zones at or above the seventh story. The problems involved in emergency internal access, in fire fighting and rescue, and in the inability to make external attack in basements are approximately equivalent to those in the upper stories of buildings. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Gregory Harrington Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Aug 16 14:01:47 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: There is no need to specify the type of zone (fire, smoke, or fire/smoke). The term 'zone' is used in the first sentence. Public Input No. 21 NFPA 101A 2016 [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 14 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Kowalenko, Henry Morris, Scott P. Page 30 of /65

32 Valentine, Victoria B. Affirmative All Beebe, Chad E. Biller, Justin B. Carson, Wayne G. Chip Crowley, Michael A. Edwards, Michael L. Elvove, Joshua W. Humble, Jonathan Koffel, William E. Larrimer, Peter A. Szachnowicz, Aleksy L. Versteeg, Joseph H. Page 31 of /65

33 First Revision No. 2 NFPA 101A 2016 [ Section No ] Interior Finish (Corridor and Exits). The classification wall and ceiling of interior finish materials shall be in accordance with Section 10.2 (NFPA 101). The flame spread classification shall be based on the most combustible surface after deleting trim. No allowance is made in the safety parameter values for interior finish materials that fail to be classified as a minimum of Class C. It is not anticipated that such materials will be used in health care facilities. In the rare case that such high flame spread interior finish materials are involved, an individual fire hazard assessment outside the capability of this evaluation system will be required. Interior wall and ceiling finish materials tested in accordance with NFPA 265 or NFPA 286, as permitted by Section 10.2 (NFPA 101), and meeting the criteria established in Section 10.2 (NFPA 101) for those test standards, shall be scored as Class A interior finish materials (flame spread 25). Newly installed textile wall and ceiling coverings and expanded vinyl wall and ceiling covering materials shall comply with ( NFPA 101 ). Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Gregory Harrington Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Aug 16 10:26:20 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee This was an issue identified in the Validation of the Fire Safety Evaluation System (FSES) Statement: in the 2013 Edition of NFPA 101A FPRF Final Report. This type of wall and ceiling covering was not addressed in the NFPA 101 change that limited the use of these types of Class A interior finish in non sprinkler protected facilities. The FR also incorporates the recommendation of PI 23. Response Message: Public Input No. 53 NFPA 101A 2016 [Section No ] Public Input No. 23 NFPA 101A 2016 [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 14 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 10 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Page 32 of /65

34 Not Returned Kowalenko, Henry Morris, Scott P. Valentine, Victoria B. Affirmative All Beebe, Chad E. Biller, Justin B. Carson, Wayne G. Chip Crowley, Michael A. Edwards, Michael L. Elvove, Joshua W. Humble, Jonathan Larrimer, Peter A. Szachnowicz, Aleksy L. Versteeg, Joseph H. Negative with Comment Koffel, William E. If a textile wall covering or expanded vinyl wall covering is not in compliance with NFPA 101, how is it to be evaluated? No guidance is given unless it is the intent of this change to say that the FSES shall not be used in such instances. Furthermore, since this refers to text in Chapter 10 of NFPA 101, why were similar changes not proposed to other chapters in NFPA 101A? Page 33 of /65

35 First Revision No. 9 NFPA 101A 2016 [ Section No ] Since Because dead end corridors and single emergency movement routes (see ) each confine the occupants of a fire zone to a single means of egress, the effect of these two factors on the parameter value is not cumulative. As indicated by Note b to Worksheet 4.7.6, the parameter value for dead end corridors is to be 0 instead of either 2, 4, or 6 in the special case where a value of 8 is assessed under for single emergency movement routes. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Gregory Harrington Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Aug 16 14:05:06 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: There is no need to specify the type of zone (fire, smoke, or fire/smoke). Response Message: Public Input No. 22 NFPA 101A 2016 [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 14 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Kowalenko, Henry Morris, Scott P. Valentine, Victoria B. Affirmative All Beebe, Chad E. Page 34 of /65

36 Biller, Justin B. Carson, Wayne G. Chip Crowley, Michael A. Edwards, Michael L. Elvove, Joshua W. Humble, Jonathan Koffel, William E. Larrimer, Peter A. Szachnowicz, Aleksy L. Versteeg, Joseph H. Page 35 of /65

37 First Revision No. 10 NFPA 101A 2016 [ New Section after ] Unenclosed vertical openings shall be considered enclosed if they are in accordance with or ( NFPA 101 ). Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Gregory Harrington Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Aug 16 14:14:07 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The FR captures the vertical opening protection criteria permitted for health care occupancies, in addition to those specified in PI 4. Public Input No. 4 NFPA 101A 2016 [New Section after ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 14 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 10 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Kowalenko, Henry Morris, Scott P. Valentine, Victoria B. Affirmative All Beebe, Chad E. Biller, Justin B. Carson, Wayne G. Chip Page 36 of /65

38 Crowley, Michael A. Edwards, Michael L. Elvove, Joshua W. Humble, Jonathan Larrimer, Peter A. Szachnowicz, Aleksy L. Versteeg, Joseph H. Negative with Comment Koffel, William E. If a Code complying atrium exists in the building the proposed language advises me to score the parameter as enclosed. As such, I would probably score it as enclosed with " < 1 hr". If that atrium is in a 4 story building, that could easily result in achieving a value that is less than the mandatory value (since the mandatory value would be based on 2 hrs.). A better approach would be to say that those alternative vertical openings are not to be evaluated using the FSES provided they comply with the Code. Also, why was similar language not added to other chapters in NFPA 101A? Page 37 of /65

39 First Revision No. 11 NFPA 101A 2016 [ Section No ] In assessing the parameter value for hazardous areas, only one value shall be chosen. It shall be the most severe value corresponding to the deficiencies present. A double deficiency can exist only where the hazard is severe and the space is not sprinkler protected. Double protection consists of both a fire rated enclosure and automatic sprinkler protection of the hazardous area. If both of these protections are lacking in a severe hazardous location, the double deficiency value shall be chosen. If double deficiencies exist both within the zone and outside the zone, the higher lesser value (i.e., 11) for the condition inside the zone shall be chosen. The values are not cumulative, regardless of how many hazardous areas are present. Table provides a matrix to be used to determine degree of deficiency to be assessed. Table Hazardous Areas Deficiencies Hazard Protection Severe Not Severe None Double Single Fire resistance rated enclosures Single None Automatic sprinklers and smoke partitions Single None Automatic sprinklers and fire resistance rated enclosures None None Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Gregory Harrington Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Aug 16 14:26:24 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: The safety parameter point score ( 11) is the lesser value, not the higher. Response Message: Public Input No. 24 NFPA 101A 2016 [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 14 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Page 38 of /65

40 Not Returned Kowalenko, Henry Morris, Scott P. Valentine, Victoria B. Affirmative All Beebe, Chad E. Biller, Justin B. Carson, Wayne G. Chip Crowley, Michael A. Edwards, Michael L. Elvove, Joshua W. Humble, Jonathan Koffel, William E. Larrimer, Peter A. Szachnowicz, Aleksy L. Versteeg, Joseph H. Page 39 of /65

41 First Revision No. 12 NFPA 101A 2016 [ Section No ] Corridor Only. Smoke detectors are installed throughout the corridors of the zone involved in accordance with Section 9.6 ( NFPA 101 ). Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Gregory Harrington Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Aug 16 14:31:28 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: Subsection states that smoke detectors must be installed in accordance with Section 9.6 (NFPA 101). The additional reference in is unnecessary. Public Input No. 26 NFPA 101A 2016 [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 14 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Kowalenko, Henry Morris, Scott P. Valentine, Victoria B. Affirmative All Beebe, Chad E. Biller, Justin B. Carson, Wayne G. Chip Page 40 of /65

42 Crowley, Michael A. Edwards, Michael L. Elvove, Joshua W. Humble, Jonathan Koffel, William E. Larrimer, Peter A. Szachnowicz, Aleksy L. Versteeg, Joseph H. Page 41 of /65

43 First Revision No. 20 NFPA 101A 2016 [ Section No. 4.7 ] 4.7 Worksheets for Evaluating Fire/Smoke Zones. The worksheets for evaluating fire/smoke zones use a 10 step process found in Figure 4.7. Page 42 of /65

44 The worksheets for evaluating fire/smoke zones use a 10 step process found in Figure 4.7. Figure 4.7 Worksheets for Evaluating Fire/Smoke Zones. DELETED Page 43 of /65

45 DELETED Page 44 of /65

46 DELETED Page 45 of /65

47 DELETED Step 1 Complete the Cover Sheet Using Worksheet See Figure Step 2 Determine Occupancy Risk Parameter Factors Using Worksheet For each risk parameter in Worksheet 4.7.2, select and circle the appropriate risk factor value. Choose only one value for each of the five risk parameters Step 3 Compute Occupancy Risk Factor F Using Worksheet The following steps should be taken: (1) Transfer the circled risk factor values from Worksheet to the corresponding blocks in Worksheet (2) Compute occupancy risk factor F by multiplying the risk factor values as indicated in Worksheet Page 46 of /65

48 4.7.4 Step 4 Compute Adjusted Occupancy Risk Factor R Using Worksheet or Worksheet The following steps should be taken: (1) If building is classified as new, use Worksheet If building is classified as existing, use Worksheet (2) Transfer the value of F from Worksheet to Worksheet or Worksheet 4.7.5, as appropriate. Calculate R. (3) Transfer R to the block labeled R in Worksheet Step 5 Determine Safety Parameter Values Using Worksheet Select and circle the safety value for each safety parameter in Worksheet that best describes the conditions in the zone. Choose only one value for each of the 13 parameters. If two or more values appear to apply, choose the one with the lowest point value Step 6 Compute Individual Safety Evaluations Using Worksheet The following steps should be taken: (1) Transfer each of the 13 circled safety parameter values from Worksheet to every available block in the line with the corresponding safety parameter in Worksheet For Safety Parameter 13, the value entered in the People Movement Safety column is recorded in Worksheet as one half the corresponding value circled in Worksheet (2) Add each of the four columns, keeping in mind that any negative numbers need to be deducted. (3) Transfer the resulting total values for S1, S2, S3, and S4 to the corresponding blocks in Worksheet Step 7 Determine Mandatory Safety Requirements Values Using Worksheet 4.7.8A, 4.7.8B, or 4.7.8C as Appropriate. The following steps should be taken: (1) Using the classification of the building (i.e., new or existing) and the story where the zone is located, circle the appropriate value in each of the three columns in Worksheet 4.7.8A, 4.7.8B, or 4.7.8C. (2) Transfer the three circled values from Worksheet 4.7.8A, 4.7.8B, or 4.7.8C to the blocks marked Sa, Sb, and Sc in Worksheet (3) The mandatory safety requirements values for basements are based on the distance of the basement level from the closest level of discharge. (See also and ) Step 8 Determine Zone Fire Safety Equivalency Using Worksheet The following steps should be taken: (1) Perform the subtractions indicated in Worksheet Enter the differences in the appropriate answer blocks. (2) For each row, check yes if the value in the answer block is zero (0) or greater. Check no if the value in the answer block is a negative number Step 9 Evaluate Other Considerations Not Previously Addressed Using Worksheet The equivalency covered by Worksheets through includes the majority of the considerations covered by the Life Safety Code. Some considerations are not evaluated by this method and must be considered separately. These additional considerations are covered in Worksheet , Facility Fire Safety Requirements Worksheet. Complete one copy of this separate worksheet for each facility. Page 47 of /65

49 Step 10 Determine Equivalency Conclusion. Conclude whether the level of life safety is at least equivalent to that prescribed by the Life Safety Code using Worksheet , Conclusions. Worksheet combines the zone fire safety equivalency evaluation of Worksheet and the additional considerations of Worksheet Supplemental Information File Name 101A_FR 20_Attachment.pdf Description Fig. 4.7 revisions Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Gregory Harrington Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Aug 18 10:56:34 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Revise Fig. 4.7 as shown in the attachment. The revisions respond to PI 28. Response Message: Public Input No. 28 NFPA 101A 2016 [Section No. 4.7 [Excluding any Sub Sections]] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 14 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Kowalenko, Henry Morris, Scott P. Valentine, Victoria B. Affirmative All Beebe, Chad E. Biller, Justin B. Carson, Wayne G. Chip Crowley, Michael A. Page 48 of /65

50 Edwards, Michael L. Elvove, Joshua W. Humble, Jonathan Koffel, William E. Larrimer, Peter A. Szachnowicz, Aleksy L. Versteeg, Joseph H. Page 49 of /65

51 Page 50 of 69

52 Page 51 of 69

53 Page 52 of 69

54 Page 53 of 69

55 First Revision No. 13 NFPA 101A 2016 [ Section No ] Step 2 Determine the Level of Hazard. A hazardous area is classed as severe if it is an area requiring both automatic sprinkler protection and fire rated enclosure per (and, , ) or, , or (NFPA 101). Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Gregory Harrington Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Aug 16 15:31:13 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The FR includes all references which state that both automatic sprinkler protection and a fire rated enclosure are mandatory. Public Input No. 31 NFPA 101A 2016 [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 14 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Kowalenko, Henry Morris, Scott P. Valentine, Victoria B. Affirmative All Beebe, Chad E. Biller, Justin B. Page 54 of /65

56 Carson, Wayne G. Chip Crowley, Michael A. Edwards, Michael L. Elvove, Joshua W. Humble, Jonathan Koffel, William E. Larrimer, Peter A. Szachnowicz, Aleksy L. Versteeg, Joseph H. Page 55 of /65

57 First Revision No. 14 NFPA 101A 2016 [ Section No. 7.1 ] 7.1 Introduction General This chapter is part of an NFPA guide and, therefore, is not mandatory. The term shall in this chapter is used to indicate that if the provisions of the chapter are applied, the procedures mandated are to be followed to ensure the effectiveness of the evaluation system Chapter 33 (NFPA 101) defines three levels of evacuation capability for residents (with staff assistance): prompt, slow, and impractical. Chapter 33 (NFPA 101) also prescribes the fire safety protection requirements for each level of evacuation capability. This chapter describes a procedure for determining whether a combination of fire safety features in a board and care facility provides a level of safety equivalent to that provided by explicit conformance to Chapters 32 and 33 (NFPA 101). The definition of evacuation capability is given in Section 3.3 (NFPA 101), and one procedure for determining evacuation capability is presented in Chapter 6 of this document Subsystems are provided as follows: (1) Section 7.2 Evaluating the fire safety protection in a small facility (2) Section 7.4 Evaluating the fire safety protection in a large facility (3) Section 7.6 Evaluating the suitability of an apartment building to house a board and care occupancy Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Gregory Harrington Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Aug 16 15:50:29 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: The FR is for consistency with the remainder of the document. Response Message: Public Input No. 43 NFPA 101A 2016 [Section No. 7.1] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 14 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned Page 56 of /65

58 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Kowalenko, Henry Morris, Scott P. Valentine, Victoria B. Affirmative All Beebe, Chad E. Biller, Justin B. Carson, Wayne G. Chip Crowley, Michael A. Edwards, Michael L. Elvove, Joshua W. Humble, Jonathan Koffel, William E. Larrimer, Peter A. Szachnowicz, Aleksy L. Versteeg, Joseph H. Page 57 of /65

59 Sections] ] First Revision No. 15 NFPA 101A 2016 [ Section No. 7.5 [Excluding any Sub Page 58 of /65

60 A large facility normally is one that has a capacity for more than 16 residents. For each such facility to be evaluated, the seven step process in Figure 7.5 should be followed when evaluating fire safety. Figure 7.5 Worksheets for Evaluating Fire Safety in a Large Facility. DELETED Page 59 of /65