Public Comment No. 160-NFPA [ Global Input ] Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment. Submitter Information Verification

Transcription

1 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 160-NFPA [ Global Input ] After reviewing the CI on grab bars - ASHE/AHA does not agree that grab bars for new and existing for fall protection are appropriate for healthcare occupancies where the bather is typically attended. There is nothing that prevents hospitals from installing them if they feel there is a risk to their patient. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment this provision is unnecessary in the hospital or nursing home environment. bathing in hospitals and NH continues on a downward trend and those that do need to bath it is done at the bed or with an attendant. Related Item Committee Input No NFPA [Section No ] Committee Input No NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Chad Beebe Organization: ASHE - AHA Submittal Date: Fri May 13 11:58:46 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: No action - grab bar provisions not added to health care or ambulatory health care occupancy chapters.

2 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 196-NFPA [ Global Input ] The Ambulatory Surgery Center Association (ASCA) questions the necessity of the proposal in the 2018 edition of NFPA 101, found at , that would require grab bars on all Bathtubs, Bathtub-Shower Combinations and Showers. This is beyond ADA requirements, and grab bars for new and existing facilities for fall protection are not appropriate for healthcare occupancies where the bather is typically attended. For ASCs, patients do not bath or shower, and staff rarely do. The hardware would serve no practical purpose and provide no tangible benefit. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment Deleting this proposed language would save ASCs the cost of purchasing hardware that serves no practical purpose and provide no tangible benefit for ASCs. Related Item Committee Input No NFPA [Section No ] Committee Input No NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Kara Newbury Organization: Ambulatory Surgery Center Association Submittal Date: Mon May 16 11:07:34 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: No action - grab bar provisions not added to health care or ambulatory health care occupancy chapters.

3 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 181-NFPA [ New Section after ] TITLE OF NEW CONTENT Type your content here... Add new reference standard in Chapter 2, Section 2.3.2: ANSI/RESNA ED-1 Evacuation Devices Volume 1: Emergency Stair Travel Devices for Individuals with Disabilities,2013 Statement: This Public Comment is a re-introduction of Public Input No. 413-NFPA (Section 2.3.2). A separate Public Comment has been submitted at this time (182), addressing concerns of the committee regarding Public Input No. 414-NFPA This proposed revision would create the need for the abovementioned standard to be present in Section ANSI/RESNA ED-1 : 2013 is an American National Standard which introduces performance measures for emergency stair travel devices. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment Introduces an ANSI standard that is referenced by another suggested revision (182). Related Item Public Input No. 413-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 414-NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: Glenn Hedman Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago Submittal Date: Sun May 15 21:02:02 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: Related revision was not accepted by SAF-MEA.

4 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 119-NFPA [ Section No ]

5 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM ASTM Publications. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA ASTM C1629/C1629M, Standard Classification for Abuse-Resistant Nondecorated Interior Gypsum Panel Products and Fiber- Reinforced Cement Panels, 2014a. ASTM D1929, Standard Test Method for Determining Ignition Temperatures of Plastic, ASTM D2859, Standard Test Method for Ignition Characteristics of Finished Textile Floor Covering Materials, 2006 (2011) ASTM D2898, Standard Test Methods for Accelerated Weathering of Fire-Retardant-Treated Wood for Fire Testing, ASTM D3201, Standard Test Method for Hygroscopic Properties of Fire-Retardant-Wood and Wood-Based Products, 2008ae1. ASTM D5516, Standard Test Method for Evaluating the Flexural Properties of Fire-Retardant-Treated Softwood Plywood Exposed to Elevated Temperatures, ASTM D5664, Standard Test Method for Evaluating the Effects of Fire-Retardant Treatments and Elevated Temperatures on Strength Properties of Fire-Retardant-Treated Lumber, ASTM D6305, Standard Practice for Calculating Bending Strength Design Adjustment Factors for Fire-Retardant-Treated Plywood Roof Sheathing, ASTM D6841, Standard Practice for Calculating Design Value Treatment Adjustment Factors for Fire-Retardant-Treated Lumber, ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, 2015a 2015b. ASTM E108, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Roof Coverings, ASTM E119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, ASTM E136, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750 Degrees C, ASTM E648, Standard Test Method for Critical Radiant Flux of Floor Covering Systems Using a Radiant Heat Energy Source, 2014c 2015 e1. ASTM E814, Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Through-Penetration Fire Stops, 2013a. ASTM E1354, Standard Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products Using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter, 2015a ASTM E1537, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Upholstered Furniture, ASTM E1590, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Mattresses, ASTM E1591, Standard Guide for Obtaining Data for Deterministic Fire Models, ASTM E1966, Standard Test Method for Fire-Resistive Joint Systems, 2007 (2011) ASTM E2072, Standard Specification for Photoluminescent (Phosphorescent) Safety Markings, ASTM E2073, Standard Test Method for Photopic Luminance of Photoluminescent (Phosphorescent) Markings, ASTM E2307, Standard Test Method for Determining Fire Resistance of Perimeter Fire Barriers Using Intermediate-Scale, Multi-Story Test Apparatus, 2015a. ASTM E2404, Standard Practice for Specimen Preparation and Mounting of Textile, Paper or Polymeric (Including Vinyl) and Wood Wall or Ceiling Coverings, Facings and Veneers, to Assess Surface Burning Characteristics, 2015a. ASTM E2573, Standard Practice for Specimen Preparation and Mounting of Site-Fabricated Stretch Systems to Assess Surface Burning Characteristics, ASTM E2579, Standard Practice for Specimen Preparation and Mounting of Wood Products to Assess Surface Burning Characteristics, ASTM E2599, Standard Practice for Specimen Preparation and Mounting of Reflective Insulation, Radiant Barrier, and Vinyl Stretch Ceiling Materials for Building Applications to Assess Surface Burning Characteristics, ASTM E2652, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Tube Furnace with a Cone-shaped Airflow Stabilizer, at 750 Degrees C, ASTM E2768, Standard Test Method for Extended Duration Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials (30 min Tunnel Test), ASTM E2837, Standard Test Method for Determining the Fire Resistance of Continuity Head-of-Wall Joint Systems Installed Between Rated Wall Assemblies and Nonrated Horizontal Assemblies, ASTM F851, Standard Test Method for Self-Rising Seat Mechanisms, 1987 (2013). ASTM F1085, Standard Specification for Mattress and Box Springs for Use in Berths in Marine Vessels, ASTM F1577, Standard Test Methods for Detention Locks for Swinging Doors, 2005 (2012). ASTM G155, Standard Practice for Operating Xenon Arc Light Apparatus for Exposure of Non-Metallic Materials, Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment date updates Related Item

6 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Input No. 129-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler Organization: GBH International Submittal Date: Fri Apr 29 19:47:11 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Rejected but see related SR Resolution: SR-3012-NFPA Statement: The SR corrects several of the submitted updates.

7 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 195-NFPA [ New Section after 3.3 ] 3.3.X Deficiency. For the purposes of inspection, testing, and maintenance of water-based fire protection systems, a condition that will or has the potential to adversely impact the performance of a system or portion thereof but does not rise to the level of an impairment. [ 25, 2017] 3.3.X.X Critical Deficiency. A deficiency that, if not corrected, can have a material effect on the ability of the fire protection system or unit to function as intended in a fire event. [ 25, 2017] 3.3.X.X Noncritical Deficiency. A deficiency that does not have a material effect on the ability of the fire protection system or unit to function in a fire event, but correction is needed to meet the requirements of this standard or for the proper inspection, testing, and maintenance of the system or unit. [ 25, 2017] Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment Correlates to PC-193 and committee suggestions from the first draft to add definitions to NFPA 101, extracted from NFPA 25. Definitions of critical and non-critical deficiency along with impairments were added to NFPA 1 through FR135 and FR136. Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Public Comment No. 193-NFPA [New Section after ] Related Item Public Input No. 416-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Input No. 418-NFPA [Section No. 9.11] Relationship Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Hugo Organization: National Fire Sprinkler Associ Affilliation: NFSA Submittal Date: Mon May 16 10:56:03 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: PC 193 was not accepted and therefore these terms are not used within NFPA 101.

8 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 5-NFPA [ Section No ] Delayed Action Closer. Self-closing device that incorporates a delay prior to the initiation of closing. Mechanical self-closing device that incorporates an adjustable delay prior to the initiation of closing. (SAF-MEA) Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 101_CCN_1.pdf 101 CC Note #1 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment NOTE: This Public Comment appreared as CC Note No. 1 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Means of Egress (MEA) to consider the Affirmative with Comment ballots of Pappas and Tierney to revise the definition by combining the two sentences to read as follows: Delayed Action Closer. Mechanical self-closing device that incorporates an adjustable delay prior to the initiation of closing. (SAF-MEA) This action will be considered as a public comment. Related Item Correlating Committee Note No. 1-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: CC ON SAF_AAC Organization: NFPA CC ON SAFETY TO LIFE Submittal Date: Wed Mar 02 14:41:06 EST 2016 Committee Statement Committee Accepted Action: Resolution: SR-5006-NFPA Statement: NOTE: This Public Comment appreared as CC Note No. 1 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Means of Egress (MEA) to consider the Affirmative with Comment ballots of Pappas and Tierney to revise the definition by combining the two sentences to read as follows: Delayed Action Closer. Mechanical self-closing device that incorporates an adjustable delay prior to the initiation of closing. (SAF-MEA) This action will be considered as a public comment.

9 1 of 1 3/2/ :00 PM Correlating Committee Note No. 1-NFPA [ Section No ] Submitter Full Name: SAF-AAC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Jan 08 07:22:45 EST 2016 Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Means of Egress (MEA) to consider the Affirmative with Comment ballots of Pappas and Tierney to revise the definition by combining the two sentences to read as follows: Delayed Action Closer. Mechanical self-closing device that incorporates an adjustable delay prior to the initiation of closing. (SAF-MEA) This action will be considered as a public comment. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 11 Eligible Voters 0 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Affirmative All Bush, Kenneth E. Hopper, Howard Hrustich, Stephen Hugo, Jeffrey M. Kalie, Jr., J. Edmund Koffel, William E. Pauls, Jake Quiter, James R. Reiswig, Rodger Reynolds, Ronald C. Rosenbaum, Eric R.

10 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 208-NFPA [ Section No ] Multipurpose Assembly Occupancy. See Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment We acknowledge the committee response that "Student Residence Facility" is not yet define because it is not used at least once elsewhere in NFPA 101; though we have proposed it in Section Those of us on the front line of student living arrangements need to identify the special risk profiles of these types of facilities; presented routinely the NFPA 101 committees. The concept will presented again, in parallel with a correlating safety concept here, in the International Building Code and/or in other consensus standards that compete with NFPA 101 or adopt variants of it. Related Item Public Input No. 434-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Input No. 395-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Michael Anthony Organization: University of Michigan Affilliation: University of Michigan Submittal Date: Mon May 16 14:49:46 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Resolution: Rejected The comment lacks any revision. The term is not used in the code therefore no definition is needed. No technical substantiation was provided to support any revision.

11 0 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 199-NFPA [ Section No ] 4.1.3* Hazardous Materials Emergencies. An additional goal is to provide reasonable life safety during emergency events involving hazardous materials regulated by NFPA 30, NFPA 45, NFPA 54, NFPA 55, NFPA 58, NFPA 400, and NFPA Buildings with occupants at high risk for falls shall be designed, constructed and maintained to reduce the probability of injury, including death, to occupants from falls during normal use of means of egress as well as during emergency use. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment This is one of those concepts which is intuitive and common sense at first review but upon further meditation would lead to the question: Should we expect the scope of NFPA 101 to soon require occupants to wear head protection? Our concern is for the additional cost which cannot be correlated with proportional benefit in, for example, student residence facilities. In the safety space, every safety expert has their special hazard, frequently without regard for the 999 other hazards that exist in the built environment. Only the user/owner/final fiduciary has to reconcile the good intentions of safety experts with the economic risk that the organization, with 100% conformity to the 1000 s of standards of care,cannot remain in business. The proposal, while well-meaning and justified is just another one of the 1000 s of fractional percentage costs that accumulate every year. The modification that we propose is one that permits a distinction between an elderly residence, a college dormitory, and other risk profiles in between. Related Item Public Input No. 380-NFPA [New Section after 4.1.3] Submitter Full Name: Michael Anthony Organization: University of Michigan Plant Operations Submittal Date: Mon May 16 11:58:49 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Resolution: Rejected The language as stated is permissive and unenforceable; designers are unable to comply with permissive requirements. There is no need for the proposed language because the term 'occupants with high risk' is not defined.

12 1 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 6-NFPA [ Section No ] 4.2.3* Hazardous Materials Emergencies Protection. Fundamental safeguards shall be provided to reasonably prevent or mitigate events involving hazardous materials as addressed in to allow the time needed to evacuate, relocate, or defend in place occupants who are not intimate with the initial emergency incident. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 101_CCN_2.pdf 101 CC NOTE #2 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 2 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Fundamentals (FUN) to revise the reference embedded within from to This action will be considered as a public comment. Related Item Correlating Committee Note No. 2-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: CC ON SAF_AAC Organization: NFPA CC ON SAFETY TO LIFE Submittal Date: Wed Mar 02 14:50:08 EST 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Resolution: Statement: Accepted NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 2 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Fundamentals (FUN) to revise the reference embedded within from to This action will be considered as a public comment.

13 1 of 1 3/2/ :04 PM Correlating Committee Note No. 2-NFPA [ Section No ] Submitter Full Name: SAF-AAC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Jan 08 07:27:45 EST 2016 Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: The Correlating Committee directs the TC on fundamentals (FUN) to revise the reference embedded within from to This action will be considered as a public comment. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 11 Eligible Voters 0 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Affirmative All Bush, Kenneth E. Hopper, Howard Hrustich, Stephen Hugo, Jeffrey M. Kalie, Jr., J. Edmund Koffel, William E. Pauls, Jake Quiter, James R. Reiswig, Rodger Reynolds, Ronald C. Rosenbaum, Eric R.

14 2 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 132-NFPA [ Section No ] * Limited-Combustible Material. A material shall be considered a limited-combustible material where all the conditions of and , and the conditions of either or , are met The material shall not comply with the requirements for noncombustible material in accordance with The material, in the form in which it is used, shall exhibit a potential heat value not exceeding 3500 Btu/lb (8141 kj/kg) where tested in accordance with NFPA The material shall have the structural base of a noncombustible material with a surfacing not exceeding a thickness of 1 8 in. (3.2 mm) where the surfacing exhibits a flame spread index not greater than 50 when tested in accordance with ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, or ANSI/UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials The material shall be composed of materials that, in the form and thickness used, neither exhibit a flame spread index greater than 25 nor evidence of continued progressive combustion when tested in accordance with ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, or ANSI/UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, and shall be of such composition that all surfaces that would be exposed by cutting through the material on any plane would neither exhibit a flame spread index greater than 25 nor exhibit evidence of continued progressive combustion when tested in accordance with ASTM E84 or ANSI/UL An alternate approach for a material to be considered a limited combustible material is where the material is tested in accordance with ASTM E2965, Standard Test for Determination of Low Levels of Heat Release Rate for Materials and Products Using an Oxygen Combustion Calorimeter at an incident heat flux of 75 kw/m 2 for a 20 minute exposure and: (a) the peak heat relase rate does not exceed 150 kw/m 2 for longer than 10 seconds and (b) the total heat released does not exceed 8 MJ/m Where the term limited-combustible is used in this Code, it shall also include the term noncombustible. (Also, add ASTM E2965, Standard Test for Determination of Low Levels of Heat Release Rate for Materials and Products Using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter, 2016, into chapter 2 on referenced ASTM standards) Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved Tables_showing_test_results.docx Test results from Urbas 2002 Tables_showing_test_results_Janssens.docx Test results from Carpenter & Janssens NFPA_101_PI_189_MMH_limited_combustible.pdf Original public input Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment The technical committee has stated that it would like to see more data and would perhaps consider a lower heat release rate threshold once it understands what the criteria are based on. I attach information on tests conducted on a variety of materials with the equipment (and with slight variations in testing which will not make a significant difference for limited combustible materials). The proposed test (ASTM E2965) is a variation of the cone calorimeter (ASTM E1354) with a much larger test specimen (150 mm x 150 mm instead of 100 mm x 100 mm), a larger radiant heat source and a slower duct flow rate. This test has been developed specifically to identify materials that are of very low levels of heat release. If a material has very low levels of heat release it will have very low levels of combustibility. The scope of ASTM E2965 includes the following: "This test method differs from ASTM E1354 in that it prescribes a different specific test specimen size, specimen holder, test specimen orientation, and volumetric flow rate for analyses via oxygen consumption calorimetry. It is intended for use on materials and products that contain only small amounts of combustible ingredients or components e.g. test specimens that yield a total heat release of less than 15 MJ/m2." The significance and use states as follows: "This test method is used primarily to determine the heat evolved in, or contributed to, a fire involving materials or products that emit low levels of heat release. The recommended use for this test method is for materials with a total heat release rate measured of less than 10 MJ over the first 20 min test period, and which do not give peak heat release rates of more than 200kW/m2 for periods extending more than 10 seconds. Also included is a determination of the effective heat of combustion, mass loss rate, the time to sustained flaming, and (optionally) smoke

15 3 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM production. These properties are determined on small size test specimens that are representative of those in the intended end use. " In this public comment I also propose a lower threshold, of 150 kw/m2, as this would be the first cycle where the proposed approach would be used. I don't want to repeat all the information provided earlier, during the public input, as this information is clearly already available to the committee. Please note that this is not intended to replace the NFPA 259 test for the assessment of limited combustibility but is an alternate approach and will, thus, have no influence on any material or product assessed in the traditional way in the past. Information in terms of the abstract from a study made with the cone calorimeter before developing ASTM E2965 by J. Urbas (2002) and from a follow-up study by M. Janssens and K. Carpenter (2005) follows. Attached tables from Urbas indicate that (out of 16 materials assessed) 1 material would qualify easily under the criteria shown, namely SPRF (sprayed fire resistant material on non-combustible backing), and that 5/8" Type X Gypsum Board would most likely qualify (in 3 out of 4 labs) while several other materials would fail primarily on total heat released (the most severe property). On the other hand paper-faced glass wool would fail on peak heat release rate and not on total heat released. Attached tables from Carpenter & Janssens (one of the labs used by the Urbas study) indicates similar types of results as above. This shows that the criteria used are consistent with what would happen for limited combustible materials under the present criteria and that nothing unacceptable would "sneak" in. The data in the attached tables was taken at exposures to 75 kw/m2 for 20 min, just like the proposed new criteria. BDMC interlaboratory cone calorimeter test programme by Joe Urbas (Fire Mater. 2002; 26: 29 35) Abstract: In the spring of 1997, seven companies and industry associations from the USA and Canada decided to sponsor the cone calorimeter interlaboratory test programme. Reproducibility and repeatability were determined for the scalar variables measured in the cone calorimeter (ASTM E1354) according to the protocol developed by the Board for the Coordination of the Model Codes. The main requirement of the protocol was that the sample irradiance should be 75kW/m2. The purpose of the project was to assist the model building code organizations, NFPA and various other groups in the development of a system to determine degrees of combustibility of building materials. Three US and one Canadian laboratory agreed to conduct tests on 16 materials. The results of this round robin show that the cone calorimeter, following the Board for the Coordination of the Model Codes protocol, can provide precision similar to that cited in the current cone calorimeter standards. It is recommended that further improvements of the standards are pursued and provisions are made to improve the quality of operation of the cone calorimeter in commercial laboratories to maintain and possibly improve its repeatability and reproducibility. Using Heat Release Rate to Assess Combustibility of Building Products in the Cone Calorimeter by Karen Carpenter and Marc Janssens (Fire Technology , 2005) Abstract: Building codes generally permit unlimited use of materials that contribute negligible quantities of heat in the event of a fire. These materials are referred to as non-combustible. Whether a material qualifies as being non-combustible is generally based on performance in a small-scale furnace test, or on its potential heat content measured in an oxygen bomb calorimeter. However, furnace and oxygen bomb methods to assess combustibility have serious limitations. The most significant limitations are that materials cannot be evaluated in their end use configuration, that test conditions are not representative of real fire exposure conditions, and that the test results do not provide a realistic measure of the expected heat release rate. These limitations lead to the idea of exploring the use of small-scale heat release calorimeters to assess material combustibility. The Cone Calorimeter has emerged in recent years as the most widely used apparatus for this application. In this paper, an overview is presented of past efforts to assess combustibility based on heat release rate measurements. The main results of the most recent Cone Calorimeter round robin conducted in North America are discussed. It is concluded from the results of this round robin that the Cone Calorimeter is indeed suitable for measuring heat release rate from materials and products with low heat content. Limitations due to Cone Calorimeter specimen size can be alleviated by using a larger calorimeter, such as the Intermediate Scale Calorimeter or ICAL (ASTM E 1623.) However, more research is needed to extend the correlation between Cone Calorimeter and ICAL data to a wider range of materials. The biggest challenge is perhaps the implementation of a system to assess combustibility on the basis of heat release rate in the building codes. Implementation could consist of a classification system that is accepted as an alternative to the present prescriptive requirements and/or promoting the use of heat release rate data in performance-based design. Related Item Public Input No. 189-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler Organization: GBH International Submittal Date: Mon May 09 20:46:30 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR

16 4 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Action: Resolution: SR-3004-NFPA Statement: The technical committee has stated that it would like to see more data and would perhaps consider a lower heat release rate threshold once it understands what the criteria are based on. I attach information on tests conducted on a variety of materials with the equipment (and with slight variations in testing which will not make a significant difference for limited combustible materials). The proposed test (ASTM E2965) is a variation of the cone calorimeter (ASTM E1354) with a much larger test specimen (150 mm x 150 mm instead of 100 mm x 100 mm), a larger radiant heat source and a slower duct flow rate. This test has been developed specifically to identify materials that are of very low levels of heat release. If a material has very low levels of heat release it will have very low levels of combustibility. The scope of ASTM E2965 includes the following: "This test method differs from ASTM E1354 in that it prescribes a different specific test specimen size, specimen holder, test specimen orientation, and volumetric flow rate for analyses via oxygen consumption calorimetry. It is intended for use on materials and products that contain only small amounts of combustible ingredients or components e.g. test specimens that yield a total heat release of less than 15 MJ/m2." The significance and use states as follows: "This test method is used primarily to determine the heat evolved in, or contributed to, a fire involving materials or products that emit low levels of heat release. The recommended use for this test method is for materials with a total heat release rate measured of less than 10 MJ over the first 20 min test period, and which do not give peak heat release rates of more than 200kW/m2 for periods extending more than 10 seconds. Also included is a determination of the effective heat of combustion, mass loss rate, the time to sustained flaming, and (optionally) smoke production. These properties are determined on small size test specimens that are representative of those in the intended end use. " In this public comment I also propose a lower threshold, of 150 kw/m2, as this would be the first cycle where the proposed approach would be used. I don't want to repeat all the information provided earlier, during the public input, as this information is clearly already available to the committee. Please note that this is not intended to replace the NFPA 259 test for the assessment of limited combustibility but is an alternate approach and will, thus, have no influence on any material or product assessed in the traditional way in the past. Information in terms of the abstract from a study made with the cone calorimeter before developing ASTM E2965 by J. Urbas (2002) and from a follow-up study by M. Janssens and K. Carpenter (2005) follows. Attached tables from Urbas indicate that (out of 16 materials assessed) 1 material would qualify easily under the criteria shown, namely SPRF (sprayed fire resistant material on non-combustible backing), and that 5/8" Type X Gypsum Board would most likely qualify (in 3 out of 4 labs) while several other materials would fail primarily on total heat released (the most severe property). On the other hand paper-faced glass wool would fail on peak heat release rate and not on total heat released. Attached tables from Carpenter & Janssens (one of the labs used by the Urbas study) indicates similar types of results as above. This shows that the criteria used are consistent with what would happen for limited combustible materials under the present criteria and that nothing unacceptable would "sneak" in. The data in the attached tables was taken at exposures to 75 kw/m2 for 20 min, just like the proposed new criteria. BDMC interlaboratory cone calorimeter test programme by Joe Urbas (Fire Mater. 2002; 26: 29 35) Abstract: In the spring of 1997, seven companies and industry associations from the USA and Canada decided to sponsor the cone calorimeter interlaboratory test programme. Reproducibility and repeatability were determined for the scalar variables measured in the cone calorimeter (ASTM E1354) according to the protocol developed by the Board for the Coordination of the Model Codes. The main requirement of the protocol was that the sample irradiance should be 75kW/m2. The purpose of the project was to assist the model building code organizations, NFPA and various other groups in the development of a system to determine degrees of combustibility of building materials. Three US and one Canadian laboratory agreed to conduct tests on 16 materials. The results of this round robin show that the cone calorimeter, following the Board for the Coordination of the Model Codes protocol, can provide precision similar to that cited in the current cone calorimeter standards. It is recommended that further improvements of the standards are pursued and provisions are made to improve the quality of operation of the cone calorimeter in commercial laboratories to maintain and possibly improve its repeatability and reproducibility. Using Heat Release Rate to Assess Combustibility of Building Products in the Cone Calorimeter by Karen Carpenter and Marc Janssens (Fire Technology , 2005) Abstract: Building codes generally permit unlimited use of materials that contribute negligible quantities of heat in the event of a fire. These materials are referred to as non-combustible. Whether a material qualifies as being non-combustible is generally based on performance in a small-scale furnace test, or on its potential heat content measured in an oxygen bomb calorimeter. However, furnace and oxygen bomb methods to assess combustibility have serious limitations. The most significant limitations are that materials cannot be evaluated in their end use configuration, that test conditions are not representative of real fire exposure conditions, and that the test results do not provide a realistic measure of the expected heat release rate. These limitations lead to the idea of exploring the use of small-scale heat release calorimeters to assess material combustibility. The Cone Calorimeter has emerged in recent years as the most widely used apparatus for this application.

17 5 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM In this paper, an overview is presented of past efforts to assess combustibility based on heat release rate measurements. The main results of the most recent Cone Calorimeter round robin conducted in North America are discussed. It is concluded from the results of this round robin that the Cone Calorimeter is indeed suitable for measuring heat release rate from materials and products with low heat content. Limitations due to Cone Calorimeter specimen size can be alleviated by using a larger calorimeter, such as the Intermediate Scale Calorimeter or ICAL (ASTM E 1623.) However, more research is needed to extend the correlation between Cone Calorimeter and ICAL data to a wider range of materials. The biggest challenge is perhaps the implementation of a system to assess combustibility on the basis of heat release rate in the building codes. Implementation could consist of a classification system that is accepted as an alternative to the present prescriptive requirements and/or promoting the use of heat release rate data in performance-based design. The SR editorially revises PC-132 for consistency with NFPA 101 formatting.

18 1 of 5 5/9/2016 6:01 PM Public Input No. 189-NFPA [ Section No ] * Limited-Combustible Material. A material shall be considered a limited-combustible material where all the conditions of and , and the conditions of either or , are met The material shall not comply with the requirements for noncombustible material in accordance with The material, in the form in which it is used, shall exhibit a potential heat value not exceeding 3500 Btu/lb (8141 kj/kg) where tested in accordance with NFPA 259, Standard Test Method for Potential Heat of Building Materials The material shall have the structural base of a noncombustible material with a surfacing not exceeding a thickness of 1 8 in. (3.2 mm) where the surfacing exhibits a flame spread index not greater than 50 when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, or ANSI/UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials The material shall be composed of materials that, in the form and thickness used, neither exhibit a flame spread index greater than 25 nor evidence of continued progressive combustion when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, or ANSI/UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, and shall be of such composition that all surfaces that would be exposed by cutting through the material on any plane would neither exhibit a flame spread index greater than 25 nor exhibit evidence of continued progressive combustion when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or ANSI/UL An alternate approach for a material to be considered a limited combustible material is where the material is tested in accordance with ASTM E2965, Standard Test Method for Determination of Low Levels of Heat Release Rate for Materials and Products Using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter at an incident heat flux of 75 kw/m 2 for a 20 minute exposure and: (a) the peak heat release rate does not exceed 200 kw/m 2 for longer than 10 seconds and (b) the total heat released does not exceed 8 MJ/m Where the term limited-combustible is used in this Code, it shall also include the term noncombustible. (also, add ASTM E2965, Standard Test Method for Determination of Low Levels of Heat Release Rate for Materials and Products Using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter, 2015, into section on ASTM publications) Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved Large_cone_main_paper_Gregory_et_al_Interflam.pdf Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input Reference to the work conducted to develop the test method. For many years there have been debates about using modern technology to assess whether a material provides very little added fire hazard compared to a non-combustible material. The technology used in NFPA 101 and in NFPA 5000 is based on NFPA 259 and ASTM E84, both venerable tests of 1950s vintage. Task Group E first met in December of 1987 at the ASTM E05 meeting in Bar Harbor, FL. The Task Group

19 2 of 5 5/9/2016 6:01 PM was charged with the development of an ASTM standard test method to measure degrees of combustibility based on heat release rate. The history of the development of that work is presented below. 1. The idea to use small-scale heat release rate data as a measure of the combustibility of a product was first proposed by Prof. Ed Smith at Ohio State University. This effort later resulted in the development of the Ohio State University (OSU) calorimeter (standardized as ASTM E906 and used by the FAA for regulatory purposes of large surfaces in aircraft).. 2. The first attempt at developing a standard describing a method to measure combustibility of products on the basis of heat release rate was made in Canada. Task Group No. 22 of the Underwriters Laboratories of Canada (ULC) Committee on Fire Tests was formed in 1980 to develop a test method to evaluate building products in terms of degrees of combustibility. Initially, the ULC Task Group considered modifying the standard test method for noncombustibility of building products (CAN/ULC-S114) to obtain quantitative measurements suitable for ranking products in terms of degrees of combustibility. Attempts were made to rank products on the basis of maximum temperature rise and the area under the temperature-time curves. After a series of round-robin tests, it was the consensus of the Task Group that the non-combustibility furnace was not suitable. This was consistent with the results of a study conducted in Finland which concluded that there is no consistency between the temperature rise measurements in the ISO 1182 non-combustibility furnace and heat release rate measured on the basis of oxygen consumption. In addition, the Task Group considered the CAN/ULC-S114 method to be somewhat limited for the following reasons: a. A quantitative measurement is preferable to a pass/fail type test; b. Heating of one surface of a specimen is preferable to heating of a block of material; and c. The CAN/ULC-S114 test is limited to elementary building materials, and a test method applicable to composite products is preferable. 3. Work was done at the National Research Council of Canada (NRCC) to explore the use of the OSU calorimeter for measuring degrees of combustibility. The OSU apparatus at NRCC was equipped with oxygen consumption instrumentation, and the airflow through the apparatus was reduced to half the flow prescribed in the ASTM E 906 and FAA versions of the test method to increase accuracy and sensitivity of the heat release rate measurements. Four products were tested with heat release rates ranging from 8 to 300 kw/m². 4. Around the same time, Forintek Canada Corporation explored the use of the Cone Calorimeter for measuring degrees of combustibility. Seventeen different products were tested in the horizontal and vertical orientation at 40 and 50 kw/m². The lower heat flux level was chosen to obtain results that could be compared to the modified OSU data from the NRCC study. The higher heat flux level was chosen to be comparable to the irradiance in the CAN/ULC-S114 test, since 50 kw/m² is equal to the radiative heat flux from a blackbody source at 700 C. 5. The work of the ULC Task Group resulted in a new standard test method CAN/ULC-S135, Standard Method for Determination of Degrees of Combustibility of Building Materials Using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter (Cone Calorimeter). The standard was published in 1992, and was largely based on the research conducted at Forintek. The method described in CAN/ULC-S135 is nearly identical to that in ASTM E 1354, except for the following important modifications: a. A different specimen holder is used so that the bottom and the sides of the specimen are insulated with ceramic fiber blanket; b. The test duration is fixed at 15 min; c. Mass loss measurements are optional; and d. Smoke obscuration measurements are not included. Products are tested in triplicate, in the horizontal orientation, at a heat flux of 50 kw/m², and with the spark igniter. Several proposals have been published for a classification system based on CAN/ULC-S135 test performance and its incorporation into the building codes. Chen et al., in Taiwan, evaluated 18 products in the Cone Calorimeter according to the test procedure in CAN/ULC S135, but with the horizontal specimen holder specified in ASTM E The results from this study were consistent with earlier work at Forintek, and qualitative agreement was found between CNS 6532 (equivalent to JIS 1321) and the classification system proposed by Richardson and Brooks. 6. In October 1992, the Board for the Coordination of the Model Codes (BCMC) formed a Task Group to work on new definitions for the terms Non-Combustible, Limited Combustible, and Combustible. Following general discussions of the issue over the first year after its formation, the BCMC Combustibility Task Group decided to pursue the ' development of a system of "degrees of combustibility" akin to a proposal under consideration in Canada based on results obtained from Cone Calorimeter tests performed according to CAN/ULC S At the March 1994 BCMC Task Group meeting, it was decided to use the Cone Calorimeter as described in ASTM E A Subcommittee was formed to look at the details of the test procedure and formulate a proposal. The Subcommittee met in April 1994, and presented its report at the Task Group meeting in June The Subcommittee

20 3 of 5 5/9/2016 6:01 PM recommended the BCMC test protocol call for a. An irradiance level of 75 kw/m2; b. Testing in the horizontal orientation; c. Mandatory use of the retainer frame described in ASTM E 1354; d. Use of the spark plug ignition pilot; e. Measurements every two seconds; f. A fixed test duration of 15 minutes; and g. Other test and reporting details as in ASTM E The BCMC protocol is significantly different from that described in CAN/ULC Most of the deviations from the Canadian standard were motivated by NIST recommendations made a few years earlier. After lengthy discussion, the Task Group accepted the proposed protocol and disbanded the Subcommittee. 8. Subsequently, a new Subcommittee was formed to develop a database of Cone Calorimeter measurements obtained under test conditions comparable to those specified by the BCMC protocol. In addition, the Subcommittee was instructed to determine feasibility of the development of a classification system of four or five degrees of combustibility on the basis of the database. The Subcommittee collected Cone Calorimeter data obtained at 75 kw/m2 in the horizontal orientation for 111 products, and organized the data in tabular form and in bar charts. Most of the data were obtained at NIST. Strictly speaking, none of these tests were conducted according to the BCMC protocol, since all tests were run with a five second interval between measurements. However, the reduction from five to two seconds only results in better precision of the maximum heat release rate. The retainer frame was used for less than 10 percent of the tests in the database. Research has shown that the heat sink effect of the frame can be accounted for by reducing heat release rate data obtained without the frame by approximately 6 percent [10-11]. Therefore, it was agreed that the test conditions were close enough to those prescribed by the BCMC protocol so that valid conclusions could be reached concerning the feasibility question. 9. The Subcommittee analyzed the data in detail at a meeting in April It was concluded that there are sufficient Cone Calorimeter data so that a classification system for degrees of combustibility can be developed. Proposed class limits were based on two limiting values; total heat release, and the maximum of a one-minute sliding average heat release rate. Some Subcommittee members questioned whether the precision of the Cone Calorimeter is sufficient to justify regulatory use of the test method. The concern was based on poor reproducibility estimated from a recent Cone Calorimeter round robin conducted under the auspices of the ASTM Institute for Standards Research (ISR). In addition, significant discrepancies were found between two laboratories in the U.S. for identical gypsum board specimens tested under the same conditions. The Subcommittee also identified the need to quantify the effect of the retainer frame more precisely. 10. The Subcommittee presented its findings to the Task Group at a meeting in June, The Task Group instructed the Subcommittee to organize a Cone Calorimeter round robin with the purpose of determining the precision of the instrument specifically for the BCMC test protocol. The Subcommittee was asked to focus on the commercial testing laboratories in North America, and to present a detailed plan (products, participating laboratories, time schedule, etc.) at the next BCMC Task Group meeting in October, The Task Group formed a new Subcommittee to develop a strategy for implementation of a system for degrees of combustibility in the model codes. Unfortunately, BCMC was disbanded shortly after the October 1995 meeting, resulting in an unclear future for the test project. However, at the same time the Board for the Development of a Model Code (BDMC) was formed by the International Code Council (ICC) to pick up many of the activities of the Council of American Building Officials (CABO), including those of the BCMC. The BDMC decided to maintain the BCMC activities in the area of combustibility. In a memorandum to interested parties from the BDMC secretariat dated May 29, 1996 it was stated that... The round robin tests are required to document test results and address the repeatability and reproducibility issue of the test method. Conducting the round robin tests in accordance with the BDMC protocol and analyzing the data is pertinent to this project. Until financial support or other means are obtained to proceed with the round robin tests in accordance with the BDMC protocol, no time frame for completion by the task group can be established and therefore, there can be no further activity on this BDMC agenda item. 11 In April, 1996 the NFPA Fire Tests Committee discussed a proposal describing the use of the Cone Calorimeter for determining degrees of combustibility of products according to the protocol developed by the BCMC. After lengthy discussion, the Committee voted on a motion to support the proposal. The outcome was undecided, and a Task Group was formed to review the issue and to make a recommendation to the Committee at its next meeting in October Since no new information had been obtained since the BCMC was disbanded, the NFPA Task Group reached the same conclusion as the BCMC Combustibility Task Group did one year earlier, i.e., that there is a need for a series of interlaboratory tests to determine the precision of the test method for this application.

21 4 of 5 5/9/2016 6:01 PM 12. In the spring of 1997 the Pacific Fire Laboratory (PFL) took the initiative to prepare a proposal for the round robin to prospective sponsors. The following seven organizations joined the project: American Forest & Paper Association, Armstrong World Industries, Inc., Atlas Electric Devices Company, Canadian Wood Council, Cellulose Insulation Manufacturers Association, W.R. Grace & Company, and Wilsonart International Inc. Representatives of sponsors and four participating commercial laboratories together with Dr. Joe Urbas, the project coordinator, formed the Cone Calorimeter Round Robin Consortium (Consortium) to organize the project. The Consortium defined the scope of the project, selected the products to be tested, confirmed the participating laboratories, defined the calibration procedure, and confirmed the test protocol. according to the protocol developed by the Board for the Coordination of the Model Codes (BCMC). All laboratories first performed extensive calibrations of their equipment, and conducted preliminary tests on two reference products (black PMMA with a relatively high heat release output and mineral ceiling board with a relatively low heat release output). The calibration and reference test data were used to correct minor discrepancies and inconsistencies prior to the round robin tests. Sixteen building products covering a wide range of heat release rates were tested in triplicate by each laboratory according to the BCMC protocol. All testing was completed by the summer of 1998, and it took approximately 18 months to analyze and review the data and to finalize the report. The sponsors finally released the report in the spring of The precision data presented in the report are comparable to those obtained in earlier round robins as reported in the ISO, ASTM, and other Cone Calorimeter standards, and are valid for a wider range of heat release rates [13]. 13. Over the years since its inception the ASTM Task Group E continuously monitored activities pertinent to the use of the Cone Calorimeter for measuring degrees of combustibility of products. A first draft based on the BCMC protocol was distributed at the New Orleans Task Group meeting in December Legislation was introduced into several countries, including Canada, Japan and Taiwan, to regulate "quasi non combustible materials" using the cone calorimeter (ASTM E1354 or ISO 5660). A concern that was expressed frequently was that the errors were similar in order of magnitude to the measurements needed. 15. Work was initiated in ISO TC92 SC1 to develop a variation of the cone calorimeter, ISO , that could be used for such low heat release measurements. 16. It was later discovered that a larger cone heater and a larger test specimen were needed in order to get the variability of the measurement to become significantly smaller than the required measured values. Other concerns were related to drift of the signal and noise. Work was conducted in England by Sean Gregory et al. (manuscript attached) to solve these problems.this concept was first introduced into ASTM in 2011 and balloted at that time. Several subsequent ballots followed, refining the procedure, with special emphasis on issues such as flow rate and capturing the entirety of the smoke emitted, which required a larger hood. 17. A successful ballot was completed earlier this year and standard E2965, Standard Test Method for Determination of Low Levels of Heat Release Rate for Materials and Products Using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter, has been approved, 18. The criteria proposed are based on the Japanese criteria, with a higher incident heat flux (75 kw/m2 instead of 50 kw/m2) so that any materials that would meet the requirements would contain almost no combustible content. Submitter Full Name: MARCELO HIRSCHLER Organization: GBH INTERNATIONAL Submittal Date: Wed Jun 24 20:00:22 EDT 2015 Committee Statement Resolution: The 200 kw/m2 value is not explained or substantiated. What are the appropriate value and units? The

22 5 of 5 5/9/2016 6:01 PM NFPA 101 SAF-FUN committee is aware that the NFPA 5000 BLD-BLC committee made the requested change for NFPA The committee suggests that the submitter come back, via Public Comment, explaining what the 200 kw/m2 value. Copyright Assignment I, MARCELO HIRSCHLER, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and Substantiation). I understand and intend that I acquire no rights, including rights as a joint author, in any publication of the NFPA in which this Public Input in this or another similar or derivative form is used. I hereby warrant that I am the author of this Public Input and that I have full power and authority to enter into this copyright assignment. By checking this box I affirm that I am MARCELO HIRSCHLER, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms and conditions contained therein. I understand and intend that, by checking this box, I am creating an electronic signature that will, upon my submission of this form, have the same legal force and effect as a handwritten signature

23 USE OF THE CONE CALORIMETER FOR TESTING MATERIALS WITH LOW HEAT RELEASE RATES Sean Gregory, A Green, S Pasantes Fire Testing Technology Ltd, S Grayson, S Kumar, Interscience Communications Ltd, UK ABSTRACT The ISO and ASTM E cone calorimeter developed by Babrauskas was designed to measure heat release from combustible materials such as wood plastics and building products. These typically have peak HRR of kw/m 2. The results were either used directly or as data for numerical models. Japan and Canada have already issued standards and regulate using heat release measurements based on Cone calorimeter data generated using protocol and apparatus similar to that outlined in ISO The Japanese usage of the ISO along with the performance limits (peak HRR must not exceed 200kW/m 2 and total HRR in 20 mins should not exceed 8 MJ/m 2 ) has shown that test protocol and apparatus specifications outlined in ISO 5660 can lead to within standard allowable errors that constitute a significant fraction of the allowable performance levels ISO 5660 analyser specification allows for 50ppm analyser drift and 50ppm noise, which could translate to 3-4 MJ errors. This would only amount to 0.3% on a typical 1000MJ/m 2 material but 40 50% of the 8MJ/m 2 required by Japanese regulations In our study reported in we identified need for improvement measurement by: Reducing analyser noise and drift by specifying a lower performance requirement Tighten laboratory practice to remove interfering influences Increasing the oxygen depletion levels This paper identifies improvement areas in all of the above but most specifically addresses the topic of increasing oxygen depletion levels. One major advance is facilitated by use of a larger cone heater in the apparatus which gives a uniform heat flux over the whole surface area of a much larger (150 x 150mm specimen). ISO 5660 and ASTM require that the The irradiance shall be uniform within the central 50mm x 50mm area of the exposed specimen surface, to within ± 2%. The larger cone-shaped radiant electric heater gives a uniform irradiance across the whole of the a 150mm x 150mm sample to within 1.89%. Thermal mapping of the areas under the cone heater has shown that the whole zones are considerably more thermally uniform and that best baseplate specimen range for uniformity of heat flux across the specimen surface is approx. 60mm. This gives added advantage to this system when testing distorting or intumescing specimens as they can be more easily accommodated within this geometry whilst deforming The larger cone can be readily accommodated within the existing cone calorimeter geometries and constitutes a simple modification

24 INTRODUCTION Non-combustibility has traditionally been used in building regulations in several countries and this has been assessed using tests similar to EN ISO 1182: The heat of combustion as determined in bomb calorimetry, EN ISO 1716: has also been used. The exposure conditions in the Non-combustibility test and in the bomb calorimeter are both unrealistic and not representative of what happens in a fire. Both tests use very small sample sizes and cannot accommodate complex (laminated) or painted specimens. Neither test takes into account the dynamic nature and growth of a fire hazard or measures the HRR. The limitations of these test methods have lead to the realization that in applications where a materials low level of combustibility is needed the parameter that should be measured is the HRR. The Cone Calorimeter is widely accepted as the most appropriate apparatus for this application. In the early 1990s, NIST (USA); BASF(Germany); and Forintek (Canada) performed a programme examining the HRR behaviour of an assortment of specimens, which were then known to be, or not to be, acceptable to building codes as non-combustible. The Forintek results 6 suggested that cone calorimeter testing at an irradiance of 50 kw/m 2 (horizontal) could rate products correctly. They used limits of peak q < 80kW/m 2 and a heat content < 8 MJ/m 2 Further work was done in 1997 led by Urbas and Janssens 7 found that the Cone Calorimeter was suitable for measuring heat release rate from materials and products with low heat content though none of the materials they investigated were classed as non-combustible by the more established tests. More recently the Cone Calorimeter has been accepted as a regulatory tool in Japan and Canada for assessing the limited combustibility of building materials based on heat release measurements. ISO/TC92/SC1/WG5 has started work developing a test method for limited combustibility which stalled because it utilised the larger product testing initially reported by Grayson 3 et al because the specimens were exposed to a none uniform heat flux exposure. This paper describes the subsequent development of a larger cone heater system which can be substituted within the ISO 5660/ ASTM 1354 system to overcome this shortfall and will allow low levels of heat release to be confidently measured at these levels. INHERENT NOISE AND DRIFT ISSUES AND THEIR EFFECT ON SIGNAL : NOISE RATIO The Japanese regulations requires that a Cone Calorimeter test be conducted at 50 kw/m 2 in accordance with ISO and that the peak HRR and THR be calculated at 5 minutes and/or 20 minutes exposure. The results at 5 minutes are for "low grade flammability materials" and the results at 20 minutes for "high grade flammability materials". The criteria limits of the test are that peak HRR must not exceed 200 kw/m 2 for longer than 10 seconds and THR must be less than 8 MJ/m 2 over 20 minutes from the start of the test. The analyser specifications outlined in ISO can lead to allowable errors that constitute a significant fraction of the allowable performance levels. Though laboratories with very good protocols and high sensitivity analysers can meet these standards others are struggling to do so. These errors are usually a function of the inherent noise and drift performance of the analysers. However, when working at this level of sensitivity, laboratory practise, testing protocols especially maintenance of desiccant procedures etc. need to be adhered to and/or modified to reduce drift in particular. We previously described 3 how the ISO oxygen analyser specification allows a drift of not more than 50 parts per million of oxygen over a period of 30 min, and a noise of not more than 50 parts per million of oxygen during this 30 min period and we explained and that analysers

25 operating at the limits of this performance would lead to errors in HRR measurement of 1.0 MJ/m 2 if the drift was linear, and up to, 3.2 MJ/m 2 under an extreme step change of 50ppm In addition to inherent analyser drift and noise levels, further drifting may occur from poor operational maintenance or poor testing protocols. METHODS OF IMPROVING THE RESOLUTION AND MEASUREMENT With so little margin between the performance requirements and the sensitivity of inherent errors in the ISO 5660 system there is need for significant improvement, both to the apparatus and the procedures used when measuring low heat release rates. These are specifically Reduction in analyser drift Reduction in analyser noise Improved laboratory practice Increasing the signal at the oxygen analyser (ie making the oxygen depletion bigger) Reducing Drift All analysers drift. This is a function of the analyser electronics, the gas sampling system, the sample gas itself, pressure (in the gas sample line and atmosphere), temperature etc. Analyser manufacturers are able to produce consistently lower drift analysers at a premium, i.e. temperature controlled and pressure compensated cells, which will bring them within the given tolerance but if the gas sampling system or the sample gas itself are not monitored the baseline oxygen concentration will eventually drift. Figure 1 : High performance ISO analyser Figure 1 shows a ISO compliant high performance oxygen analyser operating with a noise level of 10.7ppm and a drift of 15ppm. This could lead to a potential analyser induced error of 0.13MJ/m 2 in results. This is only 1.6% of the Japanese 8 MJ/m 2 limit. Even such an analyser would exhibit further drift if the laboratory protocols outlined below were not adhered to.

26 Reducing Noise The primary sources of noise are the oxygen analyser and the differential pressure measurement taken across the orifice. The noise from the oxygen analyser is a function of the oxygen cell, the electronics in the analyser, and the electronic time constant of the analyser which in turn affects its response time. (Consequently there is a balance between noise and response time, typically the quicker the response time the larger the noise.) The differential pressure around the orifice is turbulent and produces a noisy signal. However, electrical damping of the signal would reduce the effect this has on the HRR. Improve Laboratory Practice Laboratory practices and calibrations described in ISO need to be astringently adhered to and maintained at their highest levels when testing for low heat release measurement. Ensure that regular calibrations are made and that any of the influences that particularly lead to drift are minimised Not removing all the water vapour from the gas sample is perhaps the largest source of drift. This is normally a function of poor maintenance of moisture traps and/or drying desiccants or resultant of the filter system becoming saturated with soot and restricting the flow beyond the pressure compensation capability of the analyser. In addition, systems are fitted with pressure and flow regulation instrumentation (e.g. pressure relief valve) which, if not operating correctly, may be an additional source of drift and noise. Another common cause of drift is due to the ambient oxygen concentration actually changing in the immediate vicinity of the Cone Calorimeter. This can be as a result of other oxygen consuming experiments being operated simultaneously with the experiment or simply the oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide generation by a group of spectators close to the apparatus situated in a confined space. Increasing the signal Increasing the level of oxygen depletion measured for the same material whilst not affecting the noise or drift, would increase the signal to noise ratio and hence reduce the effect of noise and drift. This is the development most likely to facilitate better measurements and can be achieved by can be achieved by changing any or all of the following: - Using Lower Flow Rates Through The Duct The ISO flow rate used in the Cone Calorimeter is 24 l/s. This was found to be sufficient to remove all combustion products without increasing the rate of combustion of the specimen. The duct and orifice diameter were designed to accommodate this flow rate. The combustion gases from less combustible materials could be collected using a lower flow rate. The limit to reducing the flow is when it becomes none turbulent. This is at a flow rate of approximately 10 l/s. This could be reduced further if a smaller diameter duct and orifice plate is fitted. We earlier reported 3 successful reduction of standard cone calorimeter duct flows to 12.5 l/s and are now recommending that this be adopted in the developing standards for low heat release rate measurement. Testing at higher heat fluxes Materials generally give off more heat when tested at higher heat fluxes. Although there has been considerable debate about whether to use a heat flux of 50kW/m 2 or 75 kw/m 2 within ISO TC92, the higher heat flux would be a better measurement choice as the specimen is likely to have a higher HRR

27 in turn increasing the level of oxygen depletion. Any increase in heat flux would require this to be taken into consideration in any existing regulations (e.g. the Japanese). Using Larger Specimens If a specimen size was increased then the level of oxygen depletion and the signal would be increased proportionately. A specimen measuring 150 mm 150mm should give a signal 2.25 times bigger than the standard 100mm 100mm specimen. This was part of the approach being studied in ISO TC 92/SC1/WG5 to develop the standard Determination of Low Level of Combustibility using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter (Cone Calorimeter). One disadvantage of using larger specimens with the ISO cone heater is that the larger specimen would not experience the same uniform heat flux across the surface that we find in standard cone specimens. Figure 2 shows the heat flux levels received at the four corners and centre of both a 100mm 100mm and a 150mm 150mm specimen when located 25mm below the cone heater. The heat flux drops by more than 60% at the corners of the larger specimens. Though the same reduction in the heat flux at the corners of the sample would be produced by all cone heaters and the results for the same material should still be both repeatable and reproducible ISO TC92 decided that it was inappropriate to standardise this as TC92 was tasked to develop methods that could be used for fire safety engineering application. This none uniform exposure would prevent the results being used efficiently in models. Figure 2: Heat Flux Profile of large and standard specimens with ISO 5660 cone heater A larger conical heater has now been developed and that can be readily housed in the ISO chassis (see figure 3). This has been tested and shown to deliver a uniformity of performance across the whole surface of this larger 150 x 150 mm specimen that exceeds the uniform surface heat flux requirements specified in ISO and ASTM E1354

28 Figure 3: Larger format cone heater housed in standard ISO ISO and ASTM E1354 data is widely used for the fire safety engineering applications and both specify an incident specimen surface uniformity from the cone heater such that the heat flux uniformity within the central (50mm 50mm) area of the exposed specimen surface, be uniform to within ±2%. Extrapolation of these requirements from the specimen size of 100mm square to the larger 150 x150mm specimen, would require that the irradiance should be uniform within the central 75mm 75mm area of the exposed specimen surface, to within ±2% Heat flux mapping with the larger cone heater determined the heat flux at the specimen position covariance, for a central 75mm 75mm and across the full specimen 150mm 150mm, both for 25 mm and 60mm separations between the cone baseplate and the specimen surface. Results are given in Figure 4 which shows the results for the large cone heater mappings. The large cone far out performs the requirement for the central 50 x 50mm zone of the ISO specimen surface, not only in the 75mm x 75mm central zone, but also over the whole 150mm x 150mm specimen area.

29 Heat flux normalised 75mm 7mm 150mm 150mm 25mm separation Average (kw/m 2 ) Standard deviation (kw/m 2 ) Covariance 0.98% 1.5% 60mm separation Average (kw/m 2 ) Standard deviation (kw/m 2 ) Covariance 1.1% 2.0% Figure 4 Heat Flux Uniformity at 25mm and 60mm The heat flux profile across the specimen, when measured at 60mm separation between the specimen surface and the cone baseplate, is more typical of the heat flux mapping measured below a standard sized cone calorimeter at 25mm separation. At 25mm separation the heat flux below the large cone increases as the offset from the vertical centre line increases kW/m 2, 25mm & 60mm Normalised LC2 Average 25 mm LC2 Average 60 mm Offset from centreline (mm) Figure 5. Large format cone heater Heat flux variation across specimen surface for 25mm and 60mm cone base plate specimen surface separations Figure 6 and 7 show the heat flux mappings of the larger format cone heater at 60mm and 25mm cone baseplate specimen surface separations respectively. This can be favourably compared with the mapping with the ISO cone heater in Figure 2. This data shows that the new format heater, not only satisfies the fire safety engineering requirement of ISO but far exceed the

30 performance of the ISO cone heater in overall uniformity of heat flux delivered. This uniformity is also found over a deeper zone from the cone baseplate which means that thermally mobile materials (i.e. intumescing or collapsing specimens) would be exposed to a more uniform heat flux during their deformed period of the testing. Figure 6: Large cone heater format - Heat flux variation across specimen surface for 60mm cone base plate specimen surface separation Figure 7: Large cone heater format - Heat flux variation across specimen surface for 25mm cone baseplate specimen surface separation The larger cone heater is readily retrofitted to existing cone calorimeters with minor supplementary thermal insulation board being precautionary added to the Chassis Figure 8).

31 Figure 8: Large cone fitted with to ISO minor modifications This larger cone heater development along with the use of lower exhausted rates and tighter specifications on the oxygen analysers (30ppm noise and drift) facilitate the basis of a sound standard to measure low heat release rate measurement. COMPARISON OF RESULTS FROM LARGE AND ISO 5660 CONE HEATERS A short study was made to compare the performance and results from 100 x 100mm specimens tested using the standard ISO 5660 cone calorimeter and those from 150 x 150 mm specimens tested using the larger format cone heater. All testing was at 50 kw/m 2. All tests were performed with a sampling interval of 1 s, and a nominal exhaust flow rate of 24 l/s Plasterboard and a low combustibility ceiling tile were tested as they respectively represented very low heat release materials with a combustible surface layer (ie layered specimens ) and a homogenous low heat release specimen. Figure 9 to12 show the heat release curves of test with the ISO cone and specimens, and those of the larger 150 x 150mm specimens tested with the larger cone heater respectively. Figures 13 and 14 give the tabulated test results of the Average Heat Release Rate over the test time, the Peak heat release rate and the total heat release rate calculated over the test time and also the time intervals 0-300s, 0-600s and s. Means Standard deviation and coefficient of variance of each set are also given. These show that the larger and smaller cone formats give similar results when, as in these tests the analysers were well within specifications with minimal drift, and sound laboratory protocols being exacted on the ISO tests. The heat release curves show the much less noisy signals being generated by the larger cone and specimens.

32 Figure 9 Plaster board tested in Standard ISO Figure 10 Plaster board tested in Larger Heater &Specimen Figure 11 Ceiling Tile tested in Standard ISO Figure 12 Ceiling Tile tested in Standard ISO Cone THR (MJ/m 2 ) Size Mean HRR (kw/m 2 ) Peak HRR (kw/m 2 ) Test time 0-300s 0-600s s Standard Test cone Test x100 Test Mean STD COV 16.43% 5.34% 16.53% 19.33% 19.57% 13.56% Large Test cone Test x150 Test Mean STD COV 5.24% 11.33% 6.54% 6.39% 5.59% 1.53% Figure 13 Plasterboard tested in Standard ISO and larger heater/specimen set up

33 Cone THR (MJ/m 2 ) size Mean HRR(kW/m 2 ) Peak HRR (kw/m 2 ) Test time 0-300s 0-600s s standard Test cone Test x100 Test Test Mean STD COV 27.41% 11.00% 33.83% 4.44% 6.50% 14.41% Large Test cone Test x150 Test Mean STD COV 3.42% 6.72% 16.96% 7.12% 11.09% 16.06% Figure 14 Ceiling Tile tested in Standard ISO and larger heater/specimen set up CONCLUSION FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS The larger specimen tested in conjunction with the larger cone heater give similar results to those from high specification ISO cone testing but show stronger signals with much lower noise levels. The later will be of particular value when the specimens are recording heat release very close to the baseline. Further enhancements are being worked upon and are listed below Reducing analyser drift by specifying lower performance requirement Testing at higher heat fluxes Tightening laboratory practice to remove interfering influences i.e. Minimise ambient oxygen changes during tests; Ensure gas conditioning system is functioning efficiently i.e. all sampling lines are kept dry Using lower flow extraction flow rates (12.5 l/s instead of 24 l/s) Using larger specimens Both ISO and ASTM are now developing standards based on this larger format come heater that will facilitate the accurate measurement of low levels of heat release in a cone calorimeter systems by increasing the signal to noise ratio by the listed methods. REFERENCES 1 ISO : Rate of Heat Release of Building Products (Cone Calorimeter), International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva, Switzerland (1992). 2 ASTM Fire Test Standards, 4 th edition, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 1993, ASTM E : Test method for heat and visible smoke release rates for materials ad products using an oxygen consumption calorimeter.

34 3 Gregory,S, Green A., Grayson S.J., Kumar S, Cornelissen A. Use of cone calorimeter for testing materials with low heat release rates. Fire and Materials 2005,63-75 Interscience communications London UK 4 Reaction to fire tests for building products Non-combustibility test (EN ISO 1182: 2002). 5 Reaction to fire tests for building products - Determination of the heat of combustion (EN ISO 1716: 2002). 6 Babrauskas, V., J. Urbas and L. Richardson, Related Quantities. Part E. Non-Combustibility, Chapter 8 in Heat Release in Fires, Elsevier Applied Science, NY, Babrauskas, V.; Grayson, S. J., Editors, pp , Janssens, M., K Carpenter, Using Heat Release Rate to Assess Combustibility of Building Products in the Cone Calorimeter. DRAFT Submitted to Fire Technology 11/04. Department of Fire Technology, Southwest Research Institute, USA..

35 6 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 138-NFPA [ Section No ] For wood products manufactured using a means other than a pressure process, all sides of the wood product shall be tested. [ 5000: ] Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment This extract is from the 2015 edition of the code. The section in NFPA 5000 is extracted from NFPA 703 and was deleted in NFPA 703 at the public input stage in this cycle. It is inappropriate to reincorporate this into NFPA 101. The reason this was deleted is because the technical committee agreed that fire-retardant treated wood needs to be addressed the same way irrespective of how it is manufactured (see NFPA 703 FR4). Moreover, it is not possible to test "all sides" in ASTM E84. Once a product was tested on one side it cannot be retested on the same side. Once the next panel is brought to the testing lab and it looks the same as the one that was tested, how does the lab know which side was tested and which side was not tested? Finally, how are the edges to be tested? Related Item First Revision No NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler Organization: GBH International Submittal Date: Tue May 10 15:05:55 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Resolution: Rejected The extract is from NFPA 5000, the TC believes the process needs to play out in If the provision is deleted from 5000, the extract in 101 will also be deleted.

36 7 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 60-NFPA [ Section No ]

37 8 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM

38 9 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Where this Code requires an exit to be separated from other parts of the building, the separating construction shall meet the requirements of Section 8.2 and the following: (1) * The separation shall have a minimum 1-hour fire resistance rating where the exit connects three or fewer stories. (2) The separation specified in (1), other than an existing separation, shall be supported by construction having not less than a 1-hour fire resistance rating. (3) * The separation shall have a minimum 2-hour fire resistance rating where the exit connects four or more stories, unless one of the following conditions exists: (4) In existing non-high-rise buildings, existing exit stair enclosures shall have a minimum 1-hour fire resistance rating. (5) In existing buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7, existing exit stair enclosures shall have a minimum 1-hour fire resistance rating. (6) The minimum 1-hour enclosures in accordance with , , , and shall be permitted as an alternative to the requirement of (3). (7) Reserved. (8) The minimum 2-hour fire resistance rated separation required by (3) shall be constructed of an assembly of noncombustible or limited-combustible materials and shall be supported by construction having a minimum 2-hour fire resistance rating, unless otherwise permitted by (7). (9) * Structural elements, or portions thereof, that support exit components and either penetrate into a fire resistance rated assembly or are installed within a fire resistance rated wall assembly shall be protected, as a minimum, to the fire resistance rating required by (1) or (3). (10) Fire-retardant-treated wood enclosed in noncombustible or limited-combustible materials shall be permitted in accordance with NFPA 220. (11) Openings in the separation shall be protected by fire door assemblies equipped with door closers complying with (12)* Openings in exit enclosures shall be limited to door assemblies from normally occupied spaces and corridors and door assemblies for egress from the enclosure, unless one of the following conditions exists: (13) Vestibules that separate normally unoccupied spaces from an exit enclosure shall be permitted, provided the vestibule is separated from adjacent spaces by corridor walls and related opening protectives as required for the occupancy involved but not less than a smoke partition in accordance with Section 8.4. (14) In buildings of Type I or Type II construction, as defined in NFPA 220 (see ), fire protection rated door assemblies to normally unoccupied building service equipment support areas as addressed in Section 7.14 shall be permitted, provided the space is separated from the exit enclosure by fire barriers as required by (3). (15) Openings in exit passageways in mall buildings as provided in Chapters 36 and 37 shall be permitted. (16) In buildings of Type I or Type II construction, as defined in NFPA 220 (see ), existing fire protection rated door assemblies to interstitial spaces shall be permitted, provided that such spaces meet all of the following criteria: (17) (18) (19) The space is used solely for distribution of pipes, ducts, and conduits. The space contains no storage. The space is separated from the exit enclosure in accordance with Section 8.3. (20) Existing openings to mechanical equipment spaces protected by approved existing fire protection rated door assemblies shall be permitted, provided that the following criteria are met: (21) The space is used solely for non-fuel-fired mechanical equipment. (22) The space contains no storage of combustible materials. (23) The building is protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7 or the mechanical equipment space is provided with sprinkler protection in accordance with Section 9.7 and provided with complete smoke detection in accordance with Section 9.6. (24) Penetrations into, and openings through, an exit enclosure assembly shall be limited to the following: (25) Door assemblies permitted by (9) (26) * Electrical conduit serving the exit enclosure (27) Pathways for devices for security and communication systems serving the exit enclosure, where pathways are installed in metal conduit (28) * Required exit door openings (29) Ductwork and equipment necessary for independent stair pressurization (30) Water or steam piping necessary for the heating or cooling of the exit enclosure (31) Sprinkler piping

39 0 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM (32) Standpipes (33) Existing penetrations (34) Penetrations for fire alarm circuits, where the circuits are installed in metal conduit (35) Penetrations or communicating openings shall be prohibited between adjacent exit enclosures. (36) All penetrations in fire barriers separating the exit from other parts of the building shall be protected in accordance with (37) Membrane penetrations shall be permitted on the exit access side of the exit enclosure and shall be protected in accordance with Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment Item 7 has been changed to allow fire retardant treated wood in stair shafts in accordance with NFPA 220. However, NFPA 220, (shown below) does not allow FRTW in shafts. Would not the exit stair be considered a shaft and thus FRTW not be permitted? The term "stair shaft" is used in (5). Are exit stair enclosures not shafts? An annex note might help to explain the committee's intent Interior nonbearing walls required to have a fire resistance rating of 2 hours or less shall be permitted to be fire-retardant-treated wood enclosed within noncombustible or limited-combustible materials, provided that such walls are not used as shaft enclosures. [5000: ] Related Item First Revision No NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Peter Larrimer Organization: US Department of Veterans Affa Submittal Date: Tue Mar 22 08:52:58 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The proposed revision would eliminate the use of FRTW from all exit separation fire barriers (e.g., exit passageways).

40 1 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 146-NFPA [ Section No ] * Grab Bars for Bathtubs, Bathtub-Shower Combinations, and Showers General Where Where required by Chapters through 43 31, 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 , 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 1 * Grab bars are not 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 All dimensions are measured to the centerline of the grab bar unless otherwise stated Vertical Grab Bar. 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 or as a free-standing external pole as specified in ; or, shall be provided as an external vertical pole * Vertical Vertical Grab Bar on Control End Wall. ( ) A A vertical grab bar, with a minimum length of shall be: (1) 24 in. (610 mm), and its lower end

41 2 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM (1) minimum in length; (2) located between 36 and 39 in. (915 and 990 mm) above the finished floor, shall be (1) measured to its lower end; (2) installed on the entry/egress (1) open side of the control end wall of the (1) bathtub, bathtub-shower combination, or shower unit. (B) The grab bar shall be located at least 6 in. (150 mm), measured horizontally, from any shower curtain rod fixing point on the wall (1) used for entry and egress; and (2) located 9 in. (228 mm) minimum and 12 in. (300 mm) maximum from the open entry and egress side of the bathtub, bathtubshower combination, or shower, measured horizontally from the exterior plane of the bathtub, bathtub-shower combination, or shower. Vertical Grab Bar as Free Standing, Vertical * External Vertical Pole. A vertical, pole-type grab bar shall be fixed to the floor and either the room ceiling or an adjacent wall and shall be : (1) installed outside of the bathtub, bathtub-shower combination, or shower unit ; (2) located within 6 in. (150 mm), measured horizontally, (1) of the outside of the outer edge of the bathtub, bathtub-shower combination, or shower ; and (2) located within 30 in. (760 mm), measured horizontally, (1) 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 diagonal 7 or horizontal grab bar shall be provided on the back wall either as a diagonal grab bar as specified in or as a horizontal grab bar as specified in * Diagonal Grab Bar on Back Wall. A (A) A diagonal grab bar shall be installed on the back wall with a minimum length of : (1) 24 in. (600 mm) with (1) minimum in length; (2) located so that its higher end

42 3 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM placed closer (1) is closest to the control end wall and (1) ; (2) located a maximum of 12 in. (305 mm) from the control end wall, with a height of 25 to (1) (2) located 25 in. (635 mm) minimum and 27 in. (635 to (1) mm and 685 mm) maximum above the rim of the bathtub. (B) The lower end of the diagonal grab bar shall be located at a height of 8 to (1) ; (2) located so that its lower end is 8 in. minimum and 10 in. (205 mm to 255 mm) maximum above the rim of the bathtub ; and 28 to (1) (2) located 28 in. (711 mm) minimum and 30 in. (710 to (1) mm and 760 mm) maximum from the control end wall Horizontal Grab Bar on Back Wall. A horizontal grab bar shall be installed on the back wall at a height of 8 to : (1) located 8 in. (205 mm) minimum and 10 in. ( 205 to (1) 255 mm) maximum high above the bathtub rim with (1) ; and (2) located so that 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 clearance for hand grasp of 1

43 4 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM 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 Grab Bar Structural Loading. Grab bars shall be designed and constructed to the structural loading conditions in accordance with the building code other provisions of 7 this Code. Additional Proposed Changes Grab_Bars-Legislative_Text _Chapter_7.docx File Name Description Approved Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment Word Doc in legislative text for more clarity as to what the proposed changes are. 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. Related Item First Revision No NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: Allan Fraser Organization: National Fire Protection Assoc Affilliation: Staff Liaison for NFPA's Disability Access Review and Advisory Committee (DARAC) Submittal Date: Wed May 11 11:04:55 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-5002-NFPA Statement: 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.

44 * Grab Bars for Bathtubs, Bathtub-Shower Combinations, and Showers General Where required by Chapters 15 through 31, new bathtubs, bathtub-shower combinations, and showers, for use by occupants, shall be provided with grab bars complying * Grab bars are not required in showers where the transition from the room floor to the shower floor does not exceed 0.5 in. (13 mm) in height and all shower surfaces are slip resistant when wet Where provided, grab bars shall comply with through , except as otherwise permitted for showers in , with all3 All dimensions referringare measured to the centerline of the grab bar unless otherwise stipulatedstated * Where a dedicated shower does not expose users to changes in elevation exceeding 0.5 inch (13 mm), as described in.1.6.2, and, it provides slip resistance for all surfaces when wet, as described in.1.6.4, the requirements of through shall apply only if grab bars are installed Vertical Grab Bar. A vertical grab bar shall be provided and shall be installed either on the control end wall of the bathtub, bathtub-shower combination or shower as specified in or as a free standing, external pole as specified in Formatted: Adjust space between Latin and Asian text, Adjust space between Asian text and numbers * Vertical Grab Bar on Control End Wall. (A) A vertical grab bar, the end wall opposite the 24 in. (610 mm) long minimum, shall be installed on the entry/egress side of the control end wall of the bathtub, bathtub-shower combination, or shower unit. The lower end of the grab bar; or, shall be provided as an external vertical pole * Vertical Grab Bar on End Wall. A vertical grab bar shall be: in. (610 mm) minimum in length; 1.2. located between 36 in. min. and 39 in. max. (915 and 990 mm) above the finished floor. measured to its lower end; 3. (B) The grab bar shall be installed on the open side of the bathtub, bathtub-shower combination, or shower used for entry and egress; and 2.4.located at least 69 in. ( mm),) minimum and 12 in. (300 mm) maximum from the open entry and egress side of the bathtub, bathtub-shower combination, or shower, measured horizontally, from any the exterior plane of the bathtub, bathtub-shower curtain rod fixing point on the wallcombination, or shower * Vertical Grab Bar as Floor MountedExternal Vertical Pole. A vertical, pole-type grab bar shall be fixed to the floor and, either the room ceiling or an adjacent wall. The vertical bar and shall be : 1. installed outside of the bathtub, bathtub-shower combination, or shower unit;

45 2. located within 6 in. (150 mm), measured horizontally from of the outside of the outer edge of the bathtub, bathtub-shower combination or shower. Where a control end wall is provided, the vertical grab bar shall be, or shower; and 1.3.located within 30 in. (760 mm), measured horizontally fromof the vertical plane of the control end wall 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 or as aor horizontal grab bar as specified in shall be provided on the back wall * 1* Diagonal Grab Bar on Back Wall. (A) A diagonal grab bar shall be installed on the back wall with a minimum length of : in. (600 mm) withminimum in length; 2. located so that its higher end placed closeris closest to the control end wall and ; 3. located a maximum of 12 in. (305 mm) from the control end wall, with a height of 1.4.located 25 toin. (635 mm) minimum and 27 in. (635 tomm and 685 mm) maximum above the rim of the bathtub.; 5. (B) The located so that its lower end of the diagonal grab bar shall be located at a height ofis 8 toin. minimum and 10 in. (205 mm to 255 mm) maximum above the rim of the bathtub; and 2.6.located 28 toin. (711 mm) minimum and 30 in. (710 tomm and 760 mm) maximum from the control end wall Horizontal Grab Bar on Back Wall. A horizontal grab bar shall be installed on the back wall at a height of: 1. located 8 in. min.(205 mm) minimum and 10 in. max (205 and (255 mm) maximum high above the bathtub rim. One; and 1.2.located so that one end of the grab bar shall be located a maximum ofis 12 in. (305 mm) maximum from the control end wall and the other end shall beis located a maximum of 24 in. (610 mm) maximum from the opposite (, or head), end of the bathtub * Grab Bar Details Grab bars shall be circular in cross section with a minimum diameter of 1 1/ 4 in. (32 mm) and a maximum diameter of 2 in. (51 mm) If, Where attached to a wall, the grab barbars shall provide a minimum clearance, for hand grasp, of 1 1/ 2 inchesin. (38 mm).) minimum The size and clearance dimensions required by.4.1 and Grab Bar Structural Loading. Grab bars shall be provided, as a minimum, within the height requirements ranger and the minimum length requirements range of thedesigned and constructed to the structural loading conditions in accordance with other provisions of this Code.

46 5 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 170-NFPA [ Section No ] * Grab Bars for Bathtubs, Bathtub-Shower Combinations, and Showers General Where required by Chapters 11 through 43, new bathtubs, bathtub-shower combinations, or showers, for use by occupants, shall be provided with grab bars complying with through , except as otherwise permitted for showers in , with all dimensions referring. All dimensions refer to the centerline of the grab bar unless otherwise stipulated * Where a dedicated shower, not included with a bathtub, does not expose users to changes in elevation exceeding 0.5 in. (13 mm), as described in , and it provides slip resistance for all walking surfaces when wet, as a foreseeable condition described in , the requirements of through shall apply only if grab bars are installed Vertical Grab Bar. A vertical grab bar shall be provided either installed on one of the control end wall walls of the bathtub, bathtub-shower combination, or shower as specified in or as a free-standing external, and at the entry/egress side of a shower as specified in For bathtubs, bathtub-shower combinations and showers, the requirement for a grab bar is also met with provision of a pole as specified in * Vertical Grab Bar on Control End Wall. or Opposite end Wall of Bathtub or Bathtub-shower Combination (A) A vertical grab bar, with a minimum length of in. ( mm), and its lower end between and in. ( and mm) above the finished floor, shall be installed on the entry/egress side of one of the control end wall walls of the bathtub, or bathtub-shower combination, or shower unit.. Where access to the control wall end of bathtub or bathtub-shower combination is obstructed by another plumbing fixture the vertical grab shall be provided either on the opposite-end wall or as a vertical pole complying with (B) The grab bar shall be located at least 6 in. (150 mm), measured horizontally, from any the shower curtain rod fixing point on attachment to the wall Vertical Grab Bar at Entry/Egress of a Shower. A vertical grab bar, with a minimum length of 24 in. (610 mm), and its lower end between 36 and 39 in. (915 and 990 mm) above the finished floor, shall be installed on the entry/egress side of the shower * Vertical Grab Bar Provided as Free Standing, a Vertical Pole. A vertical, pole-type grab bar fixed to the floor or bathtub wall and either to the room ceiling or an adjacent wall shall be installed outside of the bathtub, bathtub-shower combination, or shower unit within 6 in. (150 mm), measured horizontally, outside of the outer edge of the bathtub, bathtub-shower combination, or shower unit and within 30 in. (760 mm), measured horizontally, of the vertical plane of the control end wall if there is such a wall. The pole shall located so as to be usable during entry/egress transitions between the bathing/showering facility and the adjacent floor 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 or as a horizontal grab bar as specified in * Diagonal Grab Bar on Back Wall. (A) A diagonal grab bar shall be installed on the back wall with a minimum length of 24 in. (600 mm) with its higher end placed closer to the control end wall and located a maximum of 12 in. (305 mm) from the control end wall, with a height of 25 to 27 in. (635 to 685 mm) above rim of the bathtub. (B) The lower end of the diagonal grab bar shall be located at a height of 8 to 10 in. (205 to 255 mm) above the rim of the bathtub and 28 to 30 in. (710 to 760 mm) from the control end wall Horizontal Grab Bar on Back Wall. A horizontal grab bar shall be installed on the back wall at a height of 8 to 10 in. (205 to 255 mm) above the bathtub rim with one end located a maximum of 12 in. (305 mm) from the control end wall and the other end located a maximum of 24 in. (610 mm) from the opposite, or head, end of the bathtub * Grab Bar Details 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 attached to a wall, the grab bar shall provide a minimum clearance of in. (38 mm) for hand grasp.

47 6 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM 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. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment The proposed changes to the originally proposed text resulted from months of consultation with experts in the US and Canada, especially during a face-to-face meeting held in Toronto on March 31 and April 1, In addition, editorial changes are based on those suggested by one of the experts, Marsha Mazz, from the US Access Board and member of NFPA's Disability Advisory Review Committee. At the face-to-face meeting there was extensive discussion and consensus on provision of a vertical grab bar on the wall opposite the control-end wall, especially where (as is fairly common in smaller bathrooms) water supply and drainage, for toileting, bathing/showering and other washing, etc. are located on a common wall. This leads to a significant portion of the length of a typical bathtub, at the control wall end, being partly obstructed, typically by a water closet. The substantive revisions suggested in this comment address this issue effectively by providing more flexibility in grab bar provision than first proposed. Also reflecting expert input from the meeting, is the revision to the lower height threshold for vertical grab bars for bathtubs and bathtubshower combinations used by shorter adults and children, especially in either the bathing mode or the shower mode. The additional grab bar length specified is not a major cost issue as wall-mounted (or other) grab bar length is not a large component of purchase cost and does not significantly affect installation cost. The combination of purchase and installation costs, per bathroom, is quite comparable to the average, per-household cost of bathing/showering/toileting-related fall injuries occurring over a two or three-year period in the USA. Usability is a benefit of at least similar value and this is especially significant for older users. The addition of toileting-related usability and safety in the considerations behind the proposals and comments is especially related to the dual benefits of the pole-type grab bars that can serve not only the bathing/showering transfer functions but the more pervasive use of water closets, particularly in smaller bathrooms that are found in large proportions of bathrooms in all types of facilities. There has also been much study of actual installations, especially as one of the original proponents travels extensively and uses many bathing/showering facilities in hotels around the world. This provided additional insights justifying and, in some respects, suggesting fine-tuning of the concepts at the core of the first revision proposal. Work has also been done especially on the addition of grab bars to existing bathtubs and bathtub-shower combinations i.e., not just new facilities. The vertical poles (plus some horizontally-oriented poles at the back wall of bathtubs) show great promise for relatively inexpensive and highly functional grab bars in retrofit situations for existing facilities, including those in rental properties where holes cannot be made in walls (as is the case for conventional, wall-mounted grab bars. There has also been much attention given, in consultation with top experts on injury epidemiology and costs to the relatively high risks and consequences of falls involving not only bathing/showering but also toileting. Much of this will be reflected in national and international conferences being held in Canada, the US and the UK prior to or shortly after the public comments are addressed by NFPA committees. These include two national and international conferences focused on falls and two national conference focused on public health generally. More information on these will be shared directly with NFPA committee members responsible for this core menu item and for scoping in all or most occupancy chapters of NFPA 101 and NFPA Significantly, due to the crush of preparation for such conferences (in which the submitter of these comments is deeply involved as an organizer and presenter), it is not possible to submit parallel comments for NFPA Therefore, it is explicitly requested that in all cases, the committees process these comments in relation to both codes (NFPA 101 and NFPA Finally, the conferences as well as the recent, face-to-face meeting of several US and Canadian experts are all documented with video. The first two videos in this series are available for streaming viewing by anyone, at no cost, at /Under_Construction.html. These two early videos not only identify the experts but provide an excellent introduction to the extensive evidence obtained in research performed over the last two decades. Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Public Comment No. 172-NFPA [Section No ] Public Comment No. 173-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Comment No. 174-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Comment No. 175-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Comment No. 176-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Comment No. 177-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Comment No. 178-NFPA [New Section after ] Related Item First Revision No NFPA [New Section after ] Relationship Submitter Full Name: Jake Pauls Organization: Jake Pauls Consulting Services

48 7 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Submittal Date: Sat May 14 19:57:36 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-5002-NFPA Statement: 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.

49 8 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 42-NFPA [ New Section after ] New Section Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 101_CCN_45.pdf 101 CC Note #45 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 45 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the occupancy committees (AXM, BCF, DET, END, RES, MER, IND, HEA) to review the additional door locking allowances that are being proposed in FCR-6. This action will be considered as a public comment. Related Item Correlating Committee Note No. 45-NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: CC ON SAF_AAC Organization: NFPA CC ON SAFETY TO LIFE Submittal Date: Thu Mar 03 15:06:01 EST 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected Action: Resolution: Responses from occupancy committees: AXM - No action. // BCF - The committee on Board and Care reviewed the proposed requirements in Chapter 7 and found that the subject on door locking is not applicable to Chapters 32 or 33. No SRs were created. // DET - The requirements managed by this committee deal with door locking for a specific purpose thus no further changes or revisions are needed. // END See SR No. 4001, 2005, 2007, 2008 // HEA - No action. // IND Reject. Additional door locking provisions are not applicable to the IND committee. // MER See SR No // RES - The committee on Residential reviewed the proposed requirements for locking and found that the subject should not apply to residential occupancies. The additional locking arrangements currently permitted by the residential chapters is adequate.

50 1 of 1 3/2/ :05 PM Correlating Committee Note No. 45-NFPA [ New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: SAF-AAC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Jan 08 11:51:19 EST 2016 Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: The Correlating Committee directs the occupancy committees (AXM, BCF, DET, END, RES, MER, IND, HEA) to review the additional door locking allowances that are being proposed in FCR-6. This action will be considered as a public comment. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 11 Eligible Voters 0 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Affirmative All Bush, Kenneth E. Hopper, Howard Hrustich, Stephen Hugo, Jeffrey M. Kalie, Jr., J. Edmund Koffel, William E. Pauls, Jake Quiter, James R. Reiswig, Rodger Reynolds, Ronald C. Rosenbaum, Eric R.

51 9 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 8-NFPA [ Section No ] Delayed-Egress Electrically Electrical Locking Systems Approved, delayed-egress electrically electrical locking systems shall be permitted to be installed on door assemblies serving lowand ordinary-hazard contents in buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic fire detection system in accordance with Section 9.6 or an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7, and where permitted in Chapters 11 through 43, provided that all of the following criteria are met: (1) The delay of the delayed-egress electrically electrical locking system shall deactivate allowing unobstructed egress upon actuation of one of the following: (2) Approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7 (3) Not more than one heat detector of an approved, supervised automatic fire detection system in accordance with Section 9.6 (4) Not more than two smoke detectors of an approved, supervised automatic fire detection system in accordance with Section 9.6 (5) The delay of the delayed-egress electrically electrical locking system shall deactivate allowing unobstructed egress upon loss of power controlling the lock or locking mechanism. (6) * An irreversible process shall release the electrical lock in the direction of egress within 15 seconds, or 30 seconds where approved by the authority having jurisdiction, upon application of a force to the release device required in under all of the following conditions: (7) The force shall not be required to exceed 15 lbf (67 N). (8) The force shall not be required to be continuously applied for more than 3 seconds. (9) The initiation of the release process shall activate an audible signal in the vicinity of the door opening. (10) Once the electrical lock has been released by the application of force to the releasing device, rearming the delay electronics shall be by manual means only. (11)* A readily visible, durable sign that conforms to the visual characters requirements of ICC/ANSI A117.1, Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities, shall be located on the door leaf adjacent to the release device in the direction of egress, and shall read as follows: (12) PUSH UNTIL ALARM SOUNDS, DOOR CAN BE OPENED IN 15 SECONDS, for doors that swing in the direction of egress travel (13) PULL UNTIL ALARM SOUNDS, DOOR CAN BE OPENED IN 15 SECONDS, for doors that swing against the direction of egress travel (14) The egress side of doors equipped with delayed-egress electrically electrical locking system shall be provided with emergency lighting in accordance with Section 7.9. (15) Hardware for new installations shall be listed in accordance with ANSI/UL 294, Standard for Access Control System Units The provisions of for sensor-release of electrical locking systems shall not apply to door assemblies with delayed-egress electrically electrical locking systems. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 101_CCN_7.pdf 101 CC Note #7 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 7 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Means of Egress (MEA) to consider the Affirmative with Comment ballot of Tierney to revise the term delayed egress electrically locking systems to delayed egress electrical locking systems and make consistent use of the term. This action will be considered as a public comment. Related Item Correlating Committee Note No. 7-NFPA [Section No ]

52 0 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Submitter Full Name: CC ON SAF_AAC Organization: NFPA CC ON SAFETY TO LIFE Submittal Date: Wed Mar 02 15:15:33 EST 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-5003-NFPA Statement: NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 7 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Means of Egress (MEA) to consider the Affirmative with Comment ballot of Tierney to revise the term delayed egress electrically locking systems to delayed egress electrical locking systems and make consistent use of the term. This action will be considered as a public comment.

53 1 of 1 3/2/ :11 PM Correlating Committee Note No. 7-NFPA [ Section No ] Submitter Full Name: SAF-AAC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Jan 08 07:57:52 EST 2016 Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Means of Egress (MEA) to consider the Affirmative with Comment ballot of Tierney to revise the term delayed egress electrically locking systems to delayed egress electrical locking systems and make consistent use of the term. This action will be considered as a public comment. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 11 Eligible Voters 0 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Affirmative All Bush, Kenneth E. Hopper, Howard Hrustich, Stephen Hugo, Jeffrey M. Kalie, Jr., J. Edmund Koffel, William E. Pauls, Jake Quiter, James R. Reiswig, Rodger Reynolds, Ronald C. Rosenbaum, Eric R.

54 1 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 61-NFPA [ Section No ] As a minimum, the following items shall be verified: (1) Floor space on both sides of the openings is clear of obstructions, and door leaves open fully and close freely. (2) Forces required to set door leaves in motion and move to the fully open position do not exceed the requirements in (3) Latching and locking devices comply with (4) Releasing hardware devices are installed in accordance with (5) Door leaves of paired openings are installed in accordance with (6) Door closers are adjusted properly to control the closing speed of door leaves in accordance with accessibility requirements. (7) Projection of door leaves into the path of egress does not exceed the encroachment permitted by (8) Powered door openings operate in accordance with (9) Signage required by (3), , , and is intact and legible. (10) Door openings with special locking arrangements function in accordance with (11) Security devices that impede egress are not installed on openings, as required by (12) Where required by , door hardware marking is present and intact. (13) Emergency lighting on sensor-release of electrical locking systems and doors equipped with delayed-egress electrically locking systems is present and functioning in accordance with Section 7.9. (14) Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment To test the emergency lighting is not a simple inspection procedure. Where generators are provided to supply emergency power, the inspection required by (13) would require the generator to be tested to ensure that the emergency lighting is "functioning" in accordance with 7.9. This is unreasonable to expect on an annual basis for these doors and the requirement should be removed. Related Item First Revision No NFPA [Global Input] Submitter Full Name: Peter Larrimer Organization: US Department of Veterans Affa Submittal Date: Tue Mar 22 09:52:03 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-5004-NFPA Statement: The committee believes that verifying the presence of emergency lighting is appropriate, but functional testing of emergency lighting is covered in Section 7.9 and therefore does not need to be part of the door inspection procedures. The requirement for verifying the presence of emergency lighting is consistent with the other provisions in The revision also responds to CC Note 7, which replaces 'electrically' with 'electrical'.

55 2 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 9-NFPA [ Section No ] The requirement of shall not apply to any of the following: (1) Control wiring and power wiring utilizing a 2-hour-rated cable or cable system (2) Where encased with not less than 2 in. (5 51 mm) of concrete (3) Control wiring and power wiring protected by a listed electrical circuit protective system with not less than a 2-hour fire resistive rating Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 101_CCN_9.pdf 101 CC Note #9 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC No. No. 9 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Means of Egress (MEA) to correct the metric value in (2) from (5 mm) to (51 mm). This action will be considered as a public comment. Related Item Correlating Committee Note No. 9-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: CC ON SAF_AAC Organization: NFPA CC ON SAFETY TO LIFE Submittal Date: Wed Mar 02 16:04:24 EST 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-5005-NFPA Statement: NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC No. No. 9 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Means of Egress (MEA) to correct the metric value in (2) from (5 mm) to (51 mm). This action will be considered as a public comment. SR also clarifies intent of Item (2).

56 1 of 1 3/2/ :18 PM Correlating Committee Note No. 9-NFPA [ Section No ] Submitter Full Name: SAF-AAC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Jan 08 08:02:43 EST 2016 Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Means of Egress (MEA) to correct the metric value in (2) from (5 mm) to (51 mm). This action will be considered as a public comment. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 11 Eligible Voters 0 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Affirmative All Bush, Kenneth E. Hopper, Howard Hrustich, Stephen Hugo, Jeffrey M. Kalie, Jr., J. Edmund Koffel, William E. Pauls, Jake Quiter, James R. Reiswig, Rodger Reynolds, Ronald C. Rosenbaum, Eric R.

57 3 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 182-NFPA [ New Section after ] TITLE OF NEW CONTENT Type your content here... Add new section as follows: Emergency Stair Travel Devices Number and Location All buildings that are two storys or more above grade and that are accessed by the public for goods and services, or that have employees working on site, shall have an emergency stair travel device on each floor at each stairway There shall be one additional emergency stair travel device provided for each employee who will need to use one in an evacuation. These devices shall be located in the employee s office or at the nearest stair to the employee s office at their discretion All devices shall comply with ANSI/RESNA ED-1: Storage cabinets for such devices shall not be permitted to be locked at any time One manual wheelchair shall be located at each stairway at the floor of discharge and available, without requiring the user to have a key or special knowledge, such that a user of an emergency stair travel device can be transferred to the manual wheelchair to travel from the stairway at the floor of discharge to the outside All members of an emergency planning team, if one exists, and all personnel who will be occupants or operators of the device shall be trained at least once each year on using the device and transferring those who may need to use the device in an emergency. Statement: Most of this language was submitted as Public Input No. 414-NFPA [Section No ]. In response to the committee s comment, this Public Comment addresses the committee s concern about office buildings and others that might not have the public entering to obtain goods and services but simply has employees now, or may in the future, who have mobility disabilities Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment The proposed change would increase the availability of emergency stair travel devices, and by referencing the ANSI/RESNA ED-1:2013 standard, would ensure quality of the devices. Related Item Public Input No. 414-NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: Glenn Hedman Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago Submittal Date: Sun May 15 21:12:39 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The comment does not address many of the items raised in the committee response to PI-414.

58 4 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 157-NFPA [ Section No ] NEMA recommends that the technical committee re-visit Public Input No. 117 to NFPA Section and include the proposed change with the second revision of the document. Egress capacity for approved components of means of egress shall be based on the capacity factors shown in Table , unless otherwise provided in Table Capacity Factors Stairways (width/person) Level Components and Ramps (width/person) Area in. mm in. mm Board and care Health care, sprinklered Health care, nonsprinklered High hazard contents All others Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment The combined use of sprinklers and an emergency voice/alarm communication system to permit the reduction in width is reasonable and not unprecedented. The benefits of a sprinkler system are well known. NEMA agrees with the submitter s statement that people react better and more quickly to voice instructions and further agrees that a voice/alarm communication system makes other emergency messaging readily feasible, thereby further enhancing the overall safety of a building. Related Item Public Input No. 117-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Vince Baclawski Organization: Nema Submittal Date: Thu May 12 14:37:50 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Resolution: Rejected No technical substantiation has been provided to support the proposed revision. The committee stands on its response to PI-117.

59 5 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 210-NFPA [ Section No ] * Illumination of means of egress shall be provided in accordance with Section 7.8 for every building and structure where required in Chapters 11 through 43. For the purposes of this requirement, exit access shall include only designated stairs, aisles, corridors, ramps, escalators, and passageways leading to an exit. For the purposes of this requirement, exit discharge shall include only designated stairs, aisles, corridors, ramps, escalators, walkways, egress courts and passageways leading to a public way. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment An egress court may be large enough for evacuation but not provide access to a walkway. "Egress court" is a fitting and functional description; especially on older campuses. Related Item Public Input No. 419-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Michael Anthony Organization: University of Michigan Affilliation: University of Michigan Submittal Date: Mon May 16 15:09:47 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Resolution: Rejected The proponent has provided no new information to help the committee understand what is intended. The committee stands on its response to PI-419.

60 6 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 216-NFPA [ Section No ] Emergency illumination shall be provided for a minimum of hours in the event of failure of normal lighting. In buildings 10,000 square feet and smaller with an on-site generator as the emergency power source, illumination shall be provided for a minimum of 1 hour Emergency lighting facilities shall be arranged to provide initial illumination that is not less than an average of 1 ft-candle (10.8 lux) and, at any point, not less than 0.1 ft-candle (1.1 lux), measured along the path of egress at floor level Illumination levels shall be permitted to decline to not less than an average of 0.6 ft-candle (6.5 lux) and, at any point, not less than 0.06 ft-candle (0.65 lux) at the end of hours The maximum-to-minimum illumination shall not exceed a ratio of 40 to 1. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment We have modified the original proposal to pertain to buildings 10,000 square feet or less. It is wasteful to specify generator (or battery) run-time for a building so small it would take only seconds to evacuate; or for rescue personnel, already equipped with illumination, to do their work. We are only seeking language that would give local authorities options. Related Item Public Input No. 402-NFPA [Section No [Excluding any Sub-Sections]] Submitter Full Name: Michael Anthony Organization: University of Michigan Affilliation: University of Michigan Submittal Date: Mon May 16 15:37:44 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: No technical substantiation has been provided for the proposed revision.

61 7 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 215-NFPA [ Section No [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ] Emergency illumination shall be provided for a minimum of hours in the event of failure of normal lighting. may be reduced to one hour where permitted by the Authority Having Jurisdiction for small buildings The illumination time Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment We disagree with the committee resolution that "The proposed revision adds unnecessary complexity". The proposed revision reduces cost that does not appreciably reduce safety - especially in smaller buildings. "Complexity" is in the eye of the beholder and we believe that permitting the scaling back to 1 hour reduces complexity. Related Item Public Input No. 384-NFPA [Section No [Excluding any Sub-Sections]] Submitter Full Name: Michael Anthony Organization: University of Michigan Submittal Date: Mon May 16 15:31:35 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Resolution: Rejected No technical substantiation has been provided for the proposed revision. Section 1.4 allows the AHJ to modify requirements of the code via equivalency with substantial justification.

62 8 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 213-NFPA [ Section No ] Required emergency lighting systems shall be tested in accordance with one of the four options offered by , , , or Testing of required emergency lighting systems shall be permitted in occupied buildings to be conducted as follows: (1) Functional testing shall be conducted monthly, with a minimum of 3 weeks and a maximum of 5 weeks between tests, for not less than 30 seconds, except as otherwise permitted by (2). (2) * The test interval shall be permitted to be extended beyond 30 days with the approval of the authority having jurisdiction. (3) Functional testing shall be conducted annually for a minimum of hours if the emergency lighting system is battery powered. (4) The emergency lighting equipment shall be fully operational for the duration of the tests required by (2) and (3). (5) Written records of visual inspections and tests shall be kept by the owner for inspection by the authority having jurisdiction Testing of required emergency lighting systems shall be permitted to be conducted as follows: (1) Self-testing/self-diagnostic battery-operated emergency lighting equipment shall be provided. (2) Not less than once every 30 days, self-testing/self-diagnostic battery-operated emergency lighting equipment shall automatically perform a test with a duration of a minimum of 30 seconds and a diagnostic routine. (3) Self-testing/self-diagnostic battery-operated emergency lighting equipment shall indicate failures by a status indicator. (4) A visual inspection shall be performed at intervals not exceeding 30 days. (5) Functional testing shall be conducted annually for a minimum of hours. (6) Self-testing/self-diagnostic battery-operated emergency lighting equipment shall be fully operational for the duration of the hour test. (7) Written records of visual inspections and tests shall be kept by the owner for inspection by the authority having jurisdiction Testing of required emergency lighting systems shall be permitted to be conducted as follows: (1) Computer-based, self-testing/self-diagnostic battery-operated emergency lighting equipment shall be provided. (2) Not less than once every 30 days, emergency lighting equipment shall automatically perform a test with a duration of a minimum of 30 seconds and a diagnostic routine. (3) The emergency lighting equipment shall automatically perform annually a test for a minimum of hours. (4) The emergency lighting equipment shall be fully operational for the duration of the tests required by (2) and (3). (5) The computer-based system shall be capable of providing a report of the history of tests and failures at all times Testing of required emergency lighting systems shall be permitted to be conducted in accordance with Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment It appears there was an error in the Terra System that mixed our original proposal for lighting testing only with proposals for stair shaft illumination concepts. This response is prepared as a placeholder for re-submittal for the next revision cycle. For this revision cycle we would like to exempt elementary school buildings that have only one summer occupant -- the maintenance mechanic -- from having to test all the emergency lighting when no one but he or she is in the school building. Related Item Public Input No. 374-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Michael Anthony Organization: University of Michigan Affilliation: University of Michigan

63 9 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Submittal Date: Mon May 16 15:20:39 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: Modifications to code requirements are permitted to be made by the AHJ in accordance with Sec. 1.4 and (2).

64 0 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 200-NFPA [ Section No ] 7.15 Occupant Evacuation Elevators General * Where passenger elevators for general public use are permitted to be used for occupant evacuation prior to Phase I Emergency Recall Operation mandated by the firefighters emergency operation provisions of ASME A17.1/CSA B44, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, the elevator system shall also comply with this section, except as otherwise permitted by The provisions of Section 7.15 shall not apply where the limited or supervised use of elevators for evacuation is part of a formal or informal evacuation strategy, including the relocation or evacuation of patients in health care occupancies and the relocation or evacuation of occupants with disabilities in other occupancies * The occupant evacuation elevators shall be in accordance with the occupant evacuation operation (OEO) requirements of ASME A17.1/CSA B44, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, and the building emergency action plan required by Occupant evacuation elevators in accordance with Section 7.15 shall not be permitted to satisfy requirements of this Code applicable to the following: (1) Number of means of egress (2) Capacity of means of egress (3) Arrangement of means of egress Reserved Information Features * An emergency action plan approved by the authority having jurisdiction shall be implemented, specifically including the procedures for occupant evacuation using the exit stairs and the occupant evacuation elevators Occupant evacuation elevators shall be marked with signage indicating the elevators are suitable for use by building occupants for evacuation during fires Conditions for Safe Continued Operation Conditions necessary for the continued safe operation of the occupant evacuation elevators and the associated elevator lobbies and elevator machine rooms shall be continuously monitored and displayed at the building fire command center by a standard emergency service interface system meeting the requirements of NFPA 72 and NEMA SB 30, Fire Service Annunciator and Interface The monitoring and display required by shall include all of the following: (1) Floor location of each elevator car (2) Direction of travel of each elevator car (3) Status of each elevator car with respect to whether it is occupied (4) Status of normal power to the elevator equipment, elevator controller cooling equipment, and elevator machine room ventilation and cooling equipment (5) Status of standby or emergency power system that provides backup power to the elevator equipment, elevator controller cooling equipment, and elevator machine/control room or machinery/control space ventilation and cooling equipment (6) Activation of any fire alarm initiating device in any elevator lobby, elevator machine/control room or machinery/control space, or elevator hoistway The building fire command center location specified in shall be provided with a means to override normal elevator operation and to initiate manually a Phase I emergency recall operation of the occupant evacuation elevators in accordance with ASME A17.1/CSA B44, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators Fire Detection, Alarm, and Communication The building shall be protected throughout by an approved fire alarm system in accordance with Section 9.6.

65 1 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM * The fire alarm system shall include an emergency voice/alarm communication system in accordance with NFPA 72 with the ability to provide voice directions on a selective basis to any building floor * The emergency voice/alarm communication system shall be arranged so that intelligible voice instructions are audible in the elevator lobbies under conditions where the elevator lobby doors are in the closed position Two-way Communication System. A two-way communication system shall be provided in each occupant evacuation elevator lobby for the purpose of initiating communication with the fire command center or an alternative location approved by the fire department Design and Installation. The two-way communication system shall include audible and visible signals and shall be designed and installed in accordance with the requirements of ICC/ANSI A117.1, Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities Instructions Instructions for the use of the two-way communication system, along with the location of the station, shall be permanently located adjacent to each station Signage for instructions shall comply with the requirements of ICC/ANSI A117.1, Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities, for visual characters Sprinklers The building shall be protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with (1), except as otherwise specified in through A sprinkler control valve and a waterflow device shall be provided for each floor The sprinkler control valves and waterflow devices required by shall be monitored by the building fire alarm system * Sprinklers shall not be installed in elevator machine/control rooms and machinery/control spaces serving occupant evacuation elevators, and such prohibition shall not cause an otherwise fully sprinklered building to be classified as nonsprinklered * Where a hoistway serves occupant evacuation elevators, sprinklers shall not be installed at the top of the elevator hoistway or at other points in the hoistway more than 24 in. (610 mm) above the pit floor, and such prohibition shall not cause the building to be classified as nonsprinklered Elevator Installation Except as modified by and , occupant evacuation elevators shall be installed in accordance with ASME A17.1/CSA B44, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, including the provisions for occupant evacuation operation, as required by * Shunt breakers shall not be installed on elevator systems used for occupant evacuation Occupant evacuation elevators shall be limited to passenger elevators that are located in noncombustible hoistways and for which the car enclosure materials meet the requirements of ASME A17.1/CSA B44, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators Elevator Machine/Control Rooms and Machinery/Control Spaces * Elevator machine/control rooms and machinery/control spaces associated with occupant evacuation elevators shall be separated from all building areas, other than elevator hoistways, by minimum 2-hour fire resistance rated construction * Elevator machine/control rooms and machinery/control spaces associated with occupant evacuation elevators shall be used for no purpose other than elevator machine/control rooms and machinery/control spaces Electrical Power and Control Wiring.

66 2 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM The following features associated with occupant evacuation elevators shall be supplied by both normal power and Type 60, Class 2, Level 1 standby power: (1) Elevator equipment (2) Ventilation and cooling equipment for elevator machine/control rooms and machinery/control spaces (3) Elevator car lighting Wires or cables that are located outside elevator hoistways, machine/control rooms, and machinery/control spaces, and that provide normal power, standby power, control signals, communication with the cars, lighting, heating, air-conditioning, ventilation, and fire detecting systems to occupant evacuation elevators shall be protected by one of the following means, except as otherwise provided in : (1) The wiring shall utilize Type CI cable with a minimum 2-hour fire resistance rating. (2) The wiring shall be enclosed in a minimum 2-hour fire resistance construction. (3) The wiring shall be wiring that is approved as providing a 2-hour performance alternative * Control signaling wiring and cables that do not serve Phase II emergency in-car service shall not be required to be protected Occupant Evacuation Shaft System Occupant evacuation elevators shall be provided with an occupant evacuation shaft system consisting of all of the following: (1) Elevator hoistway (2) Enclosed elevator lobby outside the bank or group of hoistway doors on each floor served by the elevators, with the exception that elevator lobbies not be required to be enclosed where located either on the street floor or level of exit discharge (3) Enclosed exit stair with doors to all floors, at and above grade level, served by the elevators * Elevator Lobby Size Occupant evacuation elevator lobbies shall have minimum floor area, except as otherwise provided in , as follows: (1) The elevator lobby floor area shall accommodate, at 3 ft 2 (0.28 m 2 ) per person, a minimum of 25 percent of the occupant load of the floor area served by the lobby. (2) The elevator lobby floor area also shall accommodate one wheelchair space of 30 in. 48 in. (760 mm 1220 mm) for each 50 persons, or portion thereof, of the occupant load of the floor area served by the lobby The size of lobbies serving multiple banks of elevators shall be exempt from the requirement of (1), provided that the area of such lobbies is approved on an individual basis and is consistent with the building s emergency action plan Access to the exit stair required by (3) shall be directly from the enclosed elevator lobby on each floor The occupant evacuation shaft system shall be enclosed and separated from the remainder of the building by walls complying with the following: (1) The shaft system walls shall be smoke barriers in accordance with Section 8.5. (2) The shaft system walls separating the elevator lobby from the remainder of the building shall have a minimum 1-hour fire resistance rating and minimum 3 4 -hour fire protection rated opening protectives. (3) The shaft system walls separating the elevator hoistway from the remainder of the building shall have a minimum 2-hour fire resistance rating and minimum hour fire protection rated opening protectives. (4) The shaft system walls separating the enclosed exit stair from the remainder of the building shall have a minimum 2-hour fire resistance rating and minimum hour fire protection rated opening protectives Occupant evacuation shaft system enclosures shall be constructed to provide a minimum of classification Level 2 in accordance with ASTM C1629/C1629M, Standard Classification for Abuse-Resistant Nondecorated Interior Gypsum Panel Products and Fiber- Reinforced Cement Panels * An approved method to prevent water from infiltrating into the hoistway enclosure from the operation of the automatic sprinkler system outside the enclosed occupant evacuation elevator lobby shall be provided.

67 3 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Occupant evacuation shaft system elevator lobby doors, other than doors to the hoistway, exit stair enclosure, control room, or control space, shall have all of the following features: (1) The doors shall have a fire protection rating of not less than ¾ hour. (2) The doors shall be smoke leakage rated assemblies in accordance with NFPA 105. (3) The doors shall have an automatic positioning bottom seal to resist the passage of water at floor level from outside the shaft system Occupant evacuation shaft system elevator lobby doors shall have the following features: (1) Each door, other than doors to the hoistway, exit stair enclosure, control room, or control space, shall be automatic-closing in accordance with , as modified by (2). (2) In addition to the automatic-closing means addressed by , the elevator lobby door on any floor shall also close in response to any alarm signal initiated on that floor. (3) Each door shall be provided with a vision panel arranged to allow people on either side of the door to view conditions on the other side of the door Each occupant evacuation shaft system exit stair enclosure door shall be provided with a vision panel arranged to allow people on either side of the door to view conditions on the other side of the door. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment While we are supportive of the committee resolution on this proposal, we see the proposers concept as one that could convey some architectural costs (assocaated with building fire resistant elevator shafts) into the product safety realm where it is easier to articulate comparative costs. More work is needed at the product level, however, and we look forward to seeing this proposal again in the next revision cycle; perhaps scaled down in its scope, however. Note to committee: Section 7.15 now in the current version does not seem to agree with the proposer's Section Related Item Public Input No. 330-NFPA [Section No. 7.14] Submitter Full Name: Michael Anthony Organization: University of Michigan Submittal Date: Mon May 16 12:15:59 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: No new technical substantiation has been provided for the proposed revision.

68 4 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 10-NFPA [ Section No ] * Wall Marking and Identification. For other than existing assemblies, where there is an accessible concealed floor, floor-ceiling, or attic space, fire barriers, smoke barriers, and smoke partitions shall be permanently identified with signs or stenciling in the concealed space and shall comply with all of the following: (1) Be located in accessible concealed floor, floor-ceiling, or attic spaces (2) Be located within 15 ft (4572 mm) of the end of each wall and at intervals not exceeding 30 ft (9144 mm) measured horizontally along the wall or partition (3) Include lettering not less than 3 in. (76 mm) in height with a minimum 3 8 in. (9.5 mm) stroke in a contrasting color (4) Identify the wall type and its fire -resistive resistance rating, as applicable Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 101_CCN_10.pdf 101 CC Note #10 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as Cc Note No. 10 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Fire Protection Features (FIR) to revise terminology in (4) from fire-resistive rating to fire resistance rating. This action will be considered as a public comment. Related Item Correlating Committee Note No. 10-NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: CC ON SAF_AAC Organization: NFPA CC ON SAFETY TO LIFE Submittal Date: Wed Mar 02 16:13:39 EST 2016 Committee Statement Committee Accepted Action: Resolution: SR-2501-NFPA Statement: The committee accepts the direction of the Correlating Committee to revise terminology in (4) from fire-resistive rating to fire resistance rating.

69 1 of 1 3/2/ :19 PM Correlating Committee Note No. 10-NFPA [ New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: SAF-AAC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Jan 08 08:03:55 EST 2016 Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Fire Protection Features (FIR) to revise terminology in (4) from fireresistive rating to fire resistance rating. This action will be considered as a public comment. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 11 Eligible Voters 0 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Affirmative All Bush, Kenneth E. Hopper, Howard Hrustich, Stephen Hugo, Jeffrey M. Kalie, Jr., J. Edmund Koffel, William E. Pauls, Jake Quiter, James R. Reiswig, Rodger Reynolds, Ronald C. Rosenbaum, Eric R.

70 5 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 43-NFPA [ Section No ] Opening Protectives General. Every opening in a fire barrier shall be protected to limit the spread of fire and restrict the movement of smoke from one side of the fire barrier to the other Minimum Fire Protection Rating * Fire protection ratings for products required to comply with shall be as determined and reported by a nationally recognized testing agency in accordance with NFPA 252, NFPA 257, ANSI/UL 10B, Standard for Fire Tests of Door Assemblies, ANSI/UL 10C, Standard for Positive Pressure Fire Tests of Door Assemblies, or ANSI/UL 9, Standard for Fire Tests of Window Assemblies.

71 6 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM *

72 7 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM The fire protection rating for opening protectives in fire barriers, fire-rated smoke barriers, and fire-rated smoke partitions shall be in accordance with Table , except as otherwise permitted in or Table Minimum Fire Ratings for Opening Protectives in Fire Resistance Rated Assemblies and Fire-Rated Glazing Markings Component Elevator hoistways Elevator lobby (per ) Vertical shafts (including stairways, exits, and refuse chutes Replacement panels in existing vertical shafts Walls and Partitions (hr) Fire Door Assemblies (hr) Door Vision Panel Maximum Size (in. 2 ) Fire-Rated Glazing Marking Door Vision Pane in. 2 c D-H-90 or D-H-W in. 2 c D-H-60 or D-H-W in. 2 d D-20 or D-W in. 2 a D-H-T-60 or 100 in.2, D-H-W Maximum size tested Maximum size tested Maximum size tested >100 in. 2, D-H-W-60 D-H-90 or D-H-W-90 D-H-60 or D-H-W-60 D-20 or D-W-20 Minimum Side Light/Transom Assembly Rating (hr) Fire protection Fire resistance Fire-Rated Glazing Marking Side Light/Transom Panel Fire protection Fire resistance Minimum Fire-Rated Windows Rating a,b (hr) Fire protection Fire resistance NP 2 NP D-H-W-120 NP 2 NP 1 NP D-H-W-60 NP D-H-20 D-W NP 1 NP D-H-W-60 NP 1 NP 2 NP D-H-W-120 NP 2 NP 1 NP D-H-W-60 NP D-H-20 D-W Fire barriers in.2 a D-H-180 or <=100 in.2, D-H-W-180 NP 3 NP D-H-W-180 NP 3 Horizontal exits Horizontal exits served by bridges between buildings Exit access corridors f Smoke barriers f Smoke partitions f,g Maximum size tested Maximum size tested e Maximum size tested Maximum size tested Maximum size tested e Maximum size tested Maximum size tested Maximum size tested Maximum size tested >100 in. 2, D-H-W-180 D-H-90 or D-H-W-90 D-H-45 or D-H-W-45 D-20 or D-W-20 D-H-90 or D-H-W-90 D-H-45 or D-H-W-45 D-20 or D-W-20 D-20 or D-W-20 D-20 or D-W-20 D-20 or D-W-20 NP 2 NP D-H-W-120 NP e 3 4 e D-H-45 D-H-W D-H-20 D-W NP 2 NP D-H-W-120 NP e 3 4 e D-H-45 D-H-W D-H-45 D-H-W D-H-20 D-H-W D-H-45 D-H-W D- H-20 D-H-W

73 8 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Component Walls and Partitions (hr) Fire Door Assemblies (hr) 1 1 Door Vision Panel Maximum Size (in. 2 ) Maximum size tested Fire-Rated Glazing Marking Door Vision Pane D-H-60 or D-H-W-60 Minimum Side Light/Transom Assembly Rating (hr) Fire protection Fire resistance Fire-Rated Glazing Marking Side Light/Transom Panel Fire protection Fire resistance Minimum Fire-Rated Windows Rating a,b (hr) Fire protection Fire resistance NP 1 NP D-H-W-60 NP 1 For SI units, 1 in. 2 = m 2. NP: Not permitted. a Fire resistance rated glazing tested to ASTM E119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, or ANSI/UL 263, Standard for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, shall be permitted in the maximum size tested (see ). b Fire-rated glazing in exterior windows shall be marked in accordance with Table c See ASME A17.1/CSA B44, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, for additional information. d See ASME A17.3, Safety Code for Existing Elevators and Escalators, for additional information. e Maximum area of individual exposed lights shall be 1296 in. 2 (0.84 m 2 ), with no dimension exceeding 54 in. (1.37 m) unless otherwise tested. [80: Table Note b and 80: ]. f Fire doors are not required to have a hose stream test per ANSI/UL 10B, Standard for Fire Tests of Door Assemblies, or ANSI/UL 10C, Standard for Positive Pressure Fire Tests of Door Assemblies. g For residential board and care, see and Existing fire door assemblies having a minimum 3 4 -hour fire protection rating shall be permitted to continue to be used in vertical openings and in exit enclosures in lieu of the minimum 1-hour fire protection rating required by Table Where a 20-minute fire protection rated door is required in existing buildings, an existing in. (44 mm) solid-bonded wood-core door, an existing steel-clad (tin-clad) wood door, or an existing solid-core steel door with positive latch and closer shall be permitted, unless otherwise specified by Chapters11 through Openings required to have a fire protection rating by Table shall be protected by approved, listed, and labeled fire door assemblies and fire window assemblies and their accompanying hardware, including all frames, closing devices, anchorage, and sills in accordance with the requirements of NFPA 80 except as otherwise specified in this Code * Fire Doors Fire door assemblies shall be installed, inspected, tested, and maintained in accordance with NFPA All fire door assemblies shall bear an approved label Labels on fire door assemblies shall be maintained in a legible condition * In existing installations, steel door frames without a label shall be permitted where approved by the authority having jurisdiction The maximum size of the fire doors shall not exceed that specified in NFPA 80, except as modified by Chapter Unless otherwise specified, fire doors shall be self-closing or automatic-closing Floor Fire Door Assemblies Floor fire door assemblies used to protect openings in fire resistance rated floors shall be tested in accordance with NFPA 288 and shall achieve a fire resistance rating not less than the assembly being penetrated Floor fire door assemblies shall be listed and labeled Fire Windows Fire window assemblies shall be installed, inspected, tested, and maintained in accordance with NFPA 80.

74 9 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM All fire window assemblies shall bear an approved label * Fire window assemblies shall be permitted in fire barriers having a required fire resistance rating of 1 hour or less and shall be of an approved type with the appropriate fire protection rating for the location in which they are installed Glazing Glazing materials that have been listed and labeled to indicate the type of opening to be protected for fire protection purposes shall be permitted to be used in approved opening protectives in accordance with Table and in sizes in accordance with NFPA Fire-rated glazing assemblies shall be permitted as follows: (1) Those marked as complying with hose stream requirements (H) shall be permitted in applications that do not require compliance with hose stream requirements. (2) Those marked as complying with temperature rise requirements (T) shall be permitted in applications that do not require compliance with temperature rise requirements. (3) Those marked with ratings that exceed the ratings required by this Code (XXX) shall be permitted New fire protection rated glazing shall be marked in accordance with Table and Table , and such marking shall be permanently affixed. Table Marking Fire-Rated Glazing Assemblies Fire Test Standard Marking Definition of Marking ASTM E119 or ANSI/UL 263 a W Meets wall assembly criteria NFPA 257 OH Meets fire window assembly criteria, including the hose stream test NFPA 252 D Meets fire door assembly criteria H Meets fire door assembly hose stream test T Meets 450 F (232 C) temperature rise criteria for 30 minutes XXX The time, in minutes, of fire resistance or fire protection rating of the glazing assembly New fire resistance rated glazing shall be marked in accordance with Table and Table , and such marking shall be permanently affixed Fire protection rated glazing shall be permitted in fire barriers having a required fire resistance rating of 1 hour or less and shall be of an approved type with the appropriate fire protection rating for the location in which the barriers are installed * Glazing in fire window assemblies, other than in existing fire window installations of wired glass and other fire-rated glazing material, shall be of a design that has been tested to meet the conditions of acceptance of NFPA 257 or ANSI/UL 9, Standard for Fire Tests of Window Assemblies Fire protection rated glazing in fire door assemblies, other than in existing fire-rated door assemblies, shall be of a design that has been tested to meet the conditions of acceptance of NFPA 252, ANSI/UL 10B, Standard for Fire Tests of Door Assemblies, or ANSI/UL 10C, Standard for Positive Pressure Fire Tests of Door Assemblies Fire resistance rated glazing tested in accordance with ASTM E119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, or ANSI/UL 263, Standard for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, shall be permitted in fire doors and fire window assemblies in accordance with their listings Nonsymmetrical fire protection rated glazing systems shall be tested with each face exposed to the furnace, and the assigned fire protection rating shall be the shortest duration obtained from the two tests conducted in compliance with NFPA 257 or ANSI/UL 9, Standard for Fire Tests of Window Assemblies The total combined area of glazing in fire-rated window assemblies and fire-rated door assemblies used in fire barriers shall not exceed 25 percent of the area of the fire barrier that is common with any room, unless the installation meets one of the following criteria: (1) The installation is an existing fire window installation of wired glass and other fire-rated glazing materials in approved frames. (2) The fire protection rated glazing material is installed in approved existing frames.

75 0 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Existing installations of wired glass of 1 4 in. (6.3 mm) thickness and labeled for fire protection purposes shall be permitted to be used in approved opening protectives, provided that the maximum size specified by the listing is not exceeded Sidelights and Transoms. Glazing used in sidelights and transoms adjacent to 20-minute doors in 1-hour corridor fire barriers shall be tested in accordance with , including hose stream, and shall attain a minimum 45-minute fire protection rating. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 101_CCN_47.pdf 101 CC Note #47 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 47 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Fire Protection Features (FIR) to do the following: 1. Change the text within from the fire protection rating for opening protectives to the fire rating for opening protectives for correlation with the title of Table (First Draft report numbering) as the table addresses both fire protection ratings and fire resistance ratings. 2. Consider the Negative ballot of Klein relative to the inconsistency being created in Table by requiring a smoke partition with 1-hr fire resistance rating to have 1-hr fire protection-rated opening protectives but continuing to allow a smoke barrier with 1-hr fire resistance rating to have 1/3-hr fire protection-rated opening protectives. 3. Consider the Negative ballot of Koffel relative to applicability of annex text (see, for example, A , A and A ) as not all opening protectives in a fire barrier are tested to limit smoke spread. Split annex text as appropriate so that it is tied to the applicable code requirement. 4. Revise , relative to fire doors not exceeding size requirements of NFPA 80, to delete the words except as modified by Chapter 7 unless it can be documented that Chapter 7 permits larger fire doors. 5. Revise 8.8 Inspection and Testing of Door Assemblies so the embedded reference is changed from to Within Table , the section on fire barriers within the table should be relocated to the beginning of the table or the end of the table to clarify that it addresses fire barriers as otherwise not addressed within the table. The term other fire barriers is suggested. These actions will be considered as a public comment. Related Item Correlating Committee Note No. 47-NFPA [Sections 8.3.3, 8.3.4, 8.3.5, 8.3.6] Submitter Full Name: CC ON SAF_AAC Organization: NFPA CC ON SAFETY TO LIFE Submittal Date: Thu Mar 03 15:15:48 EST 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-2502-NFPA Statement: Section : Per the request of the Correlating Committee, the text of Section was updated for correlation with the title of Table Table : The row for fire barriers within the table is being relocated to the end of the table, before the entry for smoke barriers. This change will help clarify that it addresses fire barriers not otherwise addressed within the table. This change supports the request of the Correlating Committee as well as the Committee Input developed during the First Draft stage. The table also contains a new row for one hour smoke partitions and 1/2 hour smoke barriers. The committee reviewed the ballot comments addressing any inconsistencies in the table with smoke partitions and smoke barriers and the addition of these entries for updates the table to address all rated components throughout the Code. Additional minor changes to the table update errors and inconsistencies from the First Draft version of the Table.

76 1 of 2 3/2/ :21 PM Correlating Committee Note No. 47-NFPA [ Sections 8.3.3, 8.3.4, 8.3.5, ] Submitter Full Name: SAF-AAC Organization: National Fire Protection Assoc Submittal Date: Wed Jan 13 08:21:09 EST 2016 Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Fire Protection Features (FIR) to do the following: 1. Change the text within from the fire protection rating for opening protectives to the fire rating for opening protectives for correlation with the title of Table (First Draft report numbering) as the table addresses both fire protection ratings and fire resistance ratings. 2. Consider the Negative ballot of Klein relative to the inconsistency being created in Table by requiring a smoke partition with 1-hr fire resistance rating to have 1-hr fire protection-rated opening protectives but continuing to allow a smoke barrier with 1-hr fire resistance rating to have 1/3-hr fire protection-rated opening protectives. 3. Consider the Negative ballot of Koffel relative to applicability of annex text (see, for example, A , A and A ) as not all opening protectives in a fire barrier are tested to limit smoke spread. Split annex text as appropriate so that it is tied to the applicable code requirement. 4. Revise , relative to fire doors not exceeding size requirements of NFPA 80, to delete the words except as modified by Chapter 7 unless it can be documented that Chapter 7 permits larger fire doors. 5. Revise 8.8 Inspection and Testing of Door Assemblies so the embedded reference is changed from to Within Table , the section on fire barriers within the table should be relocated to the beginning of the table or the end of the table to clarify that it addresses fire barriers as otherwise not addressed within the table. The term other fire barriers is suggested. These actions will be considered as a public comment. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 11 Eligible Voters 0 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Affirmative All Bush, Kenneth E. Hopper, Howard Hrustich, Stephen Hugo, Jeffrey M. Kalie, Jr., J. Edmund Koffel, William E. Pauls, Jake Quiter, James R. Reiswig, Rodger

77 2 of 2 3/2/ :21 PM Reynolds, Ronald C. Rosenbaum, Eric R.

78 1 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 214-NFPA [ Section No ]

79 2 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM *

80 3 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM The fire protection rating for opening protectives in fire barriers, fire-rated smoke barriers, and fire-rated smoke partitions shall be in accordance with Table , except as otherwise permitted in or Table Minimum Fire Ratings for Opening Protectives in Fire Resistance Rated Assemblies and Fire-Rated Glazing Markings Component Elevator hoistways Walls and Partitions (hr) Fire Door Assemblies (hr) Door Vision Panel Maximum Size (in. 2 ) Fire-Rated Glazing Marking Door Vision Pane in. 2 c D-H-90 or D-H-W in. 2 c D-H-60 or D-H-W in. 2 d D-20 or D-W-20 Minimum Side Light/Transom Assembly Rating (hr) Fire protection Fire resistance Fire-Rated Glazing Marking Side Light/Transom Panel Fire protection Fire resistance Minimum Fire-Rate Windows Rating a (hr) Fire protection Fire resistan NP 2 NP D-H-W-120 NP 2 NP 1 NP D-H-W-60 NP D-H-20 D-W Elevator lobby (per ) in. 2 a 100 in. 2, D-H-T-60 or D-H-W-60 NP 1 NP D-H-W-60 NP 1 >100 in. 2, D-H-W-60 Vertical shafts (including stairways, exits, and refuse chutes Maximum size tested h D-H-90 or D-H-W-90 NP 2 NP D-H-W-120 NP Maximum size tested h D-H-60 or D-H-W-60 NP 1 NP D-H-W-60 NP 1 Replacement panels in existing vertical shafts Fire barriers 3 3 Horizontal exits Horizontal exits served by bridges between buildings Maximum size tested in.2 a Maximum size tested h size Maximum tested e Maximum size tested Maximum size tested h size Maximum tested e Exit access corridors f Maximum size tested Maximum size tested D-20 or D-W-20 <=100 in. 2, D-H-180 or D-H-W-180 >100 in. 2, D-H-W-180 D-H-90 or D-H-W-90 D-H-45 or D-H-W-45 D-20 or D-W-20 D-H-90 or D-H-W-90 D-H-45 or D-H-W-45 D-20 or D-W-20 D-20 or D-W D-H-20 D-W NP 3 NP D-H-W-180 NP 3 NP 2 NP D-H-W-120 NP e 3 4 e D-H-45 D-H-W D-H-20 D-W NP 2 NP D-H-W-120 NP e 3 4 e D-H-45 D-H-W D-H-45 D-H-W D-H-20 D-H-W

81 4 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Component Walls and Partitions (hr) Fire Door Assemblies (hr) Door Vision Panel Maximum Size (in. 2 ) Smoke barriers f Maximum size tested Smoke partitions f,g Maximum size tested 1 1 Maximum size tested Fire-Rated Glazing Marking Door Vision Pane D-20 or D-W-20 D-20 or D-W-20 D-H-60 or D-H-W-60 Minimum Side Light/Transom Assembly Rating (hr) Fire protection Fire resistance Fire-Rated Glazing Marking Side Light/Transom Panel Fire protection Fire resistance Minimum Fire-Rate Windows Rating a (hr) Fire protection Fire resistan D-H-45 D-H-W D- H-20 D-H-W NP 1 NP D-H-W-60 NP 1 For SI units, 1 in. 2 = m 2. NP: Not permitted. a Fire resistance rated glazing tested to ASTM E119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, or ANSI/UL 263, Standard for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, shall be permitted in the maximum size tested (see ). b Fire-rated glazing in exterior windows shall be marked in accordance with Table c See ASME A17.1/CSA B44, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, for additional information. d See ASME A17.3, Safety Code for Existing Elevators and Escalators, for additional information. e Maximum area of individual exposed lights shall be 1296 in. 2 (0.84 m 2 ), with no dimension exceeding 54 in. (1.37 m) unless otherwise tested. [80: Table Note b and 80: ]. f Fire doors are not required to have a hose stream test per ANSI/UL 10B, Standard for Fire Tests of Door Assemblies, or ANSI/UL 10C, Standard for Positive Pressure Fire Tests of Door Assemblies. g For residential board and care, see and h As provided for in Section fire protection rated glazing materials exceeding 100 in. 2 permitted in temperature rise rated doors. [80: Table Note c] (0.065m 2 ) in area are not Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment Section (formerly ) points the user to Table and then sppecifically to NFPA 80 for sizes of glazing permitted. The table can be misleading because it does not include the limitation on the size of fire protection-rated glazing in a temperature rise-rated door. The new note h is intended to clarify the requirements of the code. In answer to PI 372 the committee stated: "It is recognized that Table 4.4.5, NFPA 80, 2016 Edition currently restricts the use of fire protection rating glazing to 100 sq. in. in fire doors required to have a fire protection rating of 1-1/2 hours and meet temperature rise criteria. However, there are listed products that have been up to a 3 hour fire protection rating for use in temperature rise rated doors and in some instances, in sizes greater than 100 sq. in. Thus, the proposed footnote to the table is creating a potential conflict and should not be added." This answer is contrary to the intent and purpose of the Table, which was an addition to the 2012 edition of NFPA 101 I helped develop. At that time the table was derived from existing technical requirements found within NFPA 101 language. The table was not intended to be the technical requirements or change any requirements, it was to serve as a tool in applying the code that reflects technical language found elsewhere. This was clearly attested to during the process developing and gaining committee acceptance of the table. This has not been changed by any ensuing code proposal. The table reflects the technical requirements, therefor it is the current table creating the conflict by allowing increased sizes not permitted by current technical language within NFPA 101 or NFPA 80, and for which there has not been any proposal or data submitted to support. Related Item Public Input No. 372-NFPA [Section No [Excluding any Sub-Sections]] Submitter Full Name: Robert Davidson Organization: Davidson Code Concepts, LLC Affilliation: SaftiFirst Submittal Date: Mon May 16 15:24:41 EDT 2016

82 5 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Committee Statement Committee Action: Resolution: Rejected At the time the footnote referenced was included in NFPA 80, there was no fire protection rated product available that met the 450 degree temperature rise provisions. There are currently glazing products available that can meet the temperature rise door provisions. There are no temperature rise requirements in NFPA 101 or NFPA 5000 at this time.

83 6 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 62-NFPA [ Section No ] Penetrations shall be installed be protected in accordance with a tested system, and installed and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer s instructions. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment A penetration needs to be protected, not installed. Related Item First Revision No NFPA [Sections 8.3.3, 8.3.4, 8.3.5, 8.3.6] Submitter Full Name: Peter Larrimer Organization: US Department of Veterans Affa Submittal Date: Tue Mar 22 10:30:34 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-2507-NFPA Statement: A penetration needs to be protected, not installed.

84 7 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 100-NFPA [ Section No ] Vibration Isolation. 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 wall or floor. It shall be designed for the specific purpose Vibration isolation 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. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment 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 substation, 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. Related Item Public Input No. 265-NFPA [Sections 8.3.3, 8.3.4, 8.3.5, 8.3.6] Submitter Full Name: Jonathan Humble Organization: American Iron and Steel Instit Affilliation: American Iron and Steel Institute Submittal Date: Wed Mar 30 10:22:04 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Accepted Action: Resolution: SR-2508-NFPA 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 substation, 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,

85 8 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM 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.

86 9 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 44-NFPA [ Section No ] Joints General The provisions of shall govern the materials and methods of construction used to protect joints in fire barriers, in between fire barriers, and at the perimeter of fire barriers where fire barriers meet other fire barriers, the floor or roof deck above, or the outside walls The provisions of shall not apply to approved existing materials and methods of construction used to protect existing joints in fire barriers, unless otherwise required by Chapters 11 through Joint System Requirements * Joints made within or at the perimeter of fire barriers, between fire resistance rated assemblies, or where fire barriers meet other fire barriers, the floor or roof deck above, or the outside walls shall be protected with a joint system that is designed and tested to prevent the spread of fire for a time period equal to that of the assembly in which the joint is located Joints made within or at the perimeter of fire barriers used as smoke barriers shall be capable of restricting the transfer of smoke in accordance with Joints shall be installed in accordance with a tested system, and installed and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer s instructions Testing of the joint system in a fire barrier shall be representative of the actual installation suitable for the required engineering demand without compromising the fire resistance rating of the assembly or the structural integrity of the assembly Such materials, systems, or devices shall be tested as part of the assembly in accordance with the requirements of ASTM E1966, Standard Test Method for Fire-Resistive Joint Systems, or ANSI/UL 2079, Standard for Tests for Fire Resistance of Building Joint Systems All joint systems shall be tested at their maximum joint width in accordance with the requirements of ASTM E1966, Standard Test Method for Fire-Resistive Joint Systems, or ANSI/UL 2079, Standard for Tests for Fire Resistance of Building Joint Systems, under a minimum positive pressure differential of 0.01 in. water column (2.5 N/m 2 ) for a time period equal to that of the assembly All test specimens shall comply with the minimum height or length required by the standard Wall assemblies shall be subjected to a hose stream test in accordance with ASTM E119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, or ANSI/UL 263, Standard for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials Joints made between a fire barrier and a non-fire-resistance-rated floor or roof sheathing, slab, or deck above shall be protected by an approved continuity head of wall joint system installed as tested in accordance with ASTM E2837, Standard Test Method for Determining the Fire Resistance of Continuity Head-of-Wall Joint Systems Installed Between Rated Wall Assemblies and Nonrated Horizontal Assemblies, and the system shall have an F rating and T rating of not less than the required fire resistance rating of the fire barrier * Exterior Curtain Walls and Perimeter Joints Voids created between the fire resistance rated floor assembly and the exterior curtain wall shall be protected with a perimeter joint system that is designed and tested in accordance with ASTM E2307, Standard Test Method for Determining Fire Resistance of Perimeter Fire Barriers Using Intermediate-Scale, Multi-story Apparatus The perimeter joint system shall have an F rating equal to the fire resistance rating of the floor assembly. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved

87 0 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM 101_CCN_48.pdf 101 CC Note #48 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 48 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Fire Protection Features (FIR) to consider exempting existing fire barriers from this new requirement. The provision of (First Draft Report numbering) exempts approved existing materials and methods of construction used to protect existing joints, but the AHJ might not approve an existing installation which is not compliant with the new requirement of Where is the substantiation to justify retroactive application of this new requirement? This Correlating Committee recommendation is made, in part, in response to the Negative ballot of Humble relative to 1/2-hour fire resistance-rated barriers. The Code utilizes 1/2-hour barriers for existing installations. This CN is related to FR This action will be considered as a public comment. Related Item Correlating Committee Note No. 48-NFPA [Section No ] First Revision No NFPA [Detail] Submitter Full Name: CC ON SAF_AAC Organization: NFPA CC ON SAFETY TO LIFE Submittal Date: Thu Mar 03 15:21:35 EST 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected Action: Resolution: It is the committee's intent that existing materials and existing methods of construction are acceptable. Section addresses this intent and is valid for existing installations. With the current Section , Section would not apply to existing installations.

88 1 of 1 3/2/ :25 PM Correlating Committee Note No. 48-NFPA [ Section No ] Submitter Full Name: SAF-AAC Organization: National Fire Protection Assoc Submittal Date: Wed Jan 13 12:45:01 EST 2016 Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Fire Protection Features (FIR) to consider exempting existing fire barriers from this new requirement. The provision of (First Draft Report numbering) exempts approved existing materials and methods of construction used to protect existing joints, but the AHJ might not approve an existing installation which is not compliant with the new requirement of Where is the substantiation to justify retroactive application of this new requirement? This Correlating Committee recommendation is made, in part, in response to the Negative ballot of Humble relative to 1/2-hour fire resistance-rated barriers. The Code utilizes 1/2-hour barriers for existing installations. This CN is related to FR This action will be considered as a public comment. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 11 Eligible Voters 0 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Affirmative All Bush, Kenneth E. Hopper, Howard Hrustich, Stephen Hugo, Jeffrey M. Kalie, Jr., J. Edmund Koffel, William E. Pauls, Jake Quiter, James R. Reiswig, Rodger Reynolds, Ronald C. Rosenbaum, Eric R.

89 1 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 11-NFPA [ Section No ] Shutters that protect openings shall be automatic-closing upon detection of smoke by smoke detectors installed in accordance with NFPA 72. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 101_CCN_11.pdf 101 CC Note #11 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 11 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Fire Protection Features (FIR) to consider the Affirmative with Comment ballot of Koffel and the Abstention ballot of McHugh to revise the text to capture what the smoke detector installation is to accomplish, similar to that which is currently done for door operation in (4). This action will be considered as a public comment. Related Item Correlating Committee Note No. 11-NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: CC ON SAF_AAC Organization: NFPA CC ON SAFETY TO LIFE Submittal Date: Wed Mar 02 16:20:35 EST 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-2509-NFPA Statement: The revised language addresses the request of the Correlating Committee to revise text to capture what the smoke detector installation is to accomplish. The additional text was added for consistency with (4).

90 1 of 1 3/2/ :27 PM Correlating Committee Note No. 11-NFPA [ New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: SAF-AAC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Jan 08 08:09:22 EST 2016 Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Fire Protection Features (FIR) to consider the Affirmative with Comment ballot of Koffel and the Abstention ballot of McHugh to revise the text to capture what the smoke detector installation is to accomplish, similar to that which is currently done for door operation in (4). This action will be considered as a public comment. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 11 Eligible Voters 0 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Affirmative All Bush, Kenneth E. Hopper, Howard Hrustich, Stephen Hugo, Jeffrey M. Kalie, Jr., J. Edmund Koffel, William E. Pauls, Jake Quiter, James R. Reiswig, Rodger Reynolds, Ronald C. Rosenbaum, Eric R.

91 2 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 63-NFPA [ Section No ] Shutters that protect openings shall be automatic-closing upon detection of smoke by smoke detectors installed in accordance with NFPA 72. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment Adding this requirement for shutters in Chapter 8 will add confusion to the document. Shutters are defined and addressed in NFPA 80 (see below) and as written, it seems that the requirement is using the term shutter to mean something that is different that what is identified in NFPA 80. A shutter in a wall is just another type of door and the door requirements are already established. If the committee want to establish a requirement for "shutters", I would suggest that shutters be defined in NFPA 101 so that the user understands what is intended or, alternatively, add an annex note to that says a shutter should be consider a door in the context of Section Shutter. A labeled door assembly that is used for the protection of a window opening in an exterior wall. (See also , Fire Shutter.) Related Item First Revision No NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: Peter Larrimer Organization: US Department of Veterans Affa Submittal Date: Tue Mar 22 10:45:32 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Resolution: Rejected In order to limit the transfer of smoke an opening provided with a shutter must close upon smoke detector activation and not merely a fusible link. There is confusion in the field when a shutter is installed as a smoke partition. The language of will provide direction on how to install a shutter in a smoke partition

92 3 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 101-NFPA [ Section No ] 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. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment 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 substation, 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. Related Item Public Input No. 265-NFPA [Sections 8.3.3, 8.3.4, 8.3.5, 8.3.6] Submitter Full Name: Jonathan Humble Organization: American Iron and Steel Instit Affilliation: American Iron and Steel Institute Submittal Date: Wed Mar 30 10:25:50 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Accepted Action: Resolution: SR-2510-NFPA 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 substation, 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,

93 4 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM 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.

94 5 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 12-NFPA [ Sections , , , , ] Sections , , , , Penetrations for cables, cable trays, conduits, pipes, tubes, vents, wires, and similar items to accommodate electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and communications systems that pass through a wall, floor, or floor/ceiling assembly constructed as a smoke barrier, or through the ceiling membrane of the roof/ceiling of a smoke barrier assembly, shall be protected by a system or material capable of restricting the transfer of smoke Where a smoke barrier is also constructed as a fire barrier, the penetrations shall be protected in accordance with the requirements of to limit the spread of fire for a time period equal to the fire resistance rating of the assembly and the requirements of8.5.6 to restrict the transfer of smoke, unless the requirements of are met Where sprinklers penetrate a single membrane of a fire resistance rated assembly in buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, noncombustible escutcheon plates shall be permitted, provided that the space around each sprinkler penetration does not exceed 1 2 in. (13 mm), measured between the edge of the membrane and the sprinkler In new construction, penetrations shall be protected by an approved through-penetration firestop system installed and tested in accordance with the requirements of ANSI/UL 1479, Standard for Fire Tests of Through-Penetration Firestops, for air leakage. The L rating of the system measured at 0.30 in. (7.47 Pa) of water, in both the ambient temperature and elevated temperature tests, shall comply with one of the following: (1) 5 ft 3 /m per ft 2 (0.025 m 3 /s per m 2 ) of penetration opening for each through-penetration firestop system (2) A total cumulative leakage of 50 ft 3 /m (0.024 m 3 /s) for any 100 ft 2 (9.3 m 2 ) of wall area or floor area Where the penetrating item uses a sleeve to penetrate the smoke barrier, the sleeve shall be securely set in the smoke barrier, and the space between the item and the sleeve shall be filled with a listed system of a material capable or restricting the transfer of smoke. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 101_CCN_12.pdf 101 CC Note #12 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 12 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Fire Protection Features (FIR) to do the following: 1. Revise the requirement of so that it has applicability if the smoke barrier is also constructed as a fire barrier for sample language, see Consider the Negative ballot of Hugo relative to clarifying the applicability is it for membrane penetrations? Is it for through- penetrations? 3. Consider the Negative ballot of Shino relative to providing substantiation for the requirement for 0.30 inches water column, given that the provisions for smokeproof enclosures require 0.05 inches water column in sprinklered buildings and 0.10 inches water column in nonsprinklered buildings. 4. Revise the text of as needed based on the following words not working together correctly: fill with a listed system of a material capable or restricting the transfer of smoke. Was the text meant to read: fill with a listed system or a material capable of restricting the transfer of smoke? These actions will be considered as a public comment. Related Item Correlating Committee Note No. 12-NFPA [Sections , , , ] Submitter Full Name: CC ON SAF_AAC Organization: NFPA CC ON SAFETY TO LIFE

95 6 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Submittal Date: Wed Mar 02 16:25:02 EST 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Resolution: Statement: Rejected but see related SR See SR-2511-NFPA and SR Regarding (1), Section addresses the applicability of the Section. No additional changes are needed. The addition of the word 'through' clarifies the application of the section and addresses the request of the Correlating Committee to consider the negative ballot comment. The deleted text regarding the L rating is redundant as it is included in the ANSI/UL 1479 test. The repeated language is not needed here. The addition of the term 'maximum' to (1) and (2) clarify the allowable leakage per system and area.

96 1 of 1 3/2/ :29 PM Correlating Committee Note No. 12-NFPA [ Sections , , , ] Submitter Full Name: SAF-AAC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Jan 08 08:12:17 EST 2016 Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Fire Protection Features (FIR) to do the following: 1. Revise the requirement of so that it has applicability if the smoke barrier is also constructed as a fire barrier for sample language, see Consider the Negative ballot of Hugo relative to clarifying the applicability is it for membrane penetrations? Is it for throughpenetrations? 3. Consider the Negative ballot of Shino relative to providing substantiation for the requirement for 0.30 inches water column, given that the provisions for smokeproof enclosures require 0.05 inches water column in sprinklered buildings and 0.10 inches water column in nonsprinklered buildings. 4. Revise the text of as needed based on the following words not working together correctly: fill with a listed system of a material capable or restricting the transfer of smoke. Was the text meant to read: fill with a listed system or a material capable of restricting the transfer of smoke? These actions will be considered as a public comment. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 11 Eligible Voters 0 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Affirmative All Bush, Kenneth E. Hopper, Howard Hrustich, Stephen Hugo, Jeffrey M. Kalie, Jr., J. Edmund Koffel, William E. Pauls, Jake Quiter, James R. Reiswig, Rodger Reynolds, Ronald C. Rosenbaum, Eric R.

97 7 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 99-NFPA [ Section No ] 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. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment 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 substation, 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. Related Item Public Input No. 265-NFPA [Sections 8.3.3, 8.3.4, 8.3.5, 8.3.6] Submitter Full Name: Jonathan Humble Organization: American Iron and Steel Instit Affilliation: American Iron and Steel Institute Submittal Date: Wed Mar 30 08:32:39 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Accepted Action: Resolution: SR-2513-NFPA 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 substation, 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,

98 8 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM 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.

99 9 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 13-NFPA [ Sections , , , ] Sections , , , The provisions of shall govern the materials and methods of construction used to protect joints in between and at the perimeter of smoke barriers or, where smoke barriers meet other smoke barriers, the floor or roof deck above, or the outside walls. The provisions of shall not apply to approved existing materials and methods of construction used to protect existing joints in smoke barriers, unless otherwise required by Chapters 11 through Joints made within, between, or at the perimeter of smoke barriers shall be protected with a joint system that is tested in accordance with the requirements of ANSI/UL 2079, Standard for Tests for Fire Resistance of Building Joint Systems, for air leakage. The L rating of the joint system shall not exceed 5 ft 3 /m per ft ( m 3 /s per m) of joint at 0.30 in. (7.47 Pa) of water for both the ambient temperature and elevated temperature tests Smoke barriers that are also constructed as fire barriers shall be protected with a joint system that is designed and tested to resist the spread of fire for a time period equal to the required fire resistance rating of the assembly and restrict the transfer of smoke in accordance with Testing of the joint system in a smoke barrier that also serves as fire barrier shall be representative of the actual installation. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 101_CCN_13.pdf 101 CC Note #13 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 13 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Fire Protection Features (FIR) to do the following: 1. Revise the requirement of so that it has applicability if the smoke barrier is also constructed as a fire barrier for sample language, see Consider the Negative ballot of Shino relative to providing substantiation for the requirement for 0.30 inches water column, given that the provisions for smokeproof enclosures require 0.05 inches water column in sprinklered buildings and 0.10 inches water column in nonsprinklered buildings. These actions will be considered as a public comment. Related Item Correlating Committee Note No. 13-NFPA [Sections , , , ] Submitter Full Name: CC ON SAF_AAC Organization: NFPA CC ON SAFETY TO LIFE Submittal Date: Thu Mar 03 09:01:56 EST 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Resolution: Rejected but see related SR See SR In response to (1), no revision is needed as the application of the section is adequately addressed in current text.

100 0 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Statement: The deleted text regarding the L rating is redundant as it is included in the ANSI/UL 2079 test. The repeated language is not needed here. The change is consistent with changes made to Section

101 1 of 1 3/2/ :31 PM Correlating Committee Note No. 13-NFPA [ Sections , , , ] Submitter Full Name: SAF-AAC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Jan 08 08:13:40 EST 2016 Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Fire Protection Features (FIR) to do the following: 1. Revise the requirement of so that it has applicability if the smoke barrier is also constructed as a fire barrier for sample language, see Consider the Negative ballot of Shino relative to providing substantiation for the requirement for 0.30 inches water column, given that the provisions for smokeproof enclosures require 0.05 inches water column in sprinklered buildings and 0.10 inches water column in nonsprinklered buildings. These actions will be considered as a public comment. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 11 Eligible Voters 0 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Affirmative All Bush, Kenneth E. Hopper, Howard Hrustich, Stephen Hugo, Jeffrey M. Kalie, Jr., J. Edmund Koffel, William E. Pauls, Jake Quiter, James R. Reiswig, Rodger Reynolds, Ronald C. Rosenbaum, Eric R.

102 1 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 14-NFPA [ Section No ] * Draftstopping materials shall be not less than 1 2 in. (13 mm) type X gypsum board or other approved materials that are adequately supported. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 101_CCN_14.pdf 101 CC Note #14 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 14 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Fire Protection Features (FIR) to consider the Negative ballots of Devlin, Gerdes, Klein, Richardson, Shino and Stashak relative to providing technical substantiation for why a draft stop additionally needs fire resisting capability like that provided by Type X gypsum wall board. This action will be considered as a public comment. Related Item Correlating Committee Note No. 14-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: CC ON SAF_AAC Organization: NFPA CC ON SAFETY TO LIFE Submittal Date: Thu Mar 03 09:08:00 EST 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-2515-NFPA Statement: Per the request of the Correlating Committee, the negative ballot comments were considered. This change reverts back to 2015 edition text in response to the ballot comments. The purpose of draftstopping is not to stop the spread of fire, but to inhibit airflow and air movement. The change made at the First Draft stage eliminated the allowance for material such as 1/2" plywood and 15/32" structural panel to be used to satisfy the draftstopping provisions without appropriate technical justification as to why the material is not satisfactory. The 2015 text is adequate.

103 1 of 1 3/2/ :32 PM Correlating Committee Note No. 14-NFPA [ Section No ] Submitter Full Name: SAF-AAC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Jan 08 08:16:05 EST 2016 Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Fire Protection Features (FIR) to consider the Negative ballots of Devlin, Gerdes, Klein, Richardson, Shino and Stashak relative to providing technical substantiation for why a draft stop additionally needs fire resisting capability like that provided by Type X gypsum wall board. This action will be considered as a public comment. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 11 Eligible Voters 0 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Affirmative All Bush, Kenneth E. Hopper, Howard Hrustich, Stephen Hugo, Jeffrey M. Kalie, Jr., J. Edmund Koffel, William E. Pauls, Jake Quiter, James R. Reiswig, Rodger Reynolds, Ronald C. Rosenbaum, Eric R.

104 2 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 134-NFPA [ Section No ] * Alcohol-Based Hand-Rub Dispensers. Where permitted by Chapters 11 through 43, alcohol-based hand-rub dispensers shall be permitted provided they meet all of the following criteria: (1) The maximum individual dispenser fluid capacity shall be as follows: (2) 0.32 gal (1.2 L) for dispensers in corridors and areas open to corridors (3) 0.53 gal (2.0 L) for dispensers in rooms or suites of rooms separated from corridors (4) Where aerosol containers are used, the maximum capacity of the aerosol dispenser shall be 18 oz (0.51 kg) and shall be limited to Level 1 aerosols as defined in NFPA 30B. (5) Dispensers shall be separated from each other by horizontal spacing of not less than 48 in. (1220 mm). (6) Not more than an aggregate 10 gal (37.8 L) of alcohol-based hand-rub solution or 1135 oz (32.2 kg) of Level 1 aerosols, or a combination of liquids and Level 1 aerosols not to exceed, in total, the equivalent of 10 gal (37.8 L) or 1135 oz (32.2 kg,) shall be in use outside of a storage cabinet in a single smoke compartment or fire compartment or story, whichever is less in area. One dispenser complying with (1) per room and located in that room shall not be included in the aggregated quantity. (7) Storage of quantities greater than 5 gal (18.9 L) in a single smoke compartment or fire compartment or story, whichever is less in area, shall meet the requirements of NFPA 30. (8) Dispensers shall not be installed in the following locations: (9) Above an ignition source for a horizontal distance of 1 in. (25 mm) to each side of the ignition source (10) To the side of an ignition source within a 1 in. (25 mm) horizontal distance from the ignition source (11) Beneath an ignition source within a 1 in. (25 mm) vertical distance from the ignition source (12) Dispensers installed directly over carpeted floors shall be permitted only in sprinklered areas of the building. (13) The alcohol-based hand-rub solution shall not exceed 95 percent alcohol content by volume. (14) Operation of the dispenser shall comply with the following criteria: (15) The dispenser shall not release its contents except when the dispenser is activated, either manually or automatically by touch-free activation. (16) Any activation of the dispenser shall only occur when an object is placed within 4 in. (100 mm) of the sensing device. (17) An object placed within the activation zone and left in place shall not cause more than one activation. (18) The dispenser shall not dispense more solution than the amount required for hand hygiene consistent with label instructions. (19) The dispenser shall be designed, constructed, and operated in a manner that ensures accidental or malicious activation of the dispensing device is minimized. (20) The dispenser shall be tested in accordance with the manufacturer s care and use instructions each time a new refill is installed. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment This subsection should be deleted because it is not a building code issue, are not part of the building and not required to be installed for the certificate of occupancy. These regulations are better suited for the fire code. Related Item Public Input No. 60-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Jim Muir Organization: Building Safety Division, Clark County, Washington

105 3 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Affilliation: NFPA's Building Code Development Committee (BCDC) Submittal Date: Tue May 10 13:31:39 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Resolution: Rejected NFPA 101 addresses other components similar to ABHR such as furnishings, contents and interior finish and coatings. It is appropriate for 101 to include guidance on this topic. ABHR materials and dispensers are found in almost every occupancy. The provisions provide the guidance needed for owners and AHJs and also provides necessary guidance for occupancy chapters. A majority of the occupancy chapters currently reference this section. If, in the future, occupancy chapters chose to opt out of referencing this section, the Correlating Committee can provide guidance on its deletion if necessary.

106 4 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 15-NFPA [ Section No ] Audible alarm notification appliances shall comply with NFPA 72. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 101_CCN_15.pdf 101 CC Note #15 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 15 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Building Service and Fire Protection Equipment (BSF) to consider the Negative ballot of Larrimer so as to make clear that existing audible devices need not meet the requirements of the current edition of NFPA 72. The committee should retain the existing performance-based language (rather than deleting it as proposed in the FR) for applicability to existing appliance installations. This action will be considered as a public comment. Related Item Correlating Committee Note No. 15-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: CC ON SAF_AAC Organization: NFPA CC ON SAFETY TO LIFE Submittal Date: Thu Mar 03 09:33:43 EST 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-1004-NFPA Statement: The intent of this proposed code change is to return the subject Section text back to the original text in the 2015 edition of NFPA 101. The new language proposed by the Technical Committee will retroactively require all existing audible alarm notification appliances in buildings to meet all the requirements in NFPA 72. This would have created a conflict between NFPA 101 and NFPA 72. This was not the intent of the original First Revision.

107 1 of 1 3/2/ :33 PM Correlating Committee Note No. 15-NFPA [ Section No ] Submitter Full Name: SAF-AAC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Jan 08 08:24:54 EST 2016 Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Building Service and Fire Protection Equipment (BSF) to consider the Negative ballot of Larrimer so as to make clear that existing audible devices need not meet the requirements of the current edition of NFPA 72. The committee should retain the existing performance-based language (rather than deleting it as proposed in the FR) for applicability to existing appliance installations. This action will be considered as a public comment. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 11 Eligible Voters 0 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Affirmative All Bush, Kenneth E. Hopper, Howard Hrustich, Stephen Hugo, Jeffrey M. Kalie, Jr., J. Edmund Koffel, William E. Pauls, Jake Quiter, James R. Reiswig, Rodger Reynolds, Ronald C. Rosenbaum, Eric R.

108 5 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 194-NFPA [ Section No ] Audible alarm notification appliances shall comply with NFPA 72 be of such character and so distributed as to be effectively heard above the average ambient sound level that exists under normal conditions of occupancy. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment The intent of this proposed code change is to return the subject Section text back to the original text in the 2015 edition of NFPA 101. The new language proposed by the Technical Committee will retroactively require all existing audible alarm notification appliances in buildings to meet all the requirements in NFPA 72. I believe this was not the intent of the Technical Committee. Related Item First Revision No NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: David Frable Organization: US General Services Administration Submittal Date: Mon May 16 10:51:12 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-1004-NFPA Statement: The intent of this proposed code change is to return the subject Section text back to the original text in the 2015 edition of NFPA 101. The new language proposed by the Technical Committee will retroactively require all existing audible alarm notification appliances in buildings to meet all the requirements in NFPA 72. This would have created a conflict between NFPA 101 and NFPA 72. This was not the intent of the original First Revision.

109 6 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 64-NFPA [ Section No ] ? Audible alarm notification appliances shall comply with NFPA 72 be of such character and so distributed as to be effectively heard above the average ambient sound level that exists under normal conditions of occupancy. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment See the negative comment. Related Item First Revision No NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Peter Larrimer Organization: US Department of Veterans Affa Submittal Date: Tue Mar 22 10:57:55 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-1004-NFPA Statement: The intent of this proposed code change is to return the subject Section text back to the original text in the 2015 edition of NFPA 101. The new language proposed by the Technical Committee will retroactively require all existing audible alarm notification appliances in buildings to meet all the requirements in NFPA 72. This would have created a conflict between NFPA 101 and NFPA 72. This was not the intent of the original First Revision.

110 7 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 193-NFPA [ New Section after ] Compliance Whenever impairments, critical deficiencies, or non-critical deficiencies are identified in water-based fire protection systems maintained in accordance with NFPA 25, they shall be corrected in a time frame approved by the AHJ as required by Section Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment The new text is similar to NFPA 1 FR135 and FR136. It establishes direction to the user for impairments, critical deficiencies, and non-critical deficiencies to comply with NFPA 25 and is correlated to NFPA 101 Section Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Public Comment No. 195-NFPA [New Section after 3.3] Related Item Public Input No. 416-NFPA [New Section after ] Public Input No. 418-NFPA [Section No. 9.11] Relationship Submitter Full Name: Jeffrey Hugo Organization: National Fire Sprinkler Associ Affilliation: NFSA Submittal Date: Mon May 16 10:38:52 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: Requirements for impairments or deficiencies are already included with NFPA 25 and within Section in NFPA 101.

111 8 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 187-NFPA [ Section No ] * Integrated Systems Fire Protection and Life 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 interconnected, the integrated systems shall be tested system test shall verify the proper operation and function of such systems in accordance with NFPA 4. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment 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. Related Item First Revision No NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: David Frable Organization: US General Services Administration Submittal Date: Mon May 16 09:29:32 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-1002-NFPA 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.

112 9 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 16-NFPA [ New Section after 9.13 ] Add New Section after 9.13 Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 101_CCN_16.pdf 101 CC Note #16 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 16 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Fundamentals (FUN) and the occupancy committees (AXM, END, HEA, BCF, RES, DET, MER, IND) to review the proposed change and determine if further changes are needed in the Code. The Correlating Committee will revisit the scope of the TC on Building Service and Fire Protection Equipment (BSF) after they propose any desired changes. This action will be considered as a public comment. Related Item Correlating Committee Note No. 16-NFPA [New Section after 9.13] Submitter Full Name: CC ON SAF_AAC Organization: NFPA CC ON SAFETY TO LIFE Submittal Date: Thu Mar 03 09:37:17 EST 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Unknown Reason Resolution:

113 1 of 1 3/2/ :34 PM Correlating Committee Note No. 16-NFPA [ New Section after 9.13 ] Submitter Full Name: SAF-AAC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Jan 08 08:26:18 EST 2016 Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Fundamentals (FUN) and the occupancy committees (AXM, END, HEA, BCF, RES, DET, MER, IND) to review the proposed change and determine if further changes are needed in the Code. The Correlating Committee will revisit the scope of the TC on Building Service and Fire Protection Equipment (BSF) after they propose any desired changes. This action will be considered as a public comment. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 11 Eligible Voters 0 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Affirmative All Bush, Kenneth E. Hopper, Howard Hrustich, Stephen Hugo, Jeffrey M. Kalie, Jr., J. Edmund Koffel, William E. Pauls, Jake Quiter, James R. Reiswig, Rodger Reynolds, Ronald C. Rosenbaum, Eric R.

114 0 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 110-NFPA [ Section No ] 9.14 Risk Analysis for Mass Notification Systems Where Required. Where required by Chapters 11 through 43, a risk analysis for mass notification systems shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of NFPA 72 and the provisions of through Considerations. The risk analysis required by shall additionally address all of the following considerations: (1) Fire and non-fire emergencies (2) Specific nature and anticipated risks of each facility (3) Characteristics of associated buildings, areas, spaces, campuses, equipment, and operations Emergency Communications System. An emergency communications system in accordance with NFPA 72 shall be provided where need for such is identified by the risk analysis required by , commensurate with the likelihood, vulnerability, magnitude, and potential consequences of emergencies Emergency Action Plan. The completed emergency action plan in accordance with Section 4.8 shall be used for the design of the mass notification/emergency communications system. See attachment for proposed changes. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved Chapter_9_Risk_Assessment_Public_Comment_NFPA_Submittal_Ver2.docx Public Comment to FR 1006 from Dan Gauvin Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment The Risk Assessment in Section 9.14 should be applicable to Emergency Communication/Mass Notification Systems (both systems are addressed in NFPA 72 Chapter 24). Depending on the results of the risk analysis, either an emergency communication system or a mass notification system may sufficiently serve the need of the emergency action plan (and in some cases neither may be required). A new section has been added to clarify that the emergency communication/mass notification system is only needed where required by the results of the risk analysis (i.e. there are no prescriptive requirements for an emergency notification/mass notification system). The new also replaces in the first revision. A new section for Performance Design has been added. This section identifies the purpose of the risk analysis, the emergency communication/mass notification system, and the emergency communication/mass notification system emergency action plan that are necessary for identifying system design and performance requirements. Section (Considerations) from the first revision has been deleted. The public input language only identified a partial list of the considerations listed in NFPA 72 Chapter 24, and as such, this could be considered a conflict, or at the very least, create confusion between the two documents. The requirements in Section 9.14 for compliance with NFPA 72 Chapter 24 will automatically ensure all considerations will be consistently referenced. A new section has been added to identify the documentation requirements, who is responsible for the documents, and the requirement for the required documentation to be submitted to the AHJ. Without these requirements this section would be difficult to enforce. Where applicable, references to NFPA 72 have been changed to NFPA 72, Chapter 24 (this is the NFPA 72 chapter reference for Emergency Communications Systems which also includes Mass Notification Systems). Related Item First Revision No NFPA [New Section after 9.13] Submitter Full Name: Daniel Gauvin Organization: Tyco Fire Suppression & Building Products

115 1 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Submittal Date: Wed Apr 20 15:13:04 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-1005-NFPA Statement: The CC sent each of the occupancies a copy of PC #16. The following statements have been compiled: BSF Statement: Revisions to the new section on mass notification were made to reflect the submitted public comments, including the option to move this material to an adoptable annex. This new section provides direction for occupancy chapters to consider a risk analysis relative to the need for mass notification systems. This section does not require mass notification systems, it only provides the option for the risk analysis. Where the risk analysis and resulting action plan identifies a need for a mass notification system, NFPA 72 shall be used for design and installation requirements. Mass notification systems are not limited to active shooter events, they are also used for natural disasters, or other dangerous situations. BCF Statement: The Board and Care TC was asked to review the provisions for mass notification systems and found that they are not applicable for board and care facilities. RES Statement: The Residential TC reviewed the changes in Chapter 9 and added a new section on mass notification systems for dormitories used in K-12, college or university settings with occupant loads of 100 or more. DET Statement: The nature of operations in Detention/Correctional Occupancies do not lend themselves to traditional mass notification systems. Site wide notifications are communicated to the staff who must initiate the appropriate actions and measures to take. Additionally, the committee requests the correlating committee to review the terminology for mass notification systems vs emergency communication systems to maintain consistency with NFPA 72 Chapter 24.

116 Proposed Public Comment to NFPA 101 First Revision 1006-NFPA Risk Analysis for Mass NotificationEmergency Communication/Mass Notification Systems Where Required Where required by Chapters 11 through 43, a risk analysis for emergency communication/mass notification systems shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of NFPA 72, Chapter 24 and the provisions of through Where required by the risk analysis in , the emergency communication/mass notification system shall be in accordance with the requirements of NFPA 72, Chapter Considerations. The risk analysis required by shall additionally address all of the following considerations: (1) Fire and non-fire emergencies (2) Specific nature and anticipated risks of each facility (3) Characteristics of associated buildings, areas, spaces, campuses, equipment, and operations Performance Design The purpose of the risk analysis for the emergency communication/mass notification system shall be to limit or control the consequences, extent, or severity of incidents and scenarios of concern identified through a risk analysis The purpose of the emergency communication/mass notification system shall be to communicate information about emergencies including, but not limited to, fire, human-caused events (accidental and intentional), other dangerous situations, accidents, and natural disasters The purpose of the emergency action plan for the emergency communication/mass notification system shall be to identify the emergency communication/mass notification system design and performance requirements in accordance with the results of the risk analysis Documentation The emergency action plan, risk assessment report, and accompanying documentation shall be submitted to the authority having jurisdiction by the registered design professional (RDP). The format and content of the documentation shall be acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction * Where required by the authority having jurisdiction, an independent review of the emergency action plan, risk assessment, and the accompanying documentation by one or more individuals possessing expertise in risk characterization for accidental and intentional hazards shall be performed. A These peer reviews should focus on the assumptions and methods of analysis used and on the findings. Peer reviewers should submit written assessment reports to the AHJ Emergency Communications System. An emergency communications system in accordance with NFPA 72 shall be provided where need for such is identified by the risk analysis required by , commensurate with the likelihood, vulnerability, magnitude, and potential consequences of emergencies Emergency Action Plan. The completed emergency action plan in accordance with Section 4.8 shall be used for the design of the mass notification/emergency communications system.

117 2 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 198-NFPA [ Section No ] 9.14 Risk Analysis for Mass Notification Systems Where Required. Where required by Chapters 11 through 43, a risk analysis for mass notification systems shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of NFPA 72 and the provisions of through Considerations. The risk analysis required by shall additionally address all of the following considerations: (1) Fire and non-fire emergencies (2) Specific nature and anticipated risks of each facility (3) Characteristics of associated buildings, areas, spaces, campuses, equipment, and operations Emergency Communications System. An emergency communications system in accordance with NFPA 72 shall be provided where need for such is identified by the risk analysis required by , commensurate with the likelihood, vulnerability, magnitude, and potential consequences of emergencies Emergency Action Plan. The completed emergency action plan in accordance with Section 4.8 shall be used for the design of the mass notification/emergency communications system. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment The intent of this proposed code change is to delete the proposed First Revision. The Technical Committee statement focusses on educational type occupancies; however, the proposal could cover every type of occupancy classification. In addition, the proposed text is poorly written and it also appears to contradict some requirements in NFPA 72 regarding the risk analysis, the design of the system, and the buildings emergency action plan. Last but not least, at this time it is felt that mandating a risk analysis be conducted for every project to determine the appropriate way to provide information and instructions to people in a building(s) or outdoor spaces for every possible event (threat/emergency) condition is not the best way to proceed at this time. From a cost standpoint, it appears that to conduct a risk analysis of this magnitude prior to installing a new fire alarm system in a building will be very expensive. Therefore, until more cost data and experience is brought forth, it is recommended that a new Annex be developed so that it can be used on a voluntary basis by building owners and developers who might have a desire to install a mass notification system in their projects. (see code change that proposes new Annex C). Related Item First Revision No NFPA [New Section after 9.13] Submitter Full Name: David Frable Organization: US General Services Administration Submittal Date: Mon May 16 11:49:55 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-1005-NFPA Statement: The CC sent each of the occupancies a copy of PC #16. The following statements have been compiled: BSF Statement: Revisions to the new section on mass notification were made to reflect the submitted public comments, including the option to move this material to an adoptable annex. This new section provides direction for occupancy chapters to consider a risk analysis relative to the need for mass notification systems. This section does not require mass notification systems, it only provides the option for the risk analysis. Where the risk analysis and resulting action plan identifies a need for a mass notification system, NFPA 72 shall be used for design and installation requirements. Mass notification systems are not limited to active shooter events, they are also used for natural disasters, or other dangerous situations.

118 3 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM BCF Statement: The Board and Care TC was asked to review the provisions for mass notification systems and found that they are not applicable for board and care facilities. RES Statement: The Residential TC reviewed the changes in Chapter 9 and added a new section on mass notification systems for dormitories used in K-12, college or university settings with occupant loads of 100 or more. DET Statement: The nature of operations in Detention/Correctional Occupancies do not lend themselves to traditional mass notification systems. Site wide notifications are communicated to the staff who must initiate the appropriate actions and measures to take. Additionally, the committee requests the correlating committee to review the terminology for mass notification systems vs emergency communication systems to maintain consistency with NFPA 72 Chapter 24.

119 4 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 207-NFPA [ Section No ] 9.14 Risk Analysis for Mass Notification Systems Where Required. Where System. Where required by Chapters 11 through 43, a risk analysis for mass notification systems system shall be provided designed, installed, inspected, tested and maintained in accordance with the requirements of NFPA 72 and the provisions of through Considerations. The risk analysis required by shall additionally address all of the following considerations: (1) Fire and non-fire emergencies (2) Specific nature and anticipated risks of each facility (3) Characteristics of associated buildings, areas, spaces, campuses, equipment, and operations Emergency Communications System. An emergency communications system in accordance with NFPA 72 shall be provided where need for such is identified by the risk analysis required by , commensurate with the likelihood, vulnerability, magnitude, and potential consequences of emergencies 1 A risk analysis for the mass notification system shall be performed in accordance with the requirements in NFPA 72 to determine the necessary emergency communication performance means needed for the specific project based on the occupant needs and potential natural, human, and technological caused events Emergency Action Plan. The completed emergency action plan in accordance with Section 4.8 shall be used for the 1.1 The risk analysis shall also be used as the basis for the development of the emergency communication provisions of the facility emergency response plan The design of the mass notification /emergency communications system system shall be based on the risk analysis for the specified mass notification system. Additional Proposed Changes File Name FR_1006_-_Mass_Notification_Chapter_9_.docx Description Approved Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment This is the third related proposal on this subject matter. FR 1006, Risk Analysis for Mass Notification Systems has been deleted and replaced with New Section 9.14, Mass Notification System. This proposed revision addresses the process for installing a mass notification system in a building. In addition, the proposed text in FR 1006 is poorly written and it also appears to contradict some requirements in NFPA 72 regarding the risk analysis, the design of the system, and the buildings emergency action plan. Therefore, the Section was revised to include a reference to NFPA 72 regarding the design, installation, inspection, testing, and maintenance requirements as well as a risk analysis performed in accordance with the requirement s in NFPA 72 a mass notiification system. Proposed new Section 9.14 is needed for coordination with new Sections and New: High rise buildings more than 420 feet above grade plane with an occupant load greater than 5,000 shall be provided with a mass notification system in accordance with Section

120 5 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM New: Mass Notification System A mass notification system shall be in accordance with the requirements in Section Related Item First Revision No NFPA [New Section after 9.13] Committee Input No NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: David Frable Organization: US General Services Administration Submittal Date: Mon May 16 14:20:11 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-1005-NFPA Statement: The CC sent each of the occupancies a copy of PC #16. The following statements have been compiled: BSF Statement: Revisions to the new section on mass notification were made to reflect the submitted public comments, including the option to move this material to an adoptable annex. This new section provides direction for occupancy chapters to consider a risk analysis relative to the need for mass notification systems. This section does not require mass notification systems, it only provides the option for the risk analysis. Where the risk analysis and resulting action plan identifies a need for a mass notification system, NFPA 72 shall be used for design and installation requirements. Mass notification systems are not limited to active shooter events, they are also used for natural disasters, or other dangerous situations. BCF Statement: The Board and Care TC was asked to review the provisions for mass notification systems and found that they are not applicable for board and care facilities. RES Statement: The Residential TC reviewed the changes in Chapter 9 and added a new section on mass notification systems for dormitories used in K-12, college or university settings with occupant loads of 100 or more. DET Statement: The nature of operations in Detention/Correctional Occupancies do not lend themselves to traditional mass notification systems. Site wide notifications are communicated to the staff who must initiate the appropriate actions and measures to take. Additionally, the committee requests the correlating committee to review the terminology for mass notification systems vs emergency communication systems to maintain consistency with NFPA 72 Chapter 24.

121 First Revision No NFPA [ New Section after 9.13 ] 9.14 Risk Analysis for Mass Notification Systems Where Required. Where required by Chapters 11 through 43, a risk analysis for mass notification systems shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of NFPA 72 and the provisions of through Considerations. The risk analysis required by shall additionally address all of the following considerations: (1) Fire and non-fire emergencies (2) Specific nature and anticipated risks of each facility (3) Characteristics of associated buildings, areas, spaces, campuses, equipment, and operations Emergency Communications System. An emergency communications system in accordance with NFPA 72 shall be provided where need for such is identified by the risk analysis required by , commensurate with the likelihood, vulnerability, magnitude, and potential consequences of emergencies Emergency Action Plan. The completed emergency action plan in accordance with Section 4.8 shall be used for the design of the mass notification/emergency communications system. First Revision No NFPA [ New Section after 9.13 ] 9.14 Mass Notification System. Where required by Chapters 11 through 43, a mass notification system shall be designed, installed, inspected, tested and maintained in accordance with the requirements of NFPA 72 and the provisions of through A risk analysis for the mass notification system shall be performed in accordance with the requirements in NFPA 72 to determine the necessary emergency communication performance means needed for the specific project based on the occupant needs and potential natural, human, and technological caused events The risk analysis shall also be used as the basis for the development of the emergency communication provisions of the facility emergency response plan The design of the mass notification system shall be based on the risk analysis for the specified mass notification system.

122 6 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 65-NFPA [ Section No ] 9.14 Risk Analysis for Mass Notification Systems Where Required. Where required by Chapters 11 through 43, a risk analysis for mass notification systems shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of NFPA 72 and the provisions of through Considerations. The risk analysis required by shall additionally address all of the following considerations: (1) Fire and non-fire emergencies (2) Specific nature and anticipated risks of each facility (3) Characteristics of associated buildings, areas, spaces, campuses, equipment, and operations Emergency Communications System. An emergency communications system in accordance with NFPA 72 shall be provided where need for such is identified by the risk analysis required by , commensurate with the likelihood, vulnerability, magnitude, and potential consequences of emergencies Emergency Action Plan. The completed emergency action plan in accordance with Section 4.8 shall be used for the design of the mass notification/emergency communications system. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment This section was added to hastily at the First Revision stage. Unless it is more specific to what is intended, it should not be added to the Life Safety Code until more work is done on the verbiage. The deaths that occurred due at the incidents mentioned in the committee statement (Aurora, CO. Theater 2012; Columbine 1999; Virginia Tech 2007; Sandy Hook 2012) would not have been reduced in any way by adding the requirements to do a risk analysis even if a mass notification system was added as a result. This adds a lot of requirements but doesn't reduce the casualties. In addition, a requirement to perform a risk analysis to address all non-fire emergencies is over the top for the Life Safety Code. How does one practically determine whether or not a shooting or a bombing is going to occur on their property and once these requirements are added, how does one argue that it isn t going to occur from a liability standpoint? Newly added section requires the use of the emergency action plan in accordance with 4.8 to be used for the mass notification system, but the emergency action plan in 4.8 is not mandated unless an occupancy chapter requires it to be included. Additionally, the emergency action plan in 4.8 covers much more than the notification system. If mass notification is to be included in the Life Safety Code, it should be included as a component of the emergency action plan in 4.8. Section items 1, 2, 3, and 6 cover the components that should be used as a basis for the mass notification system Plan Requirements * Emergency action plans shall include the following: (1) Procedures for reporting of emergencies (2) Occupant and staff response to emergencies (3)*Evacuation, relocation, and shelter-in-place procedures appropriate to the building, its occupancy, emergencies, and hazards (4) Appropriateness of the use of elevators (5) Design and conduct of fire drills (6) Type and coverage of building fire protection systems (7) Other items required by the authority having jurisdiction Not requiring a risk analysis will not make buildings less safe and adding a mass notification system will not prevent a bombing or a shooting incident. Related Item First Revision No NFPA [New Section after 9.13] Submitter Full Name: Peter Larrimer Organization: US Department of Veterans Affa

123 7 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Submittal Date: Tue Mar 22 11:16:54 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-1005-NFPA Statement: The CC sent each of the occupancies a copy of PC #16. The following statements have been compiled: BSF Statement: Revisions to the new section on mass notification were made to reflect the submitted public comments, including the option to move this material to an adoptable annex. This new section provides direction for occupancy chapters to consider a risk analysis relative to the need for mass notification systems. This section does not require mass notification systems, it only provides the option for the risk analysis. Where the risk analysis and resulting action plan identifies a need for a mass notification system, NFPA 72 shall be used for design and installation requirements. Mass notification systems are not limited to active shooter events, they are also used for natural disasters, or other dangerous situations. BCF Statement: The Board and Care TC was asked to review the provisions for mass notification systems and found that they are not applicable for board and care facilities. RES Statement: The Residential TC reviewed the changes in Chapter 9 and added a new section on mass notification systems for dormitories used in K-12, college or university settings with occupant loads of 100 or more. DET Statement: The nature of operations in Detention/Correctional Occupancies do not lend themselves to traditional mass notification systems. Site wide notifications are communicated to the staff who must initiate the appropriate actions and measures to take. Additionally, the committee requests the correlating committee to review the terminology for mass notification systems vs emergency communication systems to maintain consistency with NFPA 72 Chapter 24.

124 8 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 17-NFPA [ Section No ] 10.2* Interior Finish * General Classification of interior finish materials shall be in accordance with tests made under conditions simulating actual installations, provided that the authority having jurisdiction is permitted to establish the classification of any material for which classification by a standard test is not available Fixed or movable walls and partitions, paneling, wall pads, and crash pads applied structurally or for decoration, acoustical correction, surface insulation, or other purposes shall be considered interior finish and shall not be considered decorations or furnishings Lockers shall be considered interior finish Washroom water closet partitions shall be considered interior finish Fire-retardant coatings shall be in accordance with * Use of Interior Finishes Requirements for interior wall and ceiling finish shall apply as follows: (1) Where specified elsewhere in this Code for specific occupancies (see Chapter 7 and Chapters 11 through 43) (2) As specified in through * Interior floor finish shall comply with under any of the following conditions: (1) Where floor finish requirements are specified elsewhere in the Code (2) Where the fire performance of the floor finish cannot be demonstrated to be equivalent to floor finishes with a critical radiant flux of at least 0.1 W/cm * Interior Wall or Ceiling Finish Testing and Classification. Where interior wall or ceiling finish is required elsewhere in this Code to be classified for fire performance and smoke development, it shall be classified in accordance with or , except as indicated in sections Interior Wall and Ceiling Finish Materials Tested in Accordance with NFPA Interior wall and ceiling finish materials shall be classified in accordance with NFPA 286 and comply with Materials tested in accordance with and complying with shall be considered also to comply with the requirements of a Class A, Class B, or Class C in accordance with Acceptance Criteria for NFPA 286. The interior finish shall comply with the following: (1) During the 40 kw exposure, flames shall not spread to the ceiling. (2) The flame shall not spread to the outer extremity of the sample on any wall or ceiling. (3) Flashover, as defined in NFPA 286, shall not occur. (4) The peak heat release rate throughout the test shall not exceed 800 kw. (5) For new installations, the total smoke released throughout the test shall not exceed 1000 m * Interior Wall and Ceiling Finish Materials Tested in Accordance with ASTM E84 or ANSI/UL 723.

125 9 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Interior wall and ceiling finish materials shall be classified in accordance with ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, or ANSI/UL 723, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, except as indicated in and , and shall be grouped in the following classes in accordance with their flame spread and smoke developed indexes. Class A: Flame spread index 0 25; smoke developed index Class B: Flame spread index 26 75; smoke developed index Class C: Flame spread index ; smoke developed index Existing interior finish shall be exempt from the smoke developed index criteria of The classification of interior finish specified in shall be that of the basic material used by itself or in combination with other materials Wherever the use of Class C interior wall and ceiling finish is required, Class A or Class B shall be permitted, and where Class B interior wall and ceiling finish is required, Class A shall be permitted Materials complying with the requirements of shall not be required to be tested in accordance with Materials described in shall be tested as described in the corresponding sections * Interior Wall and Ceiling Finish Materials with Special Requirements. The materials indicated in through shall be tested as indicated in the corresponding sections Thickness Exemption. The provisions of shall not apply to materials having a total thickness of less than 1 28 in. (0.9 mm) that are applied directly to the surface of walls and ceilings where both of the following conditions are met: (1) The wall or ceiling surface is a noncombustible or limited combustible material. (2) The materials applied meet the requirements of Class A interior wall or ceiling finish when tested in accordance with , using fiber cement board as the substrate material If a material having a total thickness of less than 1 28 in. (0.9 mm) is applied to a surface that is not noncombustible or not limitedcombustible, the provisions of shall apply Approved existing installations of materials applied directly to the surface of walls and ceilings in a total thickness of less than 1 28 in. (0.9 mm) shall be permitted to remain in use, and the provisions of shall not apply * Exposed Portions of Structural Members. In other than new interior exit stairways, new interior exit ramps, and new exit passageways, exposed portions of structural members complying with the requirements for Type IV (2HH) construction in accordance with NFPA 220or with the building code shall be exempt from testing and classification in accordance with Cellular or Foamed Plastic Cellular or foamed plastic materials shall not be used as interior wall and ceiling finish unless specifically permitted by or The requirements of shall apply both to exposed foamed plastics and to foamed plastics used in conjunction with a textile or vinyl facing or cover * Cellular or foamed plastic materials shall be permitted where subjected to large-scale fire tests that substantiate their combustibility and smoke release characteristics for the use intended under actual fire conditions One of the following fire tests shall be used for assessing the combustibility of cellular or foamed plastic materials as interior finish: (1) NFPA 286, Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Contribution of Wall and Ceiling Interior Finish to Room Fire Growth, with the acceptance criteria of (2) ANSI/UL 1715, Standard for Fire Test of Interior Finish Material (including smoke measurements, with total smoke release not to exceed 1000 m 2 ) (3) ANSI/UL 1040, Standard for Fire Test of Insulated Wall Construction (4) ANSI/FM Approval 4880, Approval Standard for Class 1 Rating of Insulated Wall or Wall and Roof/Ceiling Panels, Interior Finish Materials or Coatings, and Exterior Wall Systems

126 0 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM * The tests shall be performed on a finished foamed plastic assembly related to the actual end-use configuration, including any cover or facing, and at the maximum thickness intended for use Cellular or foamed plastic shall be permitted for trim not in excess of 10 percent of the specific wall or ceiling area to which it is applied, provided that it is not less than 20 lb/ft 3 (320 kg/m 3 ) in density, is limited to 1 2 in. (13 mm) in thickness and 4 in. (100 mm) in width, and complies with the requirements for Class A or Class B interior wall and ceiling finish as described in ; however, the smoke developed index shall not be limited * Textile Wall Coverings. Where used as interior wall finish materials, textile materials shall be tested in the manner intended for use, using the product mounting system, including adhesive, and shall comply with the requirements of either, , , or * Products tested in accordance with NFPA 265 shall comply with the criteria of * The interior finish shall comply with all of the following when tested using method B of the test protocol of NFPA 265: (1) During the 40 kw exposure, flames shall not spread to the ceiling. (2) The flame shall not spread to the outer extremities of the samples on the 8 ft 12 ft (2440 mm 3660 mm) walls. (3) Flashover, as described in NFPA 265, shall not occur. (4) For new installations, the total smoke released throughout the test shall not exceed 1000 m Textile materials meeting the requirements of Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, or ANSI/UL 723, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, using the specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E2404, Standard Practice for Specimen Preparation and Mounting of Textile, Paper or Polymeric (Including Vinyl) and Wood Wall or Ceiling Coverings, Facings and Veneers, to Assess Surface Burning Characteristics, shall be permitted as follows: (1) On the walls of rooms or areas protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system. (2) On partitions that do not exceed three-quarters of the floor-to-ceiling height or do not exceed 8 ft (2440 mm) in height, whichever is less. (3) On the lower 48 in. (1220 mm) above the finished floor on ceiling-height walls and ceiling-height partitions. (4) Previously approved existing installations of textile material meeting the requirements of Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials or ANSI/UL 723, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, shall be permitted to be continued to be used * Expanded Vinyl Wall Coverings. Where used as interior wall finish materials, expanded vinyl wall coverings shall be tested in the manner intended for use, using the product mounting system, including adhesive, and shall comply with the requirements of either , , or Textile Ceiling Coverings. Where used as interior ceiling finish materials, textile materials shall be tested in the manner intended for use, using the product mounting system, including adhesive, and shall meet one of the following: (1) Comply with the requirements of (2) Meet the requirements of Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials or ANSI/UL 723, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials using the specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E2404, Standard Practice for Specimen Preparation and Mounting of Textile, Paper or Polymeric (Including Vinyl) and Wood Wall or Ceiling Coverings, Facings and Veneers, to Assess Surface Burning Characteristics, and used on the ceilings of rooms or areas protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system Expanded Vinyl Ceiling Coverings. Where used as interior ceiling finish materials, expanded vinyl materials shall be tested in the manner intended for use, using the product mounting system, including adhesive, and shall meet one of the following: (1) Comply with the requirements of (2) Meet the requirements of Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials or ANSI/UL 723, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, using the specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E2404, Standard Practice for Specimen Preparation and Mounting of Textile, Paper or Polymeric (Including Vinyl) and Wood Wall or Ceiling Coverings, Facings and Veneers, to Assess Surface Burning Characteristics, and used on the ceilings of rooms or areas protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system Lockers.

127 1 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Combustible Lockers. Where lockers constructed of combustible materials other than wood are used, the lockers shall be considered interior finish and shall comply with , except as permitted by Wood Lockers. Lockers constructed entirely of wood and of noncombustible materials shall be permitted to be used in any location where interior finish materials are required to meet a Class C classification in accordance with Polypropylene (PP) and High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Polypropylene and high-density polyethylene materials shall not be permitted as interior wall or ceiling finish unless the material complies with the requirements of The tests shall be performed on a finished assembly and on the maximum thickness intended for use Site-Fabricated Stretch Systems For new installations, site-fabricated stretch systems containing all three components described in the definition in Chapter 3 shall be tested in the manner intended for use and shall comply with the requirements of or If the materials are tested in accordance with ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, or ANSI/UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, specimen preparation and mounting shall be in accordance with ASTM E2573, Standard Practice for Specimen Preparation and Mounting of Site-Fabricated Stretch Systems to Assess Surface Burning Characteristics Reflective Insulation Materials Reflective insulation materials shall be tested in the manner intended for use and shall comply with the requirements of or If the materials are tested in accordance with ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, or ANSI/UL 723, specimen preparation and mounting shall be in accordance with ASTM E2599, Standard Practice for Specimen Preparation and Mounting of Reflective Insulation, Radiant Barrier, and Vinyl Stretch Ceiling Materials for Building Applications to Assess Surface Burning Characteristics Metal Ceiling and Wall Panels Listed factory finished metal ceiling and wall panels meeting the requirements of Class A in accordance with , shall be permitted to be finished with one additional application of paint Such painted panels shall be permitted for use in areas where Class A interior finishes are required. The total paint thickness shall not exceed 1 28 in. (0.9 mm) Laminated Products Factory Produced with a Wood Substrate Laminated products factory produced with a wood substrate shall be tested in the manner intended for use and shall comply with the requirements of or If the materials are tested in accordance with ASTM E84, Standard Test method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, or ANSI/UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, specimen preparation and mounting shall be in accordance with ASTM E2404, Standard Practice for Specimen Preparation and Mounting of Textile, Paper or Polymeric (Including Vinyl) and Wood Wall or Ceiling Coverings, Facings and Veneers, to Assess Surface Burning Characteristics Facings or Wood Veneers Intended to be Applied on Site over a Wood Substrate Facings or veneers intended to be applied on site over a wood substrate shall be tested in the manner intended for use and shall comply with the requirements of or If the materials are tested in accordance with NFPA 286 they shall use the product-mounting system, including adhesive, described in Section of NFPA If the materials are tested in accordance with ASTM E84, Standard Test method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, or ANSI/UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, specimen preparation and mounting shall be in accordance with ASTM E2404, Standard Practice for Specimen Preparation and Mounting of Textile, Paper or Polymeric (Including Vinyl) and Wood Wall or Ceiling Coverings, Facings and Veneers, to Assess Surface Burning Characteristics.

128 2 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM * Light-Transmitting Plastics. Light-transmitting plastics shall be permitted to be used as interior wall and ceiling finish if approved by the authority having jurisdiction Decorations and Furnishings. Decorations and furnishings that do not meet the definition of interior finish, as defined in , shall be regulated by the provisions of Section Trim and Incidental Finish General. Interior wall and ceiling trim and incidental finish, other than wall base in accordance with and bulletin boards, posters, and paper in accordance with , not in excess of 10 percent of the specific wall and ceiling areas of any room or space to which it is applied shall be permitted to be Class C materials in occupancies where interior wall and ceiling finish of Class A or Class B is required Wall Base. Interior floor trim material used at the junction of the wall and the floor to provide a functional or decorative border, and not exceeding 6 in. (150 mm) in height, shall meet the requirements for interior wall finish for its location or the requirements for Class II interior floor finish as described in using the test described in If a Class I floor finish is required, the interior floor trim shall be Class I Bulletin Boards, Posters, and Paper Bulletin boards, posters, and paper attached directly to the wall shall not exceed 20 percent of the aggregate wall area to which they are applied The provision of shall not apply to artwork and teaching materials in sprinklered educational or day-care occupancies in accordance with (2), (2), (2), or (2) * Fire-Retardant Coatings * The required flame spread index or smoke developed index of existing surfaces of walls, partitions, columns, and ceilings shall be permitted to be secured by applying approved fire-retardant coatings to surfaces having higher flame spread index values than permitted Such treatments shall be tested, or shall be listed and labeled for application to the material to which they are applied, and shall comply with the requirements of NFPA * Surfaces of walls, partitions, columns, and ceilings shall be permitted to be finished with factory-applied fire-retardant-coated products that have been listed and labeled to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of ASTM E2768, Standard Test Method for Extended Duration Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, on the coated surface Fire-retardant coatings or factory-applied fire-retardant-coated assemblies shall possess the desired degree of permanency and shall be maintained so as to retain the effectiveness of the treatment under the service conditions encountered in actual use * Interior Floor Finish Testing and Classification * Carpet and carpet-like interior floor finishes shall comply with ASTM D2859, Standard Test Method for Ignition Characteristics of Finished Textile Floor Covering Materials * Floor coverings, other than carpet for which establishes requirements for fire performance, shall have a minimum critical radiant flux of 0.1 W/cm * Interior floor finishes shall be classified in accordance with , based on test results from NFPA 253 or ASTM E648, Standard Test Method for Critical Radiant Flux of Floor Covering Systems Using a Radiant Heat Energy Source Interior floor finishes shall be grouped in the classes specified in and in accordance with the critical radiant flux requirements Class I Interior Floor Finish. Class I interior floor finish shall have a critical radiant flux of not less than 0.45 W/cm 2, as determined by the test described in

129 3 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Class II Interior Floor Finish. Class II interior floor finish shall have a critical radiant flux of not less than 0.22 W/cm 2, but less than 0.45 W/cm 2, as determined by the test described in Wherever the use of Class II interior floor finish is required, Class I interior floor finish shall be permitted Automatic Sprinklers Other than as required in , where an approved automatic sprinkler system is installed in accordance with Section 9.7, Class C interior wall and ceiling finish materials shall be permitted in any location where Class B is required, and Class B interior wall and ceiling finish materials shall be permitted in any location where Class A is required Where an approved automatic sprinkler system is installed in accordance with Section 9.7, throughout the fire compartment or smoke compartment containing the interior floor finish, Class II interior floor finish shall be permitted in any location where Class I interior floor finish is required, and where Class II is required, the provisions of shall apply. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 101_CCN_17.pdf 101 CC Note #17 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 17 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Interior Finish and contents (FUR) to do the following: 1. Consider the Affirmative with Comment ballot of Hirschler as the test method for factory-produced laminated products was incorrectly shown as ASTM E2404 when it should have been ASTM E2579, Standard Practice for Specimen Preparation and Mounting of Wood Products to Assess Surface Burning Characteristics. 2. Add ASTM E2579, Standard Practice for Specimen Preparation and Mounting of Wood Products to Assess Surface Burning Characteristics to the Chapter 2 ASTM referenced standards in Add correlative references to avoid conflicts. For example, the provision of would provide better guidance if the following was added: unless otherwise provided in and Similarly, the text of and would be more accurate if wording was added to the effect: and the provision of shall not apply. 4. Revise (3) to replace the word defined with described to read: Flashover, as described in NFPA 286, shall not occur. This will make relative to NFPA 286, consistent with relative to NFPA 265. NFPA 286 Chapter 3 does not define flashover; its 9.1 Procedure describes flashover as having occurred when any two of five possible criteria are met. 5. Provide a boldface heading to relative to Rate of Heat Release Testing of Upholstered Furniture and Mattresses as done for cigarette ignition testing of upholstered furniture and mattresses in Renumber to become ; renumber the s to become the s; renumber subsequent paragraphs as needed. These actions will be considered as a public comment. Related Item Correlating Committee Note No. 17-NFPA [Section No. 10.2] Submitter Full Name: CC ON SAF_AAC Organization: NFPA CC ON SAFETY TO LIFE Submittal Date: Thu Mar 03 09:42:12 EST 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Rejected

130 4 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Resolution: The following actions were taken on this Public Comment, which was crated from CC Note 17. The numbering corresponds to the numbered actions in the CC Note. 1. See SR See SR in Chapter 2. Addition of ASTM E2579 was sent back to FUN for them to add to Section No action was taken to revise Section The existing text is appropriate and adding additional exceptions is unnecessary. 4. See SR See SR 3506.

131 1 of 2 3/2/ :36 PM Correlating Committee Note No. 17-NFPA [ Section No ] Submitter Full Name: SAF-AAC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Jan 08 08:44:06 EST 2016 Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Interior Finish and contents (FUR) to do the following: 1. Consider the Affirmative with Comment ballot of Hirschler as the test method for factory-produced laminated products was incorrectly shown as ASTM E2404 when it should have been ASTM E2579, Standard Practice for Specimen Preparation and Mounting of Wood Products to Assess Surface Burning Characteristics. 2. Add ASTM E2579, Standard Practice for Specimen Preparation and Mounting of Wood Products to Assess Surface Burning Characteristics to the Chapter 2 ASTM referenced standards in Add correlative references to avoid conflicts. For example, the provision of would provide better guidance if the following was added: unless otherwise provided in and Similarly, the text of and would be more accurate if wording was added to the effect: and the provision of shall not apply. 4. Revise (3) to replace the word defined with described to read: Flashover, as described in NFPA 286, shall not occur. This will make relative to NFPA 286, consistent with relative to NFPA 265. NFPA 286 Chapter 3 does not define flashover; its 9.1 Procedure describes flashover as having occurred when any two of five possible criteria are met. 5. Provide a boldface heading to relative to Rate of Heat Release Testing of Upholstered Furniture and Mattresses as done for cigarette ignition testing of upholstered furniture and mattresses in Renumber to become ; renumber the s to become the s; renumber subsequent paragraphs as needed. These actions will be considered as a public comment. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 11 Eligible Voters 0 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Affirmative All Bush, Kenneth E. Hopper, Howard Hrustich, Stephen Hugo, Jeffrey M. Kalie, Jr., J. Edmund Koffel, William E. Pauls, Jake Quiter, James R. Reiswig, Rodger Reynolds, Ronald C.

132 2 of 2 3/2/ :36 PM Rosenbaum, Eric R.

133 5 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 57-NFPA [ Section No ] If the materials are tested in accordance with ASTM E84, Standard Test method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, or ANSI/UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, specimen preparation and mounting shall be in accordance with ASTM E2404 E2579, Standard Practice for Specimen Preparation and Mounting of Textile, Paper or Polymeric (Including Vinyl) and Wood Wall or Ceiling Coverings, Facings and Veneers, Wood Products to Assess Surface Burning Characteristics. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment The mounting practice referenced is incorrect - it should be ASTM E2579 and not ASTM E2404. Related Item First Revision No NFPA [Section No. 10.2] Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler Organization: GBH International Submittal Date: Fri Mar 18 18:04:22 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Rejected but see related SR Resolution: SR-3503-NFPA Statement: The mounting practice referenced is incorrect - it should be ASTM E2579 and not ASTM E2404.

134 6 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 218-NFPA [ Section No ] 10.3 Contents and Furnishings * Where required by the applicable provisions of this Code, draperies, curtains, and other similar loosely hanging furnishings and decorations shall meet the flame propagation performance criteria contained in Test Method 1 or Test Method 2, as appropriate, of NFPA Smoldering Ignition of Upholstered Furniture and Mattresses * Upholstered Furniture. Newly introduced upholstered furniture, except as otherwise permitted by Chapters 11 through 43, shall be resistant to a cigarette ignition (i.e., smoldering) in accordance with one of the following: (1) The components of the upholstered furniture shall meet the requirements for Class I when tested in accordance with NFPA 260. (2) Mocked-up composites of the upholstered furniture shall have a char length not exceeding in. (38 mm) when tested in accordance with NFPA * Mattresses. Newly introduced mattresses, except as otherwise permitted by Chapters 11 through 43, shall have a char length not exceeding 2 in. (51 mm) when tested in accordance with 16 CFR 1632, Standard for the Flammability of Mattresses and Mattress Pads (FF 4-72) * Where required by the applicable provisions of this Code, upholstered furniture and other seating furniture, unless the furniture is located in a building protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system, shall have limited rates of heat release when tested in accordance with ASTM E1537, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Upholstered Furniture, as follows: (1) The peak rate of heat release for the single upholstered furniture item shall not exceed 80 kw. (2) The total heat released by the single upholstered furniture item during the first 10 minutes of the test shall not exceed 25 MJ * Where required by the applicable provisions of this Code, mattresses shall comply with or , unless the mattress is located in a building protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system The mattress shall have limited rates of heat release when tested in accordance with ASTM E1590, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Mattresses, as follows: (1) The peak rate of heat release for the mattress shall not exceed 100 kw. (2) The total heat released by the mattress during the first 10 minutes of the test shall not exceed 25 MJ The mattress shall have a mass loss not exceeding 15 percent when tested in accordance with the fire test in Appendix A3 of ASTM F1085, Standard Specification for Mattress and Box Springs for Use in Berths and Marine Vessels * Furnishings or decorations of an explosive or highly flammable character shall not be used Fire-retardant coatings shall be maintained to retain the effectiveness of the treatment under service conditions encountered in actual use * Where required by the applicable provisions of this Code, furnishings and contents made with foamed plastic materials that are unprotected from ignition shall have a heat release rate not exceeding 100 kw when tested in accordance with ANSI/UL 1975, Standard for Fire Tests for Foamed Plastics Used for Decorative Purposes, or when tested in accordance with NFPA 289 using the 20 kw ignition source Lockers Combustible Lockers. Where lockers constructed of combustible materials other than wood are used, the lockers shall be considered interior finish and shall comply with Section 10.2, except as permitted by Wood Lockers. Lockers constructed entirely of wood and of noncombustible materials shall be permitted to be used in any location where interior finish materials are required to meet a Class C classification in accordance with Containers for Waste, or Linen.

135 7 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Where required by Chapters 11 through 43, newly introduced containers for waste or linen, with a capacity of 20 gal (75.7 L) or more, shall meet both of the following: (1) Such containers shall be provided with lids. (2) Such containers and their lids shall be constructed of noncombustible materials or of materials that meet a peak rate of heat release not exceeding 300 kw/m 2 when tested at an incident heat flux of 50 kw/m 2 in the horizontal orientation and at a thickness as used in the container but not less than 1 4 in. (6.3 mm), in accordance with ASTM E1354, Standard Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products Using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter Where required by Chapters 11 through 43, newly introduced metal wastebaskets and other metal waste, or linen containers with a capacity of 20 gal (75.7 L) or more shall be listed in accordance with ANSI/UL 1315, Standard for Safety for Metal Waste Paper Containers, and shall be provided with a noncombustible lid Specific Materials Textile Wall and Textile Ceiling Materials. The use of textile materials on walls or ceilings shall comply with one of the following conditions: (1) Textile materials meeting the requirements of Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, or ANSI/UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, using the specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E2404, Standard Practice for Specimen Preparation and Mounting of Textile, Paper or Polymeric (Including Vinyl) and Wood Wall or Ceiling Coverings, Facings and Veneers, to Assess Surface Burning Characteristics, (see ), shall be permitted on the walls or ceilings of rooms or areas protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system. (2) Textile materials meeting the requirements of Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E84 or ANSI/UL 723, using the specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E2404 (see ), shall be permitted on partitions that do not exceed three-quarters of the floor-to-ceiling height or do not exceed 8 ft (2440 mm) in height, whichever is less. (3) Textile materials meeting the requirements of Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E84 or ANSI/UL 723, using the specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E2404 (see ), shall be permitted to extend not more than 48 in. (1220 mm) above the finished floor on ceiling-height walls and ceiling-height partitions. (4) Previously approved existing installations of textile material meeting the requirements of Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E84 or ANSI/UL 723 (see ) shall be permitted to be continued to be used. (5) Textile materials shall be permitted on walls and partitions where tested in accordance with NFPA 265. (See ) (6) Textile materials shall be permitted on walls, partitions, and ceilings where tested in accordance with NFPA 286. (See ) Expanded Vinyl Wall and Expanded Vinyl Ceiling Materials. The use of expanded vinyl wall or expanded vinyl ceiling materials shall comply with one of the following conditions: (1) Materials meeting the requirements of Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, or ANSI/UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, using the specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E2404, Standard Practice for Specimen Preparation and Mounting of Textile, Paper or Polymeric (Including Vinyl) and Wood Wall or Ceiling Coverings, Facings and Veneers, to Assess Surface Burning Characteristics, to Assess Surface Burning Characteristics (see ), shall be permitted on the walls or ceilings of rooms or areas protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system. (2) Materials meeting the requirements of Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E84 or ANSI/UL 723, using the specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E2404 (see ), shall be permitted on partitions that do not exceed threequarters of the floor-to-ceiling height or do not exceed 8 ft (2440 mm) in height, whichever is less. (3) Materials meeting the requirements of Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E84 or ANSI/UL 723, using the specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E2404 (see ), shall be permitted to extend not more than 48 in. (1220 mm) above the finished floor on ceiling-height walls and ceiling-height partitions. (4) Previously approved existing installations of materials meeting the requirements for the occupancy involved, when tested in accordance with ASTM E84 or ANSI/UL 723 (see ), shall be permitted to be continued to be used. (5) Materials shall be permitted on walls and partitions where tested in accordance with NFPA 265. (See ) (6) Materials shall be permitted on walls, partitions, and ceilings where tested in accordance with NFPA 286. (See ) Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment It has come to my attention that a number of public locations (including especially detention and correctional occupancies) contain seating made from molded plastic materials that could exhibit quite a high rate or heat release when they burn but they would not be able to be regulated. This small change would make it possible for the authority having jurisdiction to apply the requirements to all seating furniture (note that CA TB 133 is intended to apply to all seating furniture and that the hazard is the same irrespective of the composition of the furniture). Related Item First Revision No NFPA [Section No ]

136 8 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler Organization: GBH International Submittal Date: Mon May 16 16:09:26 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-3505-NFPA Statement: A number of public locations (including especially detention and correctional occupancies) contain seating made from molded plastic materials that could exhibit quite a high rate or heat release when they burn but they would not be able to be regulated. This small change would make it possible for the authority having jurisdiction to apply the requirements to all seating furniture (note that CA TB 133 is intended to apply to all seating furniture and that the hazard is the same irrespective of the composition of the furniture).

137 9 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 18-NFPA [ Section No ] Additional Requirements for Airport Traffic Control Towers Definition: Airport Traffic Control Tower. See Use of Accessory Levels. The levels located below the observation level shall be permitted to be occupied only for the following: (1) Uses that support tower operations, such as electrical and mechanical equipment rooms, including emergency and standby power, radar, communications, and electronics rooms (2) * Incidental accessory uses that support tower operations (3) Other approved existing airport traffic control tower uses Minimum Construction Requirements. New airport traffic control towers shall be of Type I or Type II construction. (See ) Means of Egress * Number of Means of Egress. Airport traffic control towers shall be permitted to have a single exit, provided that all the following conditions are met in addition to the requirements of : (1) Each level of new airport traffic control towers, served by a single exit, shall be subject to a calculated occupant load of 15 or fewer persons. (2) The requirements of (1) shall not apply to existing airport traffic control towers. (3) A fire alarm system shall be provided in accordance with Section 9.6. Smoke detection shall be provided throughout airport traffic control towers to meet the requirements of partial coverage, as defined in of NFPA 72 and shall include coverage of all of the following: (4) Observation level Means of egress (a) Common areas (b) All equipment rooms (c) Incidental accessory uses (d) Accessible utility shafts (5) The requirements of (5) shall not apply. (6) Rooms or spaces used for the storage, processing, or use of combustible supplies shall be permitted in quantities deemed acceptable by the authority having jurisdiction. (7) Smokeproof exit enclosures shall be provided in accordance with Remoteness. Where an airport traffic control tower is equipped throughout with an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7, the minimum separation distance between two exits, or exit accesses, measured in accordance with shall be not less than one-fourth of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the building or area to be served Accessible Means of Egress. Accessible means of egress shall not be required to serve the observation level and the floor immediately below the observation level in airport traffic control towers Egress for Occupant Load. Means of egress for airport traffic control towers shall be provided for the occupant load, as determined in accordance with Areas Excluded from Occupant Load. Shafts, stairs, spaces, and floors not subject to human occupancy shall be excluded from consideration in determining the total calculated occupant load of the tower, as required by (1) and (1) Single Means of Egress. A single means of egress shall be permitted from the observation level of an airport traffic control tower to an exit, as permitted by

138 00 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Smokeproof Enclosures. For other than approved existingairport traffic control towers, smokeproof exit enclosures complying with shall be provided for all airport traffic control tower exit enclosures Discharge from Exits Airport traffic control towers shall comply with the requirements of 7.7.2, except as permitted by Existing, single-exit airport traffic control towers shall be permitted to have discharge of the exit comply with one of the following: (1) Discharge of the exit in an approved existing, single-exit airport traffic control tower is permitted to a vestibule or foyer complying with the requirements of 7.7.2(4) (b). (2) * Discharge of the exit in a single-exit airport traffic control tower is permitted within the building to a location where two means of egress are available and are arranged to allow travel in independent directions after leaving the exit enclosure, so that both means of egress do not become compromised by the same fire or similar emergency Protection Detection, Alarm, and Communications Systems. For other than approved existing, airport traffic control towers, airport traffic control towers shall be provided with a fire alarm system in accordance with Section 9.6. Smoke detection shall be provided throughout the airport traffic control tower to meet the requirements for partial coverage, as defined in of NFPA 72, and shall include coverage of all of the following: (1) All equipment rooms (2) Observation level (3) Outside each opening into exit enclosures (4) Along the single means of egress permitted from observation levels in (5) Outside each opening into the single means of egress permitted from observation levels in Extinguishing Requirements. New airport traffic control towers shall be protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section Standpipe Requirements. New airport traffic control towers where the floor of the observation level is greater than 30 ft (9.1 m) above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be protected throughout with a Class I standpipe system in accordance with Section 9.7. Class I standpipes shall be manual standpipes as defined in NFPA 14 where permitted by the authority having jurisdiction Contents and Furnishings. Contents and furnishings in airport traffic control towers shall comply with , , , and Uses. Sleeping areas shall be prohibited in airport traffic control towers Emergency Command Center In other than approved existing airport traffic control towers, an emergency command center shall be provided in a location approved by the fire department where the floor of an occupiable story is greater than 75 ft (23 m) above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access. The emergency command center is shall be permitted to be located in the airport traffic control tower or an adjacent contiguous building where building functions are interdependent.

139 01 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM The emergency command center shall contain the following: (1) Fire department two-way telephone communication service panels and controls (2) Fire detection and fire alarm system control unit and annunciator (3) Elevator floor location and operation annunciators (4) Elevator fire recall switch in accordance with ASME A17.1/CSA B44, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators (5) Controls and annunciators for systems supporting smokeproof enclosures (6) Sprinkler valve and waterflow annunciators (7) Emergency generator status indicators (8) Schematic building plans indicating a typical floor plan and detailing the building core, means of egress, fire protection systems, fire-fighting equipment, and fire department access as well as the locations of fire walls, fire barriers, fire partitions, smoke barriers- and smoke partitions. (9) Fire pump status indicators (10) Telephone for fire department use with controlled access to the public telephone system (11) An approved building information card that contains, but is not limited to, the following information: (a) General building information that includes property name, address, the number of floors in the building (above and below grade), use and occupancy classification (for mixed uses, identify the different types of occupancies on each floor), estimated building population (i.e., day, night, weekend) (b) Building emergency contact information that includes a list of the building's emergency contacts (e.g., building manager, building engineer, etc.) and their respective work phone numbers, cell phone numbers, and addresses (c) Building construction information that includes the type of building construction (e.g., floors, walls, columns, and roof assembly) (d) Exit stair information that includes number of exit stairs in the building, each exit stair designation and floors served, location where each exit stair discharges, exit stairs that are pressurized, exit stairs provided with emergency lighting, each exit stair that allows reentry, and exit stairs providing roof access (e) Elevator information that includes the number of elevator banks, elevator bank designation, elevator car numbers and respective floors that they serve, location of elevator machine rooms, location of sky lobby, and location of freight elevator banks (f) Building services and system information that includes the location of mechanical rooms, location of building management system, location and capacity of all fuel oil tanks, location of emergency generator, and location of natural gas service (g) Fire protection system information that includes locations of standpipes, location of fire pump room, location of fire department connections, floors protected by automatic sprinklers, location of different types of sprinkler systems installed (e.g., dry, wet, pre-action) (h) Hazardous material information that includes location of hazardous material and quantity of hazardous material (12) Worktable Emergency Action Plans and Fire Drills All airport traffic control towers shall have written copies of an emergency action plan as required by Section Fire drills shall be conducted such that all employees participate at least once annually in accordance with Section Employees of airport traffic control towers shall be instructed at least annually in the emergency action plan The emergency action plan shall be updated at least annually. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 101_CCN_18.pdf 101 CC Note No. 18 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 18 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Industrial and Storage Occupancies (IND) to do the following: 1. Consider the Affirmative with Comment ballot of Allison to add the word such to (1) so as to read: Uses that support tower operations, such as electrical

140 02 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM 2. Revise (3)(b) from Means of egress to the former term Common areas or something else that is definitive as means of egress includes ALL spaces where an occupant can be present. 3. Revise to insert the word diagonal to read maximum overall diagonal dimension 4. Revise second sentence of to change is permitted to shall be permitted to read: The emergency command center shall be permitted to be located These actions will be considered as a public comment. Related Item Correlating Committee Note No. 18-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: CC ON SAF_AAC Organization: NFPA CC ON SAFETY TO LIFE Submittal Date: Thu Mar 03 09:48:42 EST 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-4505-NFPA Statement: The committee accepts changes 1, 3, and 4 as requested by the Correlating Committee in Public Comment No.18. The committee did not make the change as requested in item 2 and retains the phrase "means of egress." Using the phrase "means of egress" provides the necessary guidance to designers and reviews when evaluating the design of airport traffic control towers. The requirement intended that detection be provided in all areas of means of egress to help ensure adequate protection for these structures that often have only one way out. In addition, occupants of the ATCT may have their egress delayed due to equipment shutdown and procedures and the detection provides the early response needed to account for delayed response/egress.

141 1 of 1 3/2/ :39 PM Correlating Committee Note No. 18-NFPA [ Section No ] Submitter Full Name: SAF-AAC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Jan 08 08:45:31 EST 2016 Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Industrial and Storage Occupancies (IND) to do the following: 1. Consider the Affirmative with Comment ballot of Allison to add the word such to (1) so as to read: Uses that support tower operations, such as electrical 2. Revise (3)(b) from Means of egress to the former term Common areas or something else that is definitive as means of egress includes ALL spaces where an occupant can be present. 3. Revise to insert the word diagonal to read maximum overall diagonal dimension 4. Revise second sentence of to change is permitted to shall be permitted to read: The emergency command center shall be permitted to be located These actions will be considered as a public comment. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 11 Eligible Voters 0 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Affirmative All Bush, Kenneth E. Hopper, Howard Hrustich, Stephen Hugo, Jeffrey M. Kalie, Jr., J. Edmund Koffel, William E. Pauls, Jake Quiter, James R. Reiswig, Rodger Reynolds, Ronald C. Rosenbaum, Eric R.

142 03 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 122-NFPA [ Section No ] Use of Accessory Levels. The levels located below the observation level shall be permitted to be occupied only for the following: (1) Uses that support tower operations such as electrical and mechanical equipment rooms, including emergency and standby power, radar, communications, and electronics rooms (2) * Incidental accessory uses that support tower operations (3) Other approved existing airport traffic control tower uses Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment Editorial correction from the first draft proposal. Related Item Public Input No. 403-NFPA [Section No ] First Revision No NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Eric Rosenbaum Organization: Jensen Hughes Affilliation: Airport Traffic Control Tower Fire Life Safety Task Group Submittal Date: Thu May 05 10:57:20 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-4505-NFPA Statement: The committee accepts changes 1, 3, and 4 as requested by the Correlating Committee in Public Comment No.18. The committee did not make the change as requested in item 2 and retains the phrase "means of egress." Using the phrase "means of egress" provides the necessary guidance to designers and reviews when evaluating the design of airport traffic control towers. The requirement intended that detection be provided in all areas of means of egress to help ensure adequate protection for these structures that often have only one way out. In addition, occupants of the ATCT may have their egress delayed due to equipment shutdown and procedures and the detection provides the early response needed to account for delayed response/egress.

143 04 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 220-NFPA [ Section No ] In other than approved existing airport traffic control towers, an emergency command center shall be provided in a location approved by the fire department where the floor of an occupiable story is greater than 75 ft (23 m) above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access. The emergency command center is shall be permitted to be located in the airport traffic control tower or an adjacent contiguous building where building functions are interdependent. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment The language was revised based on the technical committee recommendation. Related Item Public Input No. 403-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Eric Rosenbaum Organization: Jensen Hughes Affilliation: Airport Traffic Control Tower Fire Life Safety Task Group Submittal Date: Mon May 16 22:31:58 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-4505-NFPA Statement: The committee accepts changes 1, 3, and 4 as requested by the Correlating Committee in Public Comment No.18. The committee did not make the change as requested in item 2 and retains the phrase "means of egress." Using the phrase "means of egress" provides the necessary guidance to designers and reviews when evaluating the design of airport traffic control towers. The requirement intended that detection be provided in all areas of means of egress to help ensure adequate protection for these structures that often have only one way out. In addition, occupants of the ATCT may have their egress delayed due to equipment shutdown and procedures and the detection provides the early response needed to account for delayed response/egress.

144 05 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 67-NFPA [ Section No ] Reserved. Emergency lighting in accordance with 7.9 shall be provided. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment This requirement was taken from the emergency and standby power section since it is really a means of egress requirement and not an emergency power requirement. Related Item First Correlating Revision No. 19-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Peter Larrimer Organization: US Department of Veterans Affa Submittal Date: Tue Mar 22 13:15:33 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Accepted Action: Resolution: SR-3005-NFPA Statement: This requirement was taken from the emergency and standby power section since it is really a means of egress requirement and not an emergency power requirement.

145 06 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 164-NFPA [ New Section after ] Risk Analysis for Mass Notification Systems For high rise buildings with a total occupant load of 2000 or more persons, a risk analysis for mass no fica on systems shall be provided in accordance with Sec on Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment Mass notification systems may be an important component to larger high-rise building safety and the new provisions of Section 9.14 should be considered for these high-rise buildings with 2000 or more occupants. It is not unusual for large scale high-rise projects to perform a risk analysis addressing areas of concern for high-rise buildings. The required risk analysis will consider both fire and non-fire emergencies, which is consistent with the current all-hazard approach being implemented by many high-rise buildings today. Specific characteristics of high-rise buildings may warrant the need for a mass notification system. Related Item First Revision No NFPA [New Section after 9.13] Submitter Full Name: James Quiter Organization: Arup Submittal Date: Fri May 13 14:38:32 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-3002-NFPA Statement: 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.

146 07 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 206-NFPA [ New Section after ] TITLE OF NEW CONTENT Mass Notiifcation System A mass notification system shall be in accordance with the requirements in Section Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment The intent of this code change proposal is three-fold. All 3 new sections (Chapter 38, Chapter 11, and Chapter 9) are shown to coordinate each of the proposed revisions into 1 proposed code change. This code change creates a new Section titled Mass Notification System as a pointer from Chapter 11 to Chapter 9. This code change coordinates code change proposals submitted in Chapter 38 and Chapter 9 on the same subject matter High rise buildings more than 420 feet above grade plane with an occupant load greater than 5,000 shall be provided with a mass notification system in accordance with Section Reason: Refer to CI 5508 This CI has been revised and a new Section has been developed to mandate when a mass notification system should be installed in a high-rise business occupancy. The 420 feet building height with an occupant load greater than 5000 threshold is 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. It should be noted that the International Building Code also uses the 420 feet building height threshold when requiring additional fire protection and life safety features and systems in high-rise buildings. In addition, it should be pointed out that it s felt that the Technical Committee on Mercantile and Business Occupancies should set the threshold for this specific requirement. Proposed new Section sends the user of the Code to new Section for coordination with Chapter 11, High-rise buildings Mass Notification System. Where required by Chapters 11 through 43, a mass notification system shall be designed, installed, inspected, tested and maintained in accordance with the requirements of NFPA 72 and the provisions of through A risk analysis for the mass notification system shall be performed in accordance with the requirements in NFPA 72 to determine the necessary emergency communication performance means needed for the specific project based on the occupant needs and potential natural, human, and technological caused events The risk analysis shall also be used as the basis for the development of the emergency communication provisions of the facility emergency response plan The design of the mass notification system shall be based on the risk analysis for the specified mass notification system. Reason: Refer to FR 1006 This FR has been revised to delete the Section on Risk Analysis for Mass Notification System and replace it with a Section that addresses the process for installing a mass notification system in a building. In addition, the proposed text is poorly written and it also appears to contradict some requirements in NFPA 72 regarding the risk analysis, the design of the system, and the buildings emergency action plan. Therefore, the Section was revised to include a reference to NFPA 72 regarding the design, installation, inspection, testing, and maintenance requirements as well as a risk analysis performed in accordance with the requirement s in NFPA 72. Proposed new Section 9.14 is needed for coordination with new Sections and Related Item Committee Input No NFPA [New Section after ] First Revision No NFPA [New Section after 9.13] Submitter Full Name: David Frable Organization: US General Services Administration Submittal Date: Mon May 16 14:06:55 EDT 2016

147 08 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Committee Statement Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: Companion comment was rejected by BSF.

148 09 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 66-NFPA [ Section No ] Emergency lighting in accordance with Section 7.9 shall be provided. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment Emergency Lighting was removed from the title at the first correlating revision. Emergency lighting is referenced to 7.9 which is a section that addresses emergency lighting for the means of egress. The section for emergency lighting is relocated to the means of egress section of 11.8, specifically Related Item First Correlating Revision No. 19-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Peter Larrimer Organization: US Department of Veterans Affa Submittal Date: Tue Mar 22 13:09:53 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Accepted Action: Resolution: SR-3006-NFPA Statement: Emergency Lighting was removed from the title at the first correlating revision. Emergency lighting is referenced to 7.9 which is a section that addresses emergency lighting for the means of egress. The section for emergency lighting is relocated to the means of egress section of 11.8, specifically

149 10 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 69-NFPA [ Section No ] Emergency power requirements for electric fire pumps shall be in accordance with NFPA 20. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment See the other comment(s) on Not only is the fire pump emergency power different than what is required in , but the fire alarm system requirement for emergency power is in conflict with the emergency power requirements contained in Other standards might have issues with the standby power requirement as well. As written, the fire alarm system is required to be on the standby power ( (3) and ) and the standby power requirements in would not meet the requirements the fire alarm system that are contained in NFPA 72 ( Protected Premises Engine-driven generators used to provide secondary power for a protected premises fire alarm system or an emergency communications system shall comply with NFPA 110 Chapter 4, requirements for a Type 10, Class 24, Level 1 system.) Making this change will provide a minimum, but allow the other codes and standards to mandate a more restrictive emergency power supply. I am proposing a change to to the following which will allow the more restrictive requirements of other codes or standards to override the minimum requirement contained in * Type 60, Class 1, Level 1, standby power in accordance with NFPA 110, shall be provided unless another code or standard requires a more restrictive Type, Class, or Level. A Where an emergency generator provides power to a fire pump or fire alarm system in addition to other items in 11.8, NFPA 20 and NFPA 72 has emergency power requirements that are more stringent than the base paragraph. Related Item First Correlating Revision No. 19-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Peter Larrimer Organization: US Department of Veterans Affa Submittal Date: Tue Mar 22 13:34:17 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Unknown Reason Action: Resolution: The comment is in conflict with the recently passed TIA (Log #1217). The committee stands on the statement for FCR-19, which incorporates the TIA, as follows: The requirements of NFPA 101, Section conflict with NFPA 20 which requires that an on-site standby generator be a Type 10, Class X, Level 1. (NFPA 20: 2016: 9.6.2) Additionally, Paragraph requires that the generator fuel supply be sufficient for 8 hours of fire pump operation at 100 percent of rated pump capacity. By providing a reference to the NFPA 20 requirements, the conflict is resolved. In addition, the standby power requirements, previously Paragraph , have been moved to be Paragraph Paragraphs , , and all require a 10 second transfer which is referred to as emergency power. As such, they are grouped together, followed by the requirements for standby power. The title of has been revised to more accurately reflect that the requirements address emergency and standby power systems. Reference to NFPA 70 Article 701 is dropped for consistency with NFPA

150 11 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 68-NFPA [ Section No ] Emergency power requirements for detection, alarm, and communications systems shall be in accordance with NFPA 72. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment already requires the fire alarm system to comply with NFPA 72 and NFPA 72 already addresses emergency power requirements. It doesn't need to be stated again. Related Item First Correlating Revision No. 19-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Peter Larrimer Organization: US Department of Veterans Affa Submittal Date: Tue Mar 22 13:18:56 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Unknown Reason Action: Resolution: The comment is in conflict with the recently passed TIA (Log #1217). The committee stands on the statement for FCR-19, which incorporates the TIA, as follows: The requirements of NFPA 101, Section conflict with NFPA 20 which requires that an on-site standby generator be a Type 10, Class X, Level 1. (NFPA 20: 2016: 9.6.2) Additionally, Paragraph requires that the generator fuel supply be sufficient for 8 hours of fire pump operation at 100 percent of rated pump capacity. By providing a reference to the NFPA 20 requirements, the conflict is resolved. In addition, the standby power requirements, previously Paragraph , have been moved to be Paragraph Paragraphs , , and all require a 10 second transfer which is referred to as emergency power. As such, they are grouped together, followed by the requirements for standby power. The title of has been revised to more accurately reflect that the requirements address emergency and standby power systems. Reference to NFPA 70 Article 701 is dropped for consistency with NFPA

151 12 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 71-NFPA [ Section No ] * Type 60, Class 1, Level 1, standby power in accordance with NFPA 110 shall be provided unless another code or standard requires a more stringent Class, Type, or Level. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment This is an attempt to show the user that other standards may require more stringent emergency power requirements without listing all of those requirements within Adding only the electric fire pump did not address conflicts in other standards. See the annex note also added. Related Item First Correlating Revision No. 19-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Peter Larrimer Organization: US Department of Veterans Affa Submittal Date: Tue Mar 22 13:57:15 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Unknown Reason Action: Resolution: The comment is in conflict with the recently passed TIA (Log #1217). The committee stands on the statement for FCR-19, which incorporates the TIA, as follows: The requirements of NFPA 101, Section conflict with NFPA 20 which requires that an on-site standby generator be a Type 10, Class X, Level 1. (NFPA 20: 2016: 9.6.2) Additionally, Paragraph requires that the generator fuel supply be sufficient for 8 hours of fire pump operation at 100 percent of rated pump capacity. By providing a reference to the NFPA 20 requirements, the conflict is resolved. In addition, the standby power requirements, previously Paragraph , have been moved to be Paragraph Paragraphs , , and all require a 10 second transfer which is referred to as emergency power. As such, they are grouped together, followed by the requirements for standby power. The title of has been revised to more accurately reflect that the requirements address emergency and standby power systems. Reference to NFPA 70 Article 701 is dropped for consistency with NFPA It is also noted the phrase 'another code or standard' is unenforceable.

152 13 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 70-NFPA [ Section No ] The standby power system shall be connected to the following: (1) Electric fire pump (2) Jockey pump, except as otherwise provided in for special-purpose industrial occupancies (3) Air compressor serving dry-pipe and pre-action systems, except as otherwise provided in for special-purpose industrial occupancies (4) Emergency command center equipment and lighting (5) Not less than one elevator serving all floors, with standby power transferable to any elevator (6) Mechanical equipment for smokeproof enclosures (7) Mechanical equipment required to conform with the requirements of Section 9.3 (8) Stairway video monitoring equipment as required by Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment There were more issues than the conflict with NFPA 20. See other related comments. Note also, NFPA 110 doesn't make any distinction between standby power and emergency power. The changes appears to make a distinction when there doesn't appear to be one in the codes. See NFPA 110, A.4.1. Related Item First Correlating Revision No. 19-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Peter Larrimer Organization: US Department of Veterans Affa Submittal Date: Tue Mar 22 13:53:04 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Unknown Reason Action: Resolution: The comment is in conflict with the recently passed TIA (Log #1217). The committee stands on the statement for FCR-19, which incorporates the TIA, as follows: The requirements of NFPA 101, Section conflict with NFPA 20 which requires that an on-site standby generator be a Type 10, Class X, Level 1. (NFPA 20: 2016: 9.6.2) Additionally, Paragraph requires that the generator fuel supply be sufficient for 8 hours of fire pump operation at 100 percent of rated pump capacity. By providing a reference to the NFPA 20 requirements, the conflict is resolved. In addition, the standby power requirements, previously Paragraph , have been moved to be Paragraph Paragraphs , , and all require a 10 second transfer which is referred to as emergency power. As such, they are grouped together, followed by the requirements for standby power. The title of has been revised to more accurately reflect that the requirements address emergency and standby power systems. Reference to NFPA 70 Article 701 is dropped for consistency with NFPA

153 14 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 209-NFPA [ New Section after ] TITLE OF NEW CONTENT Integrated Fire Protection and Life Safety Testing For high-rise buildings, integrated fire protection and life safety system testing shall be in accordance with Section , with an integrated fire protection and life safety system test performed prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy and at intervals not exceeding 10 years, unless otherwise specified by the integrated system test plan in accordance with NFPA 4. If an equipment failure is detected during integrated testing, a repeat of the integrated test shall not be required, except as necessary to verify operation of fire protection or life safety system functions that are initiated by the equipment that was repaired or replaced. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment To address integrated fire protection and life safety system testing in high-rise buildings, a new Section has been proposed. New Section states testing shall be in accordance with Section and provides specifics when such testing shall occur which is based on a similar International Fire Code proposed change that was approved by the ICC Fire Code Technical Committee in April Related Item First Revision No NFPA [New Section after ] First Revision No NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: David Frable Organization: US General Services Administration Submittal Date: Mon May 16 14:53:29 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-3007-NFPA Statement: To address integrated fire protection and life safety system testing in high-rise buildings, a new Section has been proposed. New Section states testing shall be in accordance with Section and provides specifics when such testing shall occur which is based on a similar International Fire Code proposed change that was approved by the ICC Fire Code Technical Committee in April The SR editorially revises PC-209 for clarity.

154 15 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 19-NFPA [ New Section after ] Add new section after Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 101_CCN_20.pdf 101 CC Note #20 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 20 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Assembly Occupancies (AXM) to consider the Negative ballot of Humble relative to dining spaces open to cooking areas; whether fireplaces are fuel-burning appliances; permanently installed versus portable equipment; use of the term centrally-located without respect to the size of the space; and whether some provisions have been duplicated. This action will be considered as a public comment. Related Item Correlating Committee Note No. 20-NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: CC ON SAF_AAC Organization: NFPA CC ON SAFETY TO LIFE Submittal Date: Thu Mar 03 09:57:12 EST 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Rejected but see related SR Resolution: SR-1-NFPA Statement: Revisions respond to correlating committee note CCN-20. See attachment for new A (3).

155 1 of 1 3/2/ :40 PM Correlating Committee Note No. 20-NFPA [ New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: SAF-AAC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Jan 08 08:52:22 EST 2016 Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Assembly Occupancies (AXM) to consider the Negative ballot of Humble relative to dining spaces open to cooking areas; whether fireplaces are fuel-burning appliances; permanently installed versus portable equipment; use of the term centrally-located without respect to the size of the space; and whether some provisions have been duplicated. This action will be considered as a public comment. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 11 Eligible Voters 0 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Affirmative All Bush, Kenneth E. Hopper, Howard Hrustich, Stephen Hugo, Jeffrey M. Kalie, Jr., J. Edmund Koffel, William E. Pauls, Jake Quiter, James R. Reiswig, Rodger Reynolds, Ronald C. Rosenbaum, Eric R.

156 16 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 217-NFPA [ Section No ] In theaters, motion picture theaters, and television stage settings, performance halls and music club venues, with or without horizontal projections, and in simulated caves and caverns of foamed plastic, any single fuel package shall have a heat release rate not to exceed 100 kw where tested in accordance with one of the following: (1) ANSI/UL 1975, Standard for Fire Tests for Foamed Plastics Used for Decorative Purposes (2) NFPA 289 using the 20 kw ignition source Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment This provision should not be limited to theater and television hall exposures for obvious reasons. Related Item Public Input No. 180-NFPA [Section No. 10.2] Submitter Full Name: David Tabar Organization: Northern Risk LLC Affilliation: Self Submittal Date: Mon May 16 15:58:50 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but held Action: Resolution: New material - no related public input, committee input, or first revision. Comment to be held for next revision cycle (2021 edition).

157 17 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 107-NFPA [ Section No ] Assembly occupancies shall be provided with a minimum of one trained crowd manager or crowd manager supervisor at all times that the facility is in operation. Where the occupant load exceeds 250, additional trained crowd managers or crowd manager supervisors shall be provided at a ratio of one crowd manager or crowd manager supervisor for every 250 occupants, unless otherwise permitted by one of the following: (1) This requirement shall not apply to assembly occupancies used exclusively for religious worship with an occupant load not exceeding 500. (2) The ratio of trained crowd managers to occupants shall be permitted to be reduced where, in the opinion of the AHJ, the existence of an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system and the nature of the event warrant. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment More clearly define the importance of trained crowd managers within assembly occupancies. In certain assembly occupancies there may be trained crowd managers at certain times of operation or on certain shifts, but it is a requirement to have one trained personnel always based on the potential for emergency. It will aid in protection of occupants and mitigate further risk from uncontrolled crowds in an emergency. Related Item Public Input No. 409-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Josh Van Horne Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Wed Apr 13 11:59:57 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Resolution: Rejected The phrase "at all times the facility is in operation" is too broad and vague; it is unclear as to when the crowd managers would need to be in place. The current language adequately prescribes the occupant load thresholds at which crowd managers are needed. The proposed language is also new material - no related public input, committee input, or first revision.

158 18 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 20-NFPA [ New Section after ] Add new section Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 101_CCN_21.pdf 101 CC Note #21 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 21 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Educational and Day-Care Occupancies (END) to consider the Affirmative with Comment ballot of Dubrowski and the Negative ballot of Roeper to add a charging statement as the provisions are not presented in context; include the term without special knowledge ; and reference the mounting height of the operable parts of the releasing mechanism rather than the location of the release itself. This action will be considered as a public comment. The Correlating Committee notes, in response to the Committee Statement, that two FCRs have been developed to address the request of the committee statement. Related Item Correlating Committee Note No. 21-NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: CC ON SAF_AAC Organization: NFPA CC ON SAFETY TO LIFE Submittal Date: Thu Mar 03 10:05:37 EST 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-2011-NFPA 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 statement 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. 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.

159 1 of 1 3/2/ :42 PM Correlating Committee Note No. 21-NFPA [ New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: SAF-AAC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Jan 08 09:01:42 EST 2016 Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Educational and Day-Care Occupancies (END) to consider the Affirmative with Comment ballot of Dubrowski and the Negative ballot of Roeper to add a charging statement as the provisions are not presented in context; include the term without special knowledge ; and reference the mounting height of the operable parts of the releasing mechanism rather than the location of the release itself. This action will be considered as a public comment. The Correlating Committee notes, in response to the Committee Statement, that two FCRs have been developed to address the request of the committee statement. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 11 Eligible Voters 0 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Affirmative All Bush, Kenneth E. Hopper, Howard Hrustich, Stephen Hugo, Jeffrey M. Kalie, Jr., J. Edmund Koffel, William E. Pauls, Jake Quiter, James R. Reiswig, Rodger Reynolds, Ronald C. Rosenbaum, Eric R.

160 19 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 183-NFPA [ Section No ] Classroom Door Locking to Prevent Unwanted Entry. Where a door in the means of egress from an occupiable space is lockable from within the space to prevent entry, the locking means shall comply with all of the following. (1) The locking means is approved shall be listed. (2) The locking means can be engaged shall be capable of being engaged without opening the door. (3) The unlocking and unlatching from the classroom side of the door can Egress shall be accomplished without the use of a key or tool. The unlocking and unlatching requires (4), a tool, or special knowledge or effort. (5) Egresss shall require not more than one releasing operation. (6) The releasing mechanism for unlocking and unlatching means are the door shall be mounted at a height not exceeding 48 less than 34 in. (865 mm) and not more than 48 in. ( 1220 mm) above the finished floor. (7) Locks, if remotely engaged, can shall be unlocked unlockable from the classroom side egress side of the door without the use of a key, a tool, or special knowledge or effort. (8) The door is capable locking means of the door, other than a door not used for ingress, shall be capable of being unlocked and opened from outside the room by staff with the necessary key occupiable space by a key or other credential. (9) The locking means does shall not modify the door closer, panic hardware, or fire exit hardware invalidate the listing or labeling, where required, of the door assembly or any of its components. (10) Modifications to required fire door assemblies, including door hardware, shall be in accordance with NFPA 80. (11) The emergency action plan, required by , addresses the shall address the use of the locking means from within the occupiable space and the unlocking means from within and outside the room occupiable space. (12) Staff is drilled in the engagement and release of the locking means, from within and outside the room, as means as part of the emergency egress drills required by Additional Proposed Changes File Name NFPA_101_Chapter_14_New_Educational_Occupancies_Locking_First_Revision_Comment_BHMA_ _HC.docx Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment Description Approved Attachment illustrates proposed revisions (in Word), includes reason statements, and includes comments regarding the published committee statement. Note: deleting and inserting text of the public comment inadvertently inserted an additional numbered item (5). Reason statements below refer to original numbered list. Reasons: Adds a charging paragraph, and clarifies scope of requirements to occupiable spaces. Occupiable spaces would include classrooms, and also include offices for administrators and support staff, libraries, cafeterias, etc. This public comment proposes language which does not suggest providing locking hardware on a door to prevent unwanted entry is something new, as NFPA 101 currently does not prohibit such locking arrangements. Revisions to Items 1 through 11 are intended to be more consistent with typical syntax and grammar of NFPA 101. Also, revises permissive text to mandatory text. Item 1: Revised, but may not be needed, especially for new construction. The committee-proposed requirement implies all locking arrangements intended to prevent ingress on doors to occupiable spaces will be required to be approved by the AHJ, whereas currently locking arrangements on doors are not explicitly required to be approved. Today s code does not prevent or preclude locking arrangements on doors, and requires locking arrangements on doors to meet all the requirements of the code. Item 2: Revised, but probably does not need to be a requirement even though this is a recommendation by the Sandy Hook Advisory commission. This functionality will be implemented by schools where this is an important consideration. Market factors will drive this

161 20 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM functionality. Item 3: Revised to include special knowledge or effort, as required in Item 4: Reinforces requirements of Item 5: Revised to clarify it is the releasing mechanism with the location requirements. Revised requirements to include not lower than 34 above finished floor, to be consistent with requirements of , and consistent with accessibility requirements. Item 6: Revised but probably not needed as a requirement. NFPA 101 today does not preclude the use of remote lock operation preventing ingress, as this proposed language seems to imply. As long as the door can be opened from inside the space as required by the code, the code doesn t regulate how the door gets locked to prevent unwanted entry. Item 7: Revised, and removes the unnecessary necessary word. Also inserts other than on a door not used for ingress which recognizes some doors from occupiable spaces with higher occupancy capacity (i.e. auditoriums or gymnasiums) may be designed and used only for emergency egress and to provide the required egress capacity. These doors typically have interior panic hardware but have no operable hardware on the exterior (the exterior side of the door is smooth). This inserted phrase for doors not used for ingress is not needed if the scope is limited to classrooms. However, if the scope in the charging sentence is expanded to occupiable spaces then this inserted phrase may be important. Item 8: Revisions attempt to address concerns with proposed language which would not allow modifications to this hardware even if the modifications complied with code requirements. Item 9: Limits the scope of the proposed requirement for doors required to be fire door assemblies. It is not uncommon for the same fire rated door assembly to be used in openings required to be fire rated and in openings not required to be fire rated to eliminate inadvertent mistakes during construction and to ensure consistent aesthetics. Items 10 & 11: Revisions suggested should be considered while recalling the current requirements of NFPA 101, as reiterated in Item 3 (as revised): Unlocking and unlatching the door from the egress side of the door shall be accomplished without the use of a key, a tool, or special knowledge or effort. If the locking hardware complies with this requirement, there s no need to address in the emergency action plan how to unlock the door from inside the occupiable space. From a slightly different perspective, perhaps these Items (10) and (11) may be better located in and along with the other emergency action plan and emergency egress drill requirements. Regarding the published Committee Statement of First Revision No NFPA [ New Section after ], copied below: Ask Correlating Committee to prepare First Correlating Revisions (FCR) to Chapter 7: 101-FCR-xx The releasing mechanism shall open the door leaf with not more than one releasing operation, unless otherwise specified in , , or , or Statement: The reference to new is needed for completeness and correlation. 101-FCR-xx Two releasing operations shall be permitted for educational occupancy classroom doors secured against unwanted entry in accordance with the provisions of Chapters 14 and 15. Statement: The new provision of is needed so that the new provisions of and do not conflict with Chapter 7. BHMA does not concur with the committee statement regarding the suggested action by the correlating committee. Most definitely, two releasing operations are not needed for new construction (Chapter 14) as door locking hardware which meets all the existing and proposed (as revised in this public comment) requirements of NFPA 101 is readily available and commonly specified and installed in new construction. BHMA recognizes the challenges of updating and revising door hardware of existing educational occupancies (Chapter 15) to provide the function of lockable from inside the occupiable space, and BHMA recommends NFPA 101 LIFE SAFETY CODE not be revised to allow two releasing operations. Related Item First Revision No NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: John Woestman Organization: Kellen Company Affilliation: Builders Hardware Manufacturers Association Submittal Date: Mon May 16 08:47:08 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-2011-NFPA

162 21 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM 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 statement 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. 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.

163 NFPA 101 Chapter 14 New Educational Occupancies Revisions BHMA offers as a public comment (due May 16, 2016). No NFPA [ New Section after ] Classroom Door Locking to Prevent Unwanted Entry. Where a door in the means of egress from an occupiable space is lockable from within the space to prevent entry, the locking means shall comply with all of the following. (1) The locking means is approvedshall be listed. (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 Egress shall be accomplished without the use of a key, or a tool, or special knowledge or effort. (4) The unlocking and unlatching requires Egress shall require not more than one releasing operation. (5) The releasing mechanism for unlocking and unlatching means are the door shall be mounted at a height not less than 34 in. (865 mm) and not exceeding more than 48 in. (1220 mm) above the finished floor. (6) Locks, if remotely engaged, can be unlocked from the classroom sideshall be unlockable from the egress side of the door without the use of a key, a tool, or special knowledge or effort. (7) The door is The locking means of the door, other than a door not used for ingress, shall be capable of being unlocked and opened from outside the room by staff with the necessary occupiable space by a key or other credential. (8) The locking means does not modify the door closer, panic hardware, or fire exit hardwareshall not invalidate the listing or labeling, where required, of the door assembly or any of its components. (9) Modifications to required 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 means from within the occupiable space and the unlocking means from within and outside the room occupiable space. (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 Reasons: Adds a charging paragraph, and clarifies scope of requirements to occupiable spaces. Occupiable spaces would include classrooms, and also include offices for administrators and support staff, libraries, cafeterias, etc. This public comment proposes language which does not suggest providing locking hardware on a door to prevent unwanted entry is something new, as NFPA 101 currently does not prohibit such locking arrangements. Revisions to Items 1 through 11 are intended to be more consistent with typical syntax and grammar of NFPA 101. Also, revises permissive text to mandatory text. Item 1: Revised, but may not be needed, especially for new construction. The committeeproposed requirement implies all locking arrangements intended to prevent ingress on doors to occupiable spaces will be required to be approved by the AHJ, whereas currently locking arrangements on doors are not explicitly required to be approved. Today s code does not prevent or preclude locking arrangements on doors, and requires locking arrangements on doors to meet all the requirements of the code.

164 Item 2: Revised, but probably does not need to be a requirement even though this is a recommendation by the Sandy Hook Advisory commission. This functionality will be implemented by schools where this is an important consideration. Market factors will drive this functionality. Item 3: Revised to include special knowledge or effort, as required in Item 4: Reinforces requirements of Item 5: Revised to clarify it is the releasing mechanism with the location requirements. Revised requirements to include not lower than 34 above finished floor, to be consistent with requirements of , and consistent with accessibility requirements. Item 6: Revised but probably not needed as a requirement. NFPA 101 today does not preclude the use of remote lock operation preventing ingress, as this proposed language seems to imply. As long as the door can be opened from inside the space as required by the code, the code doesn t regulate how the door gets locked to prevent unwanted entry. Item 7: Revised, and removes the unnecessary necessary word. Also inserts other than on a door not used for ingress which recognizes some doors from occupiable spaces with higher occupancy capacity (i.e. auditoriums or gymnasiums) may be designed and used only for emergency egress and to provide the required egress capacity. These doors typically have interior panic hardware but have no operable hardware on the exterior (the exterior side of the door is smooth). This inserted phrase for doors not used for ingress is not needed if the scope is limited to classrooms. However, if the scope in the charging sentence is expanded to occupiable spaces then this inserted phrase may be important. Item 8: Revisions attempt to address concerns with proposed language which would not allow modifications to this hardware even if the modifications complied with code requirements. Item 9: Limits the scope of the proposed requirement for doors required to be fire door assemblies. It is not uncommon for the same fire rated door assembly to be used in openings required to be fire rated and in openings not required to be fire rated to eliminate inadvertent mistakes during construction and to ensure consistent aesthetics. Items 10 & 11: Revisions suggested should be considered while recalling the current requirements of NFPA 101, as reiterated in Item 3 (as revised): Unlocking and unlatching the door from the egress side of the door shall be accomplished without the use of a key, a tool, or special knowledge or effort. If the locking hardware complies with this requirement, there s no need to address in the emergency action plan how to unlock the door from inside the occupiable space. From a slightly different perspective, perhaps these Items (10) and (11) may be better located in and along with the other emergency action plan and emergency egress drill requirements. Regarding the published Committee Statement of First Revision No NFPA [ New Section after ], copied below: Ask Correlating Committee to prepare First Correlating Revisions (FCR) to Chapter 7: 101-FCR-xx The releasing mechanism shall open the door leaf with not more than one releasing operation, unless otherwise specified in , , or , or Statement: The reference to new is needed for completeness and correlation. 101-FCR-xx Two releasing operations shall be permitted for educational occupancy classroom doors secured against unwanted entry in accordance with the provisions of Chapters 14 and 15.

165 Statement: The new provision of is needed so that the new provisions of and do not conflict with Chapter 7. BHMA does not concur with the committee statement regarding the suggested action by the correlating committee. Most definitely, two releasing operations are not needed for new construction (Chapter 14) as door locking hardware which meets all the existing and proposed (as revised in this public comment) requirements of NFPA 101 is readily available and commonly specified and installed in new construction. BHMA recognizes the challenges of updating and revising door hardware of existing educational occupancies (Chapter 15) to provide the function of lockable from inside the occupiable space, and BHMA recommends NFPA 101 LIFE SAFETY CODE not be revised to allow two releasing operations.

166 22 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 22-NFPA [ Section No ] Carbon Monoxide Detection Systems Carbon monoxide detectors in accordance with Section 9.12 shall be provided in new educational occupancies in the locations specified as follows: (1) Carbon monoxide detectors shall be installed on the ceilings of rooms containing permanently installed fuel-burning appliances. (2) Carbon monoxide detectors shall be installed centrally located within occupiable spaces served by the first supply air register from a permanently installed, fuel-burning HVAC system. (3) Carbon monoxide detectors shall be installed centrally located within occupiable spaces adjacent to a communicating attached garage. (4) Carbon monoxide detectors shall be installed centrally located within occupiable spaces adjacent to an attached garage with a separation wall constructed of gypsum wallboard Where carbon monoxide detectors are installed in accordance with (1), the alarm signal shall be automatically transmitted to an approved on-site location or to an off-premises location in accordance with NFPA Carbon monoxide detectors as specified in shall not be required in the following locations: (1) Garages (2) Occupiable spaces with communicating attached garages that are open parking structures as defined in (3) Occupiable spaces with communicating attached garages that are mechanically ventilated in accordance with the applicable mechanical code (4) Occupiable spaces that are separated from attached garages by walls constructed of gypsum wallboard where the garage is an open parking structure as defined in (5) Occupiable spaces that are separated from attached garages by walls constructed of gypsum wallboard where the garage is mechanically ventilated in accordance with the mechanical code Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 101_CCN_23.pdf 101 CC Note #23 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 23 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Educational and Day-Care Occupancies (END) to consider the Negative ballot of Mertens relative to detector installation locations and coverage areas. This action will be considered as a public comment. Related Item Correlating Committee Note No. 23-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: CC ON SAF_AAC Organization: NFPA CC ON SAFETY TO LIFE Submittal Date: Thu Mar 03 10:15:39 EST 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Rejected

167 23 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Resolution: The Committee reviewed the ballot comments, and supports the existing code language. Applicable codes and standards (NFPA 720, NFPA 101, and the UL Product Standards) provide adequate direction for CO detectors in occupancies other than residential. UL 2075, the UL product standard for CO detectors, contains the same alarm thresholds for these detectors as you would find in detectors supplied at consumer retail stores (residential applications). These requirements can be specifically found in section 15.1 in UL Section 9.12 in NFPA 101 refers to NFPA 720, which requires each CO device to be in compliance with UL 2075 or In addition, a project completed by the Fire Protection Research Foundation in 2007, "Development of a Technical Basis for Carbon Monoxide Detector Siteing", provides the documentation that supports the behavior of CO and detector location criteria.

168 1 of 1 3/2/ :43 PM Correlating Committee Note No. 23-NFPA [ Section No ] Submitter Full Name: SAF-AAC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Jan 08 09:12:07 EST 2016 Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Educational and Day-Care Occupancies (END) to consider the Negative ballot of Mertens relative to detector installation locations and coverage areas. This action will be considered as a public comment. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 11 Eligible Voters 0 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Affirmative All Bush, Kenneth E. Hopper, Howard Hrustich, Stephen Hugo, Jeffrey M. Kalie, Jr., J. Edmund Koffel, William E. Pauls, Jake Quiter, James R. Reiswig, Rodger Reynolds, Ronald C. Rosenbaum, Eric R.

169 24 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 23-NFPA [ Section No ] Carbon Monoxide Detection Systems Carbon monoxide detectors in accordance with Section 9.12 shall be provided in new educational occupancies in the locations specified as follows: (1) Carbon monoxide detectors shall be installed on the ceilings of rooms containing permanently installed fuel-burning appliances. (2) Carbon monoxide detectors shall be installed centrally located within occupiable spaces served by the first supply air register from a permanently installed, fuel-burning HVAC system. (3) Carbon monoxide detectors shall be installed centrally located within occupiable spaces adjacent to a communicating attached garage. (4) Carbon monoxide detectors shall be installed centrally located within occupiable spaces adjacent to an attached garage with a separation wall constructed of gypsum wallboard Where carbon monoxide detectors are installed in accordance with (1), the alarm signal shall be automatically transmitted to an approved on-site location or to an off-premises location in accordance with NFPA Carbon monoxide detectors as specified in shall not be required in the following locations: (1) Garages (2) Occupiable spaces with communicating attached garages that are open parking structures as defined in (3) Occupiable spaces with communicating attached garages that are mechanically ventilated in accordance with the applicable mechanical code (4) Occupiable spaces that are separated from attached garages by walls constructed of gypsum wallboard where the garage is an open parking structure as defined in (5) Occupiable spaces that are separated from attached garages by walls constructed of gypsum wallboard where the garage is mechanically ventilated in accordance with the mechanical code Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 101_CCN_24.pdf 101 CC Note #24 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 24 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Building Service and Fire Protection Equipment (BSF) to consider the Affirmative with Comment ballot of Stashak and the Negative ballot of Shirey so as to revise Section 9.12 CO Detection and Warning Equipment to provide guidance to the various occupancy technical committees on installation and listing standards for CO detection devices in other than residential living units. This action will be considered as a public comment. Related Item Correlating Committee Note No. 24-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: CC ON SAF_AAC Organization: NFPA CC ON SAFETY TO LIFE Submittal Date: Thu Mar 03 10:19:35 EST 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Rejected

170 25 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Resolution: In response to the Correlating Committee, the Committee has reviewed the ballot comment of Mertens and no changes are needed. Applicable codes and standards (NFPA 720, NFPA 101, and the UL Product Standards) provide adequate direction for CO detector location in occupancies other than residential. UL 2075, the UL product standard for CO detectors, contains the same alarm thresholds for these detectors as you would find in detectors supplied at consumer retail stores (residential applications). These requirements can be specifically found in section 15.1 in UL UL 2075 is referenced by Section 9.12.

171 1 of 1 3/2/ :44 PM Correlating Committee Note No. 24-NFPA [ Section No ] Submitter Full Name: SAF-AAC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Jan 08 09:14:36 EST 2016 Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Building Service and Fire Protection Equipment (BSF) to consider the Affirmative with Comment ballot of Stashak and the Negative ballot of Shirey so as to revise Section 9.12 CO Detection and Warning Equipment to provide guidance to the various occupancy technical committees on installation and listing standards for CO detection devices in other than residential living units. This action will be considered as a public comment. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 11 Eligible Voters 0 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Affirmative All Bush, Kenneth E. Hopper, Howard Hrustich, Stephen Hugo, Jeffrey M. Kalie, Jr., J. Edmund Koffel, William E. Pauls, Jake Quiter, James R. Reiswig, Rodger Reynolds, Ronald C. Rosenbaum, Eric R.

172 26 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 21-NFPA [ New Section after ] Add new section Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 101_CCN_22.pdf 101 CC Note #22 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 22 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Educational and Day-Care Occupancies (END) to consider the Affirmative with Comment ballot of Dubrowski and the Negative ballot of Roeper to add a charging statement as the provisions are not presented in context; include the term without special knowledge ; and reference the mounting height of the operable parts of the releasing mechanism rather than the location of the release itself. This action will be considered as a public comment. Related Item Correlating Committee Note No. 22-NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: CC ON SAF_AAC Organization: NFPA CC ON SAFETY TO LIFE Submittal Date: Thu Mar 03 10:10:12 EST 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: See SR-2005-NFPA In response to Public Comment No. 121: Door locking is a separate issue from sprinkler protection for security measures. Language in the Code assumes a single emergency event. Door locking provisions must also allow for safe egress and operational doors during an emergency. The proposed language to Chapter 15 recognizes a complete package of criteria to ensure that locking, if provided, is done in a safe means. The committee does not support the use of TDLD devices. Statement: The Committee supports the First Draft text with minor modifications as directed by the Correlating Committee. During the First Draft, the section was entertainingly added with no charging statement. A statement has been added to the front of the statement 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.185 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 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. The proposed language supports a safe installation and necessary guidance for situations that are already occurring in existing buildings. The language is written so that it is done to protect occupants but also to ensure door is operable for safe and quick egress during emergencies. There are currently close to 100,000 existing public school buildings across the country. Without this guidance, non-compliant, and dangerous, installations will continue to occur. Other protection measures are required and relied upon by the Code as part of a total life safety approach. The intent of Chapter 15 is to provide those other measures necessary to ensure that total protection approach. For example, it is critical to ensure the door can be unlocked and opened from outside the room so as to not impede the ability for occupants to egress the classroom. The language permits not more than two releasing operations, two releasing operations are not mandatory. It is ultimately up to the local AHJ to approve the locking

173 27 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM arrangement. Approval of locking devices may depend on individual scenarios such as classroom use, occupant load, and staffing. The committee supports this as a package of requirements that, together, provide the necessary guidance needed for classroom door locking in existing educational occupancies. The Committee recognizes that hardware does exists, and could be used, that allows two locking mechanisms/devices with one releasing action, such as residential hotel locks. The proposed language addresses the inevitable existing conditions that cannot utilize the "hotel locks." 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.

174 1 of 1 8/15/ :55 AM Correlating Committee Note No. 22-NFPA [ New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: SAF-AAC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Jan 08 09:10:56 EST 2016 Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Educational and Day-Care Occupancies (END) to consider the Affirmative with Comment ballot of Dubrowski and the Negative ballot of Roeper to add a charging statement as the provisions are not presented in context; include the term without special knowledge ; and reference the mounting height of the operable parts of the releasing mechanism rather than the location of the release itself. This action will be considered as a public comment. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 11 Eligible Voters 0 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Affirmative All Bush, Kenneth E. Hopper, Howard Hrustich, Stephen Hugo, Jeffrey M. Kalie, Jr., J. Edmund Koffel, William E. Pauls, Jake Quiter, James R. Reiswig, Rodger Reynolds, Ronald C. Rosenbaum, Eric R.

175 28 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 121-NFPA [ Section No ] Classroom Door Locking to Prevent Unwanted Entry. (1) The locking means is approved. (2) The locking means can be 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. (4) The unlocking and unlatching requires not more than two releasing operations in buildings protected throughout by an approved, automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13. (5) The unlocking and unlatching requires not more than one releasing operation in buildings not protected throughout by an approved, automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13. (6) The unlocking and unlatching means are mounted at a height not exceeding 48 in. (1220 mm) above the finished floor. (7) Locks, if remotely engaged, can be unlocked from the classroom side. (8) The door is capable of being unlocked and opened from outside the room by staff with the necessary key or other credential. (9) The locking means does not modify the door closer, panic hardware, or fire exit hardware. (10) Modifications to fire door assemblies, including door hardware, shall be in accordance with NFPA 80. (11) The emergency action plan, required by , addresses the use of the locking and unlocking means from within and outside the room. (12) T he Authority Having Jurisdition shall approve the use of temporary door locking devises designed to prevent unwanted entry in each building where they are used. (13) Staff is drilled in the engagement and release of the locking means, from within and outside the room, as part of the emergency every emergency egress drills required drill required by and demonstrate proficiency in their use. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment The state of Ohio amended the Ohio Building code (OBC) to allow for temporary door locking devices (TDLD). In their Code the devices must be operated by only one movement if the building is not sprinklered. Part of this change puts 101 in line with the OBC and seems reasonable. Furthermore, the current draft of does not require the AHJ approve the use of TDLD. These devices could have a dramatic impact on life safety and, therefore, should not be allowed to be installed without the approval of the AHJ, specifically the local AHJ. It does not appear 4.7 or 4.8 would require AHJ notification that TDLDs are to be used nor provide for their approval before they can be used. Finally, the current draft of does not go far enough to say how employees should be trained nor how often, only that they be "drilled" in their use. Is that once? Is that every time? Also, the section does not seem to have any performance requirement for proficiency in use. Just because a staff member is 'drilled" does not mean they can use the devises efficiently. Related Item Public Input No. 121-NFPA [Section No. 3.1] Submitter Full Name: Stephen Dale Organization: Cincinnati Insurance Company Submittal Date: Wed May 04 16:10:05 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: See SR-2005-NFPA In response to Public Comment No. 121: Door locking is a separate issue from sprinkler protection for security measures. Language in the Code assumes a single emergency event. Door locking provisions must also allow for safe egress and operational doors during an emergency. The proposed language to Chapter 15 recognizes a complete package of criteria to ensure that locking, if provided, is done in a safe means. The committee does not support the use of TDLD devices. Statement: The Committee supports the First Draft text with minor modifications as directed by the Correlating Committee. During the First Draft, the section was entertainingly added with no charging statement. A statement has been added to the front of the statement 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.185 as the basis

176 29 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM 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 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. The proposed language supports a safe installation and necessary guidance for situations that are already occurring in existing buildings. The language is written so that it is done to protect occupants but also to ensure door is operable for safe and quick egress during emergencies. There are currently close to 100,000 existing public school buildings across the country. Without this guidance, non-compliant, and dangerous, installations will continue to occur. Other protection measures are required and relied upon by the Code as part of a total life safety approach. The intent of Chapter 15 is to provide those other measures necessary to ensure that total protection approach. For example, it is critical to ensure the door can be unlocked and opened from outside the room so as to not impede the ability for occupants to egress the classroom. The language permits not more than two releasing operations, two releasing operations are not mandatory. It is ultimately up to the local AHJ to approve the locking arrangement. Approval of locking devices may depend on individual scenarios such as classroom use, occupant load, and staffing. The committee supports this as a package of requirements that, together, provide the necessary guidance needed for classroom door locking in existing educational occupancies. The Committee recognizes that hardware does exists, and could be used, that allows two locking mechanisms/devices with one releasing action, such as residential hotel locks. The proposed language addresses the inevitable existing conditions that cannot utilize the "hotel locks." 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.

177 30 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 185-NFPA [ Section No ] Classroom Door Locking to Prevent Unwanted Entry. Where a door in the means of egress from an occupiable space is lockable from within the space to prevent entry, the locking means shall comply with all of the following. (1) The locking means is approved shall be listed. (2) The locking means can be engaged shall be capable of being engaged without opening the door. (3) The unlocking and unlatching from the classroom side of the door can be Egress shall be accomplished without the use of a key or tool. (4) The unlocking and unlatching requires not more than two releasing operations. The unlocking and unlatching means are (5), a tool, or special knowledge or effort. (6) Egress shall require not more than one releasing operation. (7) The releasing mechanism for unlocking and unlatching the door shall be mounted at a height not exceeding 48 less than 34 in. (865 mm) and not more than 48 in. ( 1220 mm) above the finished floor. (8) Locks, if remotely engaged, can shall be unlocked unlockable from the classroom side egress side of the door without the use of a key, a tool, or special knowledge or effort. (9) The door is capable locking means of the door, other than a door not used for ingress, shall be capable of being unlocked and opened from outside the room by staff with the necessary key occupiable space by a key or other credential. (10) The locking means does shall not modify the door closer, panic hardware, or fire exit hardware invalidate the listing or labeling, where required, of the door assembly or any of its components. (11) Modifications to required fire door assemblies, including door hardware, shall be in accordance with NFPA 80. (12) The emergency action plan, required by , addresses the shall address the use of the locking and unlocking means from within and outside the room the occupiable space and the unlocking means from outside the occupiable space. (13) Staff is drilled in the engagement and release of the locking means, from within and outside the room, as means as part of the emergency egress drills required by Additional Proposed Changes File Name NFPA_101_Chapter_15_Existing_Educational_Occupancies_Locking_First_Revision_Comment_BHMA_ _HC.docx Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment Description Approved Attachment includes suggested revisions, and reason statements. Note: Deleting and inserting text resulted in an inadvertent inserted item number (5). Reason statements below refer to original item numbers. Reasons: Adds a charging paragraph, and clarifies scope of requirements to occupiable spaces. Occupiable spaces would include classrooms, and also include offices for administrators and support staff, libraries, cafeterias, etc. This public comment proposes language which does not suggest providing locking hardware on a door to prevent unwanted entry is something new, as NFPA 101 currently does not prohibit such locking arrangements. Revisions to Items 1 through 11 are intended to be more consistent with typical syntax and grammar of NFPA 101. Also, revises permissive text to mandatory text. Item 1: Revised, but may not be needed, especially for new construction. The committee-proposed requirement implies all locking arrangements intended to prevent ingress on doors to occupiable spaces will be required to be approved by the AHJ, whereas currently locking arrangements on doors are not explicitly required to be approved. Today s code does not prevent or preclude locking arrangements on doors, and requires locking arrangements on doors to meet all the requirements of the code. Item 2: Revised, but probably does not need to be a requirement even though this is a recommendation by the Sandy Hook Advisory commission. This functionality will be implemented by schools where this is an important consideration. Market factors will drive this functionality. Item 3: Revised to include special knowledge or effort, as required in Item 4: Reinforces requirements of and retains the long-standing life safety requirement of not more than one releasing operation. Item 5: Revised to clarify it is the releasing mechanism with the location requirements. Revised requirements to include not lower than 34 above finished floor, to be consistent with requirements of , and consistent with accessibility requirements. Item 6: Revised but probably not needed as a requirement. NFPA 101 today does not preclude the use of remote lock operation preventing ingress, as this proposed language seems to imply. As long as the door can be opened from inside the space as required by the code, the code doesn t regulate how the door gets locked to prevent unwanted entry. Item 7: Revised, and removes the unnecessary necessary word. Also inserts other than on a door not used for ingress which

178 31 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM recognizes some doors from occupiable spaces with higher occupancy capacity (i.e. auditoriums or gymnasiums) may be designed and used only for emergency egress and to provide the required egress capacity. These doors typically have interior panic hardware but have no operable hardware on the exterior (the exterior side of the door is smooth). This inserted phrase for doors not used for ingress is not needed if the scope is limited to classrooms. However, if the scope in the charging sentence is expanded to occupiable spaces then this inserted phrase may be important. Item 8: Revisions attempt to address concerns with proposed language which would not allow modifications to this hardware even if the modifications complied with code requirements. Item 9: Limits the scope of the proposed requirement for doors required to be fire door assemblies. It is not uncommon for the same fire rated door assembly to be used in openings required to be fire rated and in openings not required to be fire rated to eliminate inadvertent mistakes during construction and to ensure consistent aesthetics. Items 10 & 11: Revisions suggested should be considered while recalling the current requirements of NFPA 101, as reiterated in Item 3 (as revised): Unlocking and unlatching the door from the egress side of the door shall be accomplished without the use of a key, a tool, or special knowledge or effort. If the locking hardware complies with this requirement, there s no need to address in the emergency action plan how to unlock the door from inside the occupiable space. From a slightly different perspective, perhaps these Items (10) and (11) may be better located in and along with the other emergency action plan and emergency egress drill requirements. Related Item First Revision No NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: John Woestman Organization: Kellen Company Affilliation: Builders Hardware Manufacturers Association Submittal Date: Mon May 16 09:12:44 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: See SR-2005-NFPA In response to Public Comment No. 121: Door locking is a separate issue from sprinkler protection for security measures. Language in the Code assumes a single emergency event. Door locking provisions must also allow for safe egress and operational doors during an emergency. The proposed language to Chapter 15 recognizes a complete package of criteria to ensure that locking, if provided, is done in a safe means. The committee does not support the use of TDLD devices. Statement: The Committee supports the First Draft text with minor modifications as directed by the Correlating Committee. During the First Draft, the section was entertainingly added with no charging statement. A statement has been added to the front of the statement 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.185 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 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. The proposed language supports a safe installation and necessary guidance for situations that are already occurring in existing buildings. The language is written so that it is done to protect occupants but also to ensure door is operable for safe and quick egress during emergencies. There are currently close to 100,000 existing public school buildings across the country. Without this guidance, non-compliant, and dangerous, installations will continue to occur. Other protection measures are required and relied upon by the Code as part of a total life safety approach. The intent of Chapter 15 is to provide those other measures necessary to ensure that total protection approach. For example, it is critical to ensure the door can be unlocked and opened from outside the room so as to not impede the ability for occupants to egress the classroom. The language permits not more than two releasing operations, two releasing operations are not mandatory. It is ultimately up to the local AHJ to approve the locking arrangement. Approval of locking devices may depend on individual scenarios such as classroom use, occupant load, and staffing. The committee supports this as a package of requirements that, together, provide the necessary guidance needed for classroom door locking in existing educational occupancies. The Committee recognizes that hardware does exists, and could be used, that allows two locking mechanisms/devices with one releasing action, such as residential hotel locks. The proposed

179 32 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM language addresses the inevitable existing conditions that cannot utilize the "hotel locks." 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.

180 NFPA 101 Chapter 15 Existing Educational Occupancies Revisions BHMA offers as a public comment (due May 16, 2016). No NFPA [ New Section after ] Classroom Door Locking to Prevent Unwanted Entry. Where a door in the means of egress from an occupiable space is lockable from within the space to prevent entry, the locking means shall comply with all of the following. (1) The locking means is approvedshall be listed. (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 Egress shall be accomplished without the use of a key, or a tool, or special knowledge or effort. (4) The unlocking and unlatching requires Egress shall require not more than two one releasing operations. (5) The releasing mechanism for unlocking and unlatching means are the door shall be mounted at a height not less than 34 in. (865 mm) and not exceeding more than 48 in. (1220 mm) above the finished floor. (6) Locks, if remotely engaged, can be unlocked from the classroom sideshall be unlockable from the egress side of the door without the use of a key, a tool, or special knowledge or effort. (7) The door is The locking means of the door, other than a door not used for ingress, shall be capable of being unlocked and opened from outside the room by staff with the necessary occupiable space by a key or other credential. (8) The locking means does not modify the door closer, panic hardware, or fire exit hardwareshall not invalidate the listing or labeling, where required, of the door assembly or any of its components. (9) Modifications to required 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 means from within the occupiable space and the unlocking means from within and outside the room occupiable space. (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 Reasons: Adds a charging paragraph, and clarifies scope of requirements to occupiable spaces. Occupiable spaces would include classrooms, and also include offices for administrators and support staff, libraries, cafeterias, etc. This public comment proposes language which does not suggest providing locking hardware on a door to prevent unwanted entry is something new, as NFPA 101 currently does not prohibit such locking arrangements. Revisions to Items 1 through 11 are intended to be more consistent with typical syntax and grammar of NFPA 101. Also, revises permissive text to mandatory text. Item 1: Revised, but may not be needed, especially for new construction. The committeeproposed requirement implies all locking arrangements intended to prevent ingress on doors to occupiable spaces will be required to be approved by the AHJ, whereas currently locking arrangements on doors are not explicitly required to be approved. Today s code does not prevent or preclude locking arrangements on doors, and requires locking arrangements on doors to meet all the requirements of the code.

181 Item 2: Revised, but probably does not need to be a requirement even though this is a recommendation by the Sandy Hook Advisory commission. This functionality will be implemented by schools where this is an important consideration. Market factors will drive this functionality. Item 3: Revised to include special knowledge or effort, as required in Item 4: Reinforces requirements of and retains the long-standing life safety requirement of not more than one releasing operation. Item 5: Revised to clarify it is the releasing mechanism with the location requirements. Revised requirements to include not lower than 34 above finished floor, to be consistent with requirements of , and consistent with accessibility requirements. Item 6: Revised but probably not needed as a requirement. NFPA 101 today does not preclude the use of remote lock operation preventing ingress, as this proposed language seems to imply. As long as the door can be opened from inside the space as required by the code, the code doesn t regulate how the door gets locked to prevent unwanted entry. Item 7: Revised, and removes the unnecessary necessary word. Also inserts other than on a door not used for ingress which recognizes some doors from occupiable spaces with higher occupancy capacity (i.e. auditoriums or gymnasiums) may be designed and used only for emergency egress and to provide the required egress capacity. These doors typically have interior panic hardware but have no operable hardware on the exterior (the exterior side of the door is smooth). This inserted phrase for doors not used for ingress is not needed if the scope is limited to classrooms. However, if the scope in the charging sentence is expanded to occupiable spaces then this inserted phrase may be important. Item 8: Revisions attempt to address concerns with proposed language which would not allow modifications to this hardware even if the modifications complied with code requirements. Item 9: Limits the scope of the proposed requirement for doors required to be fire door assemblies. It is not uncommon for the same fire rated door assembly to be used in openings required to be fire rated and in openings not required to be fire rated to eliminate inadvertent mistakes during construction and to ensure consistent aesthetics. Items 10 & 11: Revisions suggested should be considered while recalling the current requirements of NFPA 101, as reiterated in Item 3 (as revised): Unlocking and unlatching the door from the egress side of the door shall be accomplished without the use of a key, a tool, or special knowledge or effort. If the locking hardware complies with this requirement, there s no need to address in the emergency action plan how to unlock the door from inside the occupiable space. From a slightly different perspective, perhaps these Items (10) and (11) may be better located in and along with the other emergency action plan and emergency egress drill requirements.

182 33 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 149-NFPA [ Section No ] Places of religious worship The following shall not be required to meet the provisions of this chapter where providing day care while services are being held in the : 1). Religious worship 2)* Rooms used for temporary child care during short term activities of the child's relative or guardian when located within the same building. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment During first draft, the TC stated that text needed to be provided in the body of Chapter 16 to back up annex language that recommended during the first draft for A A small task group was created to develop this language. Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Public Comment No. 148-NFPA [Section No. A ] Related Item Public Input No. 201-NFPA [Section No. A ] Relationship Submitter Full Name: Catherine Stashak Organization: Office of the Illinois State Fire Marshal Affilliation: Office of the Illinois State Fire Marshal Submittal Date: Wed May 11 19:27:04 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-2002-NFPA Statement: During first draft meeting, the Committee stated that text was provided in the body of Chapter 16 to back up annex language that was recommended for A A small task group was created to develop this language. The language assists in clarifying the application of provisions for day care occupancies. The proposed text expands current Code provisions allowing some incidental day care use in places of worship to not be classified as day care occupancies. The text specifically requires the clients relative or guardian to be in the same building so that quick and immediate access to the children during emergencies can occur. Annex: Proposed Annex language provides examples of scenarios that may apply the provisions of new

183 34 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 73-NFPA [ Section No ] Where the story below the level of exit discharge is occupied as a day-care occupancy, and shall apply One means of egress shall be an outside or interior stair in accordance with An interior stair, if used, shall serve only the story below the level of exit discharge. The interior stair shall be permitted to communicate with the level of exit discharge; however, the exit route from the level of exit discharge shall not pass through the stair enclosure The second means of egress shall be permitted to be via an unenclosed stairway separated from the level of exit discharge in accordance with The and the path of egress travel on the level of exit discharge shall be protected in accordance with , unless one of the following criteria is met: (1) The path of egress on the level of exit discharge shall be permitted to be unprotected if the level of exit discharge and the level below the level of exit discharge are protected throughout by a smoke detection system. (2) The path of egress on the level of exit discharge shall be permitted to be unprotected if the level of exit discharge and the level below the level of exit discharge are protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment Take a look at the requirements and compare them to the 2000 edition. When the exceptions were removed, the requirements were inadvertently changed. Related Item First Revision No NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Peter Larrimer Organization: US Department of Veterans Affa Submittal Date: Tue Mar 22 14:20:07 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Accepted Action: Resolution: SR-2003-NFPA Statement: When the exceptions were removed from the Code after the 2000 edition, the requirements for means of egress for day care occupancies below the level of exit discharge were inadvertently changed. This revision corrects an error in the Code language.

184 35 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 24-NFPA [ Section No ] Hazardous Materials. The new provisions of for egress requirements for hazardous materials are appropriate for application to day-care occupancies. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 101_CCN_25.pdf 101 CC Note #25 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 25 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Educational and Day-Care Occupancies (END) to consider the Affirmative with Comment ballot of Dubrowski and the Negative ballot of Longhitano noting that the text of is wrong in that it presents the reason for the change rather than the intended code requirement. Make read the same as from FR This action will be considered as a public comment. Related Item Correlating Committee Note No. 25-NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: CC ON SAF_AAC Organization: NFPA CC ON SAFETY TO LIFE Submittal Date: Thu Mar 03 10:26:36 EST 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-2004-NFPA Statement: In response to the Correlating Committee, the END committee considered the Affirmative with Comment ballot of Dubrowski and the Negative ballot of Longhitano noting that the text of is wrong in that it presents the reason for the change rather than the intended code requirement. The proposed revisions make section read the same as from FR-2008.

185 1 of 1 8/15/ :16 AM Correlating Committee Note No. 25-NFPA [ New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: SAF-AAC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Jan 08 09:16:53 EST 2016 Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Educational and Day-Care Occupancies (END) to consider the Affirmative with Comment ballot of Dubrowski and the Negative ballot of Longhitano noting that the text of is wrong in that it presents the reason for the change rather than the intended code requirement. Make read the same as from FR This action will be considered as a public comment. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 11 Eligible Voters 0 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Affirmative All Bush, Kenneth E. Hopper, Howard Hrustich, Stephen Hugo, Jeffrey M. Kalie, Jr., J. Edmund Koffel, William E. Pauls, Jake Quiter, James R. Reiswig, Rodger Reynolds, Ronald C. Rosenbaum, Eric R.

186 36 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 152-NFPA [ Section No ] * Sections of health care facilities shall be permitted to be classified as other occupancies, provided that they meet both of the following conditions: (1) They are not intended to provide services simultaneously for four or more inpatients for purposes of housing, treatment, or customary access by inpatients incapable of self-preservation. (2) They are separated from areas of health care occupancies by construction having a minimum 2-hour fire resistance rating in accordance with Chapter 8. (3) The requirement of (2) shall not apply to ambulatory health care occupancies located with a health care occupancy Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment Ambulatory health care occupancies and health care occupancies are often intermingled within hospitals. Currently the Code does not specifically allow ambulatory health care occupancies to be located within a health care occupancy without providing a 1-hour fire resistance rated occupancy separation. The safeguards required by health care occupancies are sufficient to permit ambulatory health care occupancies to be located within health care occupancies. The proposed text was inadvertently submitted in Chapter 20 during the PI stage. Related Item Public Input No. 317-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Lennon Peake Organization: Koffel Associates, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu May 12 13:26:41 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Resolution: Rejected The current separation requirement intends to protect the health care occupants from other occupancies. No substantiation has been provided to indicate health care occupancies are adequately protected without the currently required separation.

187 37 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 171-NFPA [ Section No ] General. Every aisle, passageway, corridor, exit discharge, exit location, and access shall be in accordance with Chapter 7, unless otherwise modified by through Where bathtubs, bathtub-shower combinations, or showers are present, grab bars shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment The proposed new text is based on standard text proposed for adoption by several NFPA 101 occupancy chapter committees in mid Given the text of the current, prior sentence (18.2.1) the proposed text might be redundant as nowhere that I can find in the current Chapter 18 requirements is there provision for exempting Chapter 7's proposed new requirements of bath tubs, bathtub-shower combinations and showers. Thus the proposed language for the body of the Code could easily be made a simple annex item so the new rules are not missed. There has been significant work on the topic in recent months but not yet held are any discussions that I am aware of, for example, by a task group formed in August 2015 on this topic and including, as a member, Public Health Nurse Linda Strobl who was (with me) the co-proponent of the original public input No I am appending below, the lengthy justification for the slight reworking of Public Input No. 341 (within my Public Comment No. 170) to underline that, beyond what was provided as justification for the original Public Input, there is far more now warranting the changes to NFPA 101 on this topic. ALSO PLEASE NOTE THAT WHATEVER CHANGE IS MADE IN CHAPTER 18 OF NFPA 101, THE SAME CHANGE SHOULD BE MADE IN NFPA 500O FOR HEALTH CARE OCCUPANCIES. The proposed changes to the originally proposed text resulted from months of consultation with experts in the US and Canada, especially during a face-to-face meeting held in Toronto on March 31 and April 1, In addition, editorial changes are based on those suggested by one of the experts, Marsha Mazz, from the US Access Board and member of NFPA's Disability Advisory Review Committee. At the face-to-face meeting there was extensive discussion and consensus on provision of a vertical grab bar on the wall opposite the control-end wall, especially where (as is fairly common in smaller bathrooms) water supply and drainage, for toileting, bathing/showering and other washing, etc. are located on a common wall. This leads to a significant portion of the length of a typical bathtub, at the control wall end, being partly obstructed, typically by a water closet. The substantive revisions suggested in this comment address this issue effectively by providing more flexibility in grab bar provision than first proposed. Also reflecting expert input from the meeting, is the revision to the lower height threshold for vertical grab bars for bathtubs and bathtubshower combinations used by shorter adults and children, especially in either the bathing mode or the shower mode. The additional grab bar length specified is not a major cost issue as wall-mounted (or other) grab bar length is not a large component of purchase cost and does not significantly affect installation cost. The combination of purchase and installation costs, per bathroom, is quite comparable to the average, per-household cost of bathing/showering/toileting-related fall injuries occurring over a two or three-year period in the USA. Usability is a benefit of at least similar value and this is especially significant for older users. The addition of toileting-related usability and safety in the considerations behind the proposals and comments is especially related to the dual benefits of the pole-type grab bars that can serve not only the bathing/showering transfer functions but the more pervasive use of water closets, particularly in smaller bathrooms that are found in large proportions of bathrooms in all types of facilities. There has also been much study of actual installations, especially as one of the original proponents travels extensively and uses many bathing/showering facilities in hotels around the world. This provided additional insights justifying and, in some respects, suggesting fine-tuning of the concepts at the core of the first revision proposal. Work has also been done especially on the addition of grab bars to existing bathtubs and bathtub-shower combinations i.e., not just new facilities. The vertical poles (plus some horizontally-oriented poles at the back wall of bathtubs) show great promise for relatively inexpensive and highly functional grab bars in retrofit situations for existing facilities, including those in rental properties where holes cannot be made in walls (as is the case for conventional, wall-mounted grab bars. There has also been much attention given, in consultation with top experts on injury epidemiology and costs to the relatively high risks and consequences of falls involving not only bathing/showering but also toileting. Much of this will be reflected in national and international conferences being held in Canada, the US and the UK prior to or shortly after the public comments are addressed by NFPA committees. These include two national and international conferences focused on falls and two national conference focused on public health generally. More information on these will be shared directly with NFPA committee members responsible for this core menu item and for scoping in all or most occupancy chapters of NFPA 101 and NFPA Significantly, due to the crush of preparation for such conferences (in which the submitter of these comments is deeply involved as an organizer and presenter), it is not possible to submit parallel comments for NFPA 101. Therefore, it is explicitly requested that in all cases, the committees process these comments in relation to both codes. Finally, the conferences as well as the recent, face-to-face meeting of several US and Canadian experts are all documented with video. The

188 38 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM first two videos in this series are available for streaming viewing by anyone, at no cost, at /Under_Construction.html. These two early videos not only identify the experts, but provide an excellent introduction to the extensive evidence obtained in research performed over the last two decades. Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Public Comment No. 172-NFPA [Section No ] Related Item First Revision No NFPA [New Section after ] Committee Input No NFPA [Section No ] Relationship Submitter Full Name: Jake Pauls Organization: Jake Pauls Consulting Services Submittal Date: Sun May 15 00:05:18 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Resolution: Rejected NFPA 101 is not the appropriate code to address grab bars for bathing facility safety - it belongs in other codes or standards. Fire officials may encounter enforcement issues with regard to bathing facility safety if grab bars are required (e.g., means of egress floor levels, slip resistance, etc.). In health care facilities, evacuation or relocation is facilitated by staff when necessary. Many other hazards exist that are outside the scope of enforcers of NFPA 101.

189 39 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 25-NFPA [ Section No ]

190 40 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM *

191 41 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Aisles, corridors, and ramps required for exit access in a hospital or nursing home shall be not less than 8 ft (2440 mm) in clear and unobstructed width, unless otherwise permitted by one of the following: (1) * Aisles, corridors, and ramps in adjunct areas not intended for the housing, treatment, or use of inpatients shall be not less than 44 in. (1120 mm) in clear and unobstructed width. (2) * Projections from the corridor wall shall be permitted by one of the following: (3) Noncontinuous projections not more than 4 in. (100 mm) from the corridor wall, positioned not less than 38 in. (965 mm) above the floor, shall be permitted. (4) Noncontinuous projections of more than 4 in. (100 mm) but not more than 6 in. (150 mm) from the corridor wall shall be permitted provided that both of the following are met: (5) The projecting item is positioned not less than 38 in. (965 mm) above the floor. (6) A vertical extension is provided below the projection such that the extension has a leading edge that is within 4 in. (100 mm) of the leading edge of the projection at a point that is 27 in. (685 mm) maximum above the floor. (7) * Exit access within a room or suite of rooms complying with the requirements of shall be permitted. (8) Projections into the required width shall be permitted for wheeled equipment, provided that all of the following conditions are met: (9) The wheeled equipment does not reduce the clear unobstructed corridor width to less than 60 in. (1525 mm). (10) The health care occupancy fire safety plan and training program address the relocation of the wheeled equipment during a fire or similar emergency. (11) * The wheeled equipment is limited to the following: (12) (13) (14) Equipment in use and carts in use Medical emergency equipment not in use Patient lift and transport equipment (15)* Where the corridor width is at least 8 ft (2440 mm), projections into the required width shall be permitted for fixed furniture, provided that all of the following conditions are met: (16) The fixed furniture is securely attached to the floor or to the wall. (17) The fixed furniture does not reduce the clear unobstructed corridor width to less than 6 ft (1830 mm), except as permitted by (2). (18) The fixed furniture is located only on one side of the corridor. (19) The fixed furniture is grouped such that each grouping does not exceed an area of 50 ft 2 (4.6 m 2 ). (20) The fixed furniture groupings addressed in (5) (d) are separated from each other by a distance of at least 10 ft (3050 mm). (21)* The fixed furniture is located so as to not obstruct access to building service and fire protection equipment. (22) Corridors throughout the smoke compartment are protected by an electrically supervised automatic smoke detection system in accordance with , or the fixed furniture spaces are arranged and located to allow direct supervision by the facility staff from a nurses station or similar space. (23)* Cross-corridor door openings in corridors with a required minimum width of 8 ft (2440 mm) shall have a clear width of not less than 6 ft 11 in. (2110 mm) for pairs of doors or a clear width of not less than in. (1055 mm) for a single door. (24) Nursing home corridors shall be permitted to be not less than 6 ft (1830 mm) wide in smoke compartments housing not more than 30 patients. (25) Cross-corridor door openings in corridors with a required minimum width of 6 ft (1830 mm) shall have a clear width of not less than 64 in. (1625 mm) for pairs of doors or a clear width of not less than in. (1055 mm) for a single door.

192 42 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM (26) Where the corridor width is at least 8 ft (2440 mm), projections into the required width shall be permitted for emergency stair travel devices, provided that all of the following conditions are met: (27) These devices do not reduce the clear unobstructed corridor width to less than 72 in. (1830 mm). (28) These devices are secured to the wall. (29) Where furniture is placed in the corridor in accordance with (4), the emergency stair travel devices are placed on the same side of the corridor as the furniture. (30) These devices are located so as to not obstruct access to building service and fire protection equipment. (31) These devices are grouped such that each grouping does not exceed a projected floor area of 12 ft 2 (3.7 m 2 ). (32) The groupings addressed in ( 6 (a) 9 ) (e) are separated from each other by a distance of at least 10 ft (3050 mm). Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 101_CCN_26.pdf 101 CC Note #26 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 26 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Health Care Occupancies (HEA) to consider the Affirmative with Comment ballot of Rickard so as to correct the reference embedded within (9)(f) to refer to (9)(e). This action will be considered as a public comment. Related Item Correlating Committee Note No. 26-NFPA [Sections , ] Submitter Full Name: CC ON SAF_AAC Organization: NFPA Submittal Date: Thu Mar 03 10:33:11 EST 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-4009-NFPA Statement: The revision incorporates PCs 25 and 74. The proposed self-retracting seat provisions are modified by deleting the proposed corridor handrail requirement as no handrail details were provided; handrails are required by the Code only for stairs and ramps.

193 1 of 1 3/2/ :47 PM Correlating Committee Note No. 26-NFPA [ Sections , ] Submitter Full Name: SAF-AAC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Jan 08 09:19:09 EST 2016 Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Health Care Occupancies (HEA) to consider the Affirmative with Comment ballot of Rickard so as to correct the reference embedded within (9)(f) to refer to (9)(e). This action will be considered as a public comment. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 11 Eligible Voters 0 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Affirmative All Bush, Kenneth E. Hopper, Howard Hrustich, Stephen Hugo, Jeffrey M. Kalie, Jr., J. Edmund Koffel, William E. Pauls, Jake Quiter, James R. Reiswig, Rodger Reynolds, Ronald C. Rosenbaum, Eric R.

194 43 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 74-NFPA [ Section No ]

195 44 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM *

196 45 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Aisles, corridors, and ramps required for exit access in a hospital or nursing home shall be not less than 8 ft (2440 mm) in clear and unobstructed width, unless otherwise permitted by one of the following: (1) * Aisles, corridors, and ramps in adjunct areas not intended for the housing, treatment, or use of inpatients shall be not less than 44 in. (1120 mm) in clear and unobstructed width. (2) * Projections from the corridor wall shall be permitted by one of the following: (3) Noncontinuous projections not more than 4 in. (100 mm) from the corridor wall, positioned not less than 38 in. (965 mm) above the floor, shall be permitted. (4) Noncontinuous projections of more than 4 in. (100 mm) but not more than 6 in. (150 mm) from the corridor wall shall be permitted provided that both of the following are met: (5) The projecting item is positioned not less than 38 in. (965 mm) above the floor. (6) A vertical extension is provided below the projection such that the extension has a leading edge that is within 4 in. (100 mm) of the leading edge of the projection at a point that is 27 in. (685 mm) maximum above the floor. (7) * Exit access within a room or suite of rooms complying with the requirements of shall be permitted. (8) Projections into the required width shall be permitted for wheeled equipment, provided that all of the following conditions are met: (9) The wheeled equipment does not reduce the clear unobstructed corridor width to less than 60 in. (1525 mm). (10) The health care occupancy fire safety plan and training program address the relocation of the wheeled equipment during a fire or similar emergency. (11) * The wheeled equipment is limited to the following: (12) (13) (14) Equipment in use and carts in use Medical emergency equipment not in use Patient lift and transport equipment (15)* Where the corridor width is at least 8 ft (2440 mm), projections into the required width shall be permitted for fixed furniture, provided that all of the following conditions are met: (16) The fixed furniture is securely attached to the floor or to the wall. (17) The fixed furniture does not reduce the clear unobstructed corridor width to less than 6 ft (1830 mm), except as permitted by (2). (18) The fixed furniture is located only on one side of the corridor. (19) The fixed furniture is grouped such that each grouping does not exceed an area of 50 ft 2 (4.6 m 2 ). (20) The fixed furniture groupings addressed in (5) (d) are separated from each other by a distance of at least 10 ft (3050 mm). (21)* The fixed furniture is located so as to not obstruct access to building service and fire protection equipment. (22) Corridors throughout the smoke compartment are protected by an electrically supervised automatic smoke detection system in accordance with , or the fixed furniture spaces are arranged and located to allow direct supervision by the facility staff from a nurses station or similar space. (23)* Cross-corridor door openings in corridors with a required minimum width of 8 ft (2440 mm) shall have a clear width of not less than 6 ft 11 in. (2110 mm) for pairs of doors or a clear width of not less than in. (1055 mm) for a single door. (24) Nursing home corridors shall be permitted to be not less than 6 ft (1830 mm) wide in smoke compartments housing not more than 30 patients. (25) Cross-corridor door openings in corridors with a required minimum width of 6 ft (1830 mm) shall have a clear width of not less than 64 in. (1625 mm) for pairs of doors or a clear width of not less than in. (1055 mm) for a single door. (26) Where the corridor width is at least 8 ft (2440 mm), projections into the required width shall be permitted for emergency stair travel devices, provided that all of the following conditions are met: (27) These devices do not reduce the clear unobstructed corridor width to less than 72 in. (1830 mm). (28) These devices are secured to the wall. (29) Where furniture is placed in the corridor in accordance with (4), the emergency stair travel devices are placed on the same side of the corridor as the furniture. (30) These devices are located so as to not obstruct access to building service and fire protection equipment. (31) These devices are grouped such that each grouping does not exceed a projected floor area of 12 ft 2 (3.7 m 2 ). (32) The groupings addressed in (6) (e) are separated from each other by a distance of at least 10 ft (3050 mm).

197 46 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM (33) Self-retracting seats fixed to the wall shall be permitted provided all of the following are met: (a) the seats comply with ASTM F851, Standard Test Method for Self-Rising Seat Mechanisms. (b) the seats automatically return to their normally retracted position at which time the seat projection into the means of egress complies with and does not interfere with the means of egress. (c) the self-retracting seats are normally in the retracted position and project not more than 4 in. (100 mm) from the wall. (d) exposed upholstery components, where provided, meet the requirements for Class I when tested in accordance with NFPA 260. (e)* were seats are installed, a handrail is available on the opposite side of the means of egress. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment Provisions are provided for self-retracting seats and the provisions should not have to meet the more onerous furniture requirements that require the corridor to be provided with smoke detection. The seats must meet ASTM F851 to ensure that they will retract. Provisions are provided to restrict the projection to less than 4 inches if it were to go above 38 inches and to 4-1/2 inches in accordance with when it is below 38 inches above the floor. The requirement to have a handrail on the opposite wall is intended to ensure that all handrails are not removed to install seats since I believe that the FGI guidelines require handrails. Related Item Committee Input No NFPA [Sections , ] Submitter Full Name: Peter Larrimer Organization: US Department of Veterans Affa Submittal Date: Tue Mar 22 15:27:05 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-4009-NFPA Statement: The revision incorporates PCs 25 and 74. The proposed self-retracting seat provisions are modified by deleting the proposed corridor handrail requirement as no handrail details were provided; handrails are required by the Code only for stairs and ramps.

198 47 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 75-NFPA [ Section No ] Aisles, corridors, and ramps required for exit access in a limited care facility or hospital for psychiatric care shall be not less than 6 ft (1830 mm) in clear and unobstructed width, unless otherwise permitted by one of the following: (1) * Aisles, corridors, and ramps in adjunct areas not intended for the housing, treatment, or use of inpatients shall be not less than 44 in. (1120 mm) in clear and unobstructed width. (2) * Projections from the corridor wall shall be permitted by one of the following: (3) Noncontinuous projections not more than 4 in. (100 mm) from the corridor wall, positioned not less than 38 in. (965 mm) above the floor, shall be permitted. (4) Noncontinuous projections of more than 4 in. (100 mm) but not more than 6 in. (150 mm) from the corridor wall shall be permitted provided that both of the following are met: (5) The projecting item is positioned not less than 38 in. (965 mm) above the floor. (6) A vertical extension is provided below the projection such that the extension has a leading edge that is within 4 in. (100 mm) of the leading edge of the projection at a point that is 27 in. (685 mm) maximum above the floor. (7) Noncontinuous projections not more than 6 in. (150 mm) from the corridor wall, positioned not less than 38 in. (965 mm) above the floor, shall be permitted. (8) * Exit access within a room or suite of rooms complying with the requirements of shall be permitted. (9) Projections into the required width shall be permitted for wheeled equipment, provided that all of the following conditions are met: (10) The wheeled equipment does not reduce the clear unobstructed corridor width to less than 60 in. (1525 mm). (11) The health care occupancy fire safety plan and training program address the relocation of the wheeled equipment during a fire or similar emergency. (12) * The wheeled equipment is limited to the following: (13) (14) (15) Equipment in use and carts in use Medical emergency equipment not in use Patient lift and transport equipment (16)* Cross-corridor door openings in corridors with a required minimum width of 6 ft (1830 mm) shall have a clear width of not less than 64 in. (1625 mm) for pairs of doors or a clear width of not less than 32 in. (810 mm) for a single door. (17) Where the corridor width is at least 8 ft (2440 mm), projections into the required width shall be permitted for emergency stair travel devices, provided that all of the following conditions are met: (18) These devices do not reduce the clear unobstructed corridor width to less than 72 in. (1830 mm). (19) These devices are secured to the wall. (20) Where furniture is placed in the corridor in accordance with (5), the emergency stair travel devices are placed on the same side of the corridor as the furniture. (21) These devices are located so as to not obstruct access to building service and fire protection equipment. (22) These devices are grouped such that each grouping does not exceed a projected floor area of 12 ft 2 (3.7 m 2 ). (23) The groupings addressed in (7) (e) are separated from each other by a distance of at least 10 ft (3050 mm). (24) Self-retracting seats fixed to the wall shall be permitted provided all of the following are met: (a) the seats comply with ASTM F851, Standard Test Method for Self-Rising Seat Mechanisms. (b) the seats automatically return to their normally retracted position at which time the seat projection into the means of egress complies with and does not interfere with the means of egress. (c) the self-retracting seats are normally in the retracted position and project not more than 4 in. (100 mm) from the wall. (d) exposed upholstery components, where provided, meet the requirements for Class I when tested in accordance with NFPA 260. (e)* where seats are installed, a handrail is available on the opposite side of the means of egress. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment

199 48 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Provisions are provided for self-retracting seats and the provisions should not have to meet the more onerous furniture requirements that require the corridor to be provided with smoke detection. The seats must meet ASTM F851 to ensure that they will retract. Provisions are provided to restrict the projection to less than 4 inches if it were to go above 38 inches and to 4-1/2 inches in accordance with when it is below 38 inches above the floor. The requirement to have a handrail on the opposite wall is intended to ensure that all handrails are not removed to install seats since I believe that the FGI guidelines require handrails. Related Item Committee Input No NFPA [Sections , ] Submitter Full Name: Peter Larrimer Organization: US Department of Veterans Affa Submittal Date: Tue Mar 22 15:31:15 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-4010-NFPA Statement: The revision incorporates PC-75 as revised by omitting the proposed corridor handrail requirement as no handrail details were provided and handrails are required by the Code only for stairs and ramps.

200 49 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 150-NFPA [ Section No ] Corridor Separation. Corridors shall be separated from all other areas by partitions complying with through (see also ), unless otherwise permitted by one of the following: (1) * Spaces shall be permitted to be unlimited in area and open to the corridor, provided that all of the following criteria are met: (2) * The spaces are not used for patient sleeping rooms, treatment rooms, or hazardous areas. (3) The corridors onto which the spaces open in the same smoke compartment are protected by an electrically supervised automatic smoke detection system in accordance with , or the smoke compartment in which the space is located is protected throughout by quick-response sprinklers. (4) The open space is protected by an electrically supervised automatic smoke detection system in accordance with , or the entire space is arranged and located to allow direct supervision by the facility staff from a nurses station or similar space A (1)(c) The omission of smoke detection does not pertain to satellite nurses stations which are not continuously occupied as there would not be early detection by staff in these areas during off hours. (a) The space does not obstruct access to required exits. (5) Waiting areas shall be permitted to be open to the corridor, provided that all of the following criteria are met: (6) The aggregate waiting area in each smoke compartment does not exceed 600 ft 2 (55.7 m 2 ). (7) Each area is protected by an electrically supervised automatic smoke detection system in accordance with , or each area is arranged and located to allow direct supervision by the facility staff from a nursing station or similar space. A (2)(b) The omission of smoke detection does not pertain to satellite nurses stations which are not continuously occupied as there would not be early detection by staff in these areas during off hours. (a) The area does not obstruct access to required exits. (8) * This requirement shall not apply to spaces for nurses stations A (3) The omission of smoke detection does not pertain to satellite nurses stations which are not continuously occupied as there would not be early detection by staff in these areas during off hours. (1) Gift shops not exceeding 500 ft 2 (46.4 m 2 ) shall be permitted to be open to the corridor or lobby. (2) In a limited care facility, group meeting or multipurpose therapeutic spaces shall be permitted to open to the corridor, provided that all of the following criteria are met: (3) The space is not a hazardous area. (4) The space is protected by an electrically supervised automatic smoke detection system in accordance with , or the space is arranged and located to allow direct supervision by the facility staff from the nurses station or similar location. A (5)(b) The omission of smoke detection does not pertain to satellite nurses stations which are not continuously occupied as there would not be early detection by staff in these areas during off hours. (a) The space does not obstruct access to required exits. (5) Cooking facilities in accordance with shall be permitted to be open to the corridor. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment One of the arrangements where the Code permits areas in health care occupancies to be non-separated from exit access corridors without being provided with smoke detection is in nurses stations or nursing stations. It is becoming more common in the design of health care occupancies to provide satellite nurses stations which may only be occupied during specific hours. The annex notes makes is clear that the exception for the omission of smoke detection should not pertain to satellite nurses stations which are not normally occupied as there would not be early detection in these areas during off hours. Related Item Public Input No. 286-NFPA [Section No ]

201 50 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Submitter Full Name: Lennon Peake Organization: Koffel Associates, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu May 12 13:03:21 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-4011-NFPA Statement: The revision incorporates PC-150 as modified by deleting the term "satellite" (not defined) and replacing the term "continuously occupied" with "continuously staffed."

202 51 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 27-NFPA [ Section No ] Corridor Separation. Corridors shall be separated from all other areas by partitions complying with through (see also ), unless otherwise permitted by one of the following: (1) * Spaces shall be permitted to be unlimited in area and open to the corridor, provided that all of the following criteria are met: (a) * The spaces are not used for patient sleeping rooms, treatment rooms, or hazardous areas. (b) The corridors onto which the spaces open in the same smoke compartment are protected by an electrically supervised automatic smoke detection system in accordance with , or the smoke compartment in which the space is located is protected throughout by quick-response sprinklers. (c) The open space is protected by an electrically supervised automatic smoke detection system in accordance with , or the entire space is arranged and located to allow direct supervision by the facility staff from a nurses station or similar space. (d) The space does not obstruct access to required exits. (2) Waiting areas shall be permitted to be open to the corridor, provided that all of the following criteria are met: (a) The aggregate waiting area in each smoke compartment does not exceed 600 ft 2 (55.7 m 2 ). (b) Each area is protected by an electrically supervised automatic smoke detection system in accordance with , or each area is arranged and located to allow direct supervision by the facility staff from a nursing station or similar space. (c) The area does not obstruct access to required exits. (3) * This requirement shall not apply to spaces for nurses stations. (4) Gift shops not exceeding 500 ft 2 (46.4 m 2 ) shall be permitted to be open to the corridor or lobby. (5) In a limited care facility, group meeting or multipurpose therapeutic spaces shall be permitted to open to the corridor, provided that all of the following criteria are met: (a) (b) (c) The space is not a hazardous area. The space is protected by an electrically supervised automatic smoke detection system in accordance with , or the space is arranged and located to allow direct supervision by the facility staff from the nurses station or similar location. The space does not obstruct access to required exits. (6) Cooking facilities in accordance with shall be permitted to be open to the corridor. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 101_CCN_28.pdf 101 CC Note #28 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 28 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Fire Protection Features to consider similar annex text for This action will be considered as a public comment. Related Item Correlating Committee Note No. 28-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: CC ON SAF_AAC Organization: NFPA CC ON SAFETY TO LIFE Submittal Date: Thu Mar 03 10:56:41 EST 2016 Committee Statement

203 52 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: No action by SAF-HEA - addressed by SAF-FIR via SR-2519.

204 1 of 1 3/2/ :49 PM Correlating Committee Note No. 28-NFPA [ Section No ] Submitter Full Name: SAF-AAC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Jan 08 09:27:40 EST 2016 Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Fire Protection Features to consider similar annex text for This action will be considered as a public comment. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 11 Eligible Voters 0 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Affirmative All Bush, Kenneth E. Hopper, Howard Hrustich, Stephen Hugo, Jeffrey M. Kalie, Jr., J. Edmund Koffel, William E. Pauls, Jake Quiter, James R. Reiswig, Rodger Reynolds, Ronald C. Rosenbaum, Eric R.

205 53 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 111-NFPA [ Section No ] Buildings containing health care facilities shall be subdivided by smoke barriers (see ), unless otherwise permitted by , as follows: (1) To divide every story used by inpatients for sleeping or treatment into not less than two smoke compartments (2) To divide every story having an occupant load of 50 or more persons, regardless of use, into not less than two smoke compartments (3) To limit the size of each smoke compartment required by (1) and (2) to an area not exceeding one of the following: 22,500 ft 2 (2100 m 2 ), in hospital smoke compartments where any patient sleeping room is configured for two or more patients 40,000 ft 2 (3720 m 2 ) in hospital smoke compartments where all patient sleeping rooms are configured for only one patient, in which case suites in accordance with shall be permitted where every occupiable sleeping room within the suite is configured for only one patient 40,000 ft 2 (3720 m 2 ) in hospital smoke compartments that contain no patient sleeping rooms 22,500 ft 2 (2100 m 2 ) in nursing homes and limited care faciliites To separate atriums in ft2 (2100m2), unless the area is an atrium separated in accordance with 8.6.7, in which case no limitation in size is required (4) To limit the travel distance from any point to reach a door in the required smoke barrier to a distance not exceeding 200 ft. (61 m) Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment We agree with the negatives of Bush, Furdell and Schmitt. There has been no technical substantiation provide for an almost doubling of the current smoke compartment requirements. Past changes in health care occupancies including derating of corridor walls and room separations, items being permitted in corridors, cooking and fireplaces permitted in smoke compartments, limited staffing levels and other raise fire safety concerns. Suite size increases of only 7,500 sq.ft. to 10,000 sq.ft. requires direct supervision and smoke detection where an almost double increase in smoke compartment size is not provide with any additional protection. The study on evacuation time does give any guidance on this issues. Increased smoke compartment size would decrease the potential for noticing a fire, longer travel time to the incident to take action and increase in fire severity. Additional research must be done to determine if this is an acceptable level of safety and to compare the impact on smoke compartment evacuation times in the existing smoke compartment configuration to the proposed configuration. If additional levels of protection were provided along with minimum staffing levels for the increase it would get greater consideration. Related Item First Revision No NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Bill Galloway Organization: West Florence Fire Rescue Affilliation: IFMA Board Submittal Date: Wed Apr 20 20:57:00 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Resolution: Rejected The committee stands on its statement for FR The increased smoke compartment size is consistent with the permitted 200-ft travel distance within smoke compartments, and is consistent with other model codes.

206 54 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 180-NFPA [ Section No ] Buildings containing health care facilities shall be subdivided by smoke barriers (see ), unless otherwise permitted by , as follows: (1) To divide every story used by inpatients for sleeping or treatment into not less than two smoke compartments (2) To divide every story having an occupant load of 50 or more persons, regardless of use, into not less than two smoke compartments (3) To limit the size of each smoke compartment required by (1) and (2) to an area not exceeding one of the following: (a) 22,500 ft 2 (2100 m 2 ), in hospital smoke compartments where any patient sleeping room is configured for two or more patients (b) 40,000 ft 2 (3720 m 2 ) in hospital smoke compartments where all patient sleeping rooms are configured for only one patient, in which case suites in accordance with shall be permitted where every occupiable sleeping room within the suite is configured for only one patient and in which staff to patient ratios are maintained for personal services and emergency evacuation (c) 40,000 ft 2 (3720 m 2 ) in hospital smoke compartments that contain no patient sleeping rooms (d) 22,500 ft 2 (2100 m 2 ) in nursing homes and limited care faciliites (4) To separate atriums in accordance with 8.6.7, in which case no limitation in size is required (5) To limit the travel distance from any point to reach a door in the required smoke barrier to a distance not exceeding 200 ft (61 m) Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment In the aftermath of defeating this issue last cycle, the National Association of State Fire Marshals agreed to work with the proponents to develop a workable solution and bring the multiple interests together. There is a component of the staffing requirements that are not easily put into code and that is the changing of staff numbers directly related to the patient level. Two things here to remember, one, staffing levels are directly proportional to the number of patients in a smoke control area and we did use worse case scenarios in out studies and second, it is to be written in the code that 40,000 sq ft smoke control areas are only for clinical areas and that patients located where there are single occupant rooms, cannot double up the rooms in a 40,000 sq ft smoke control area. Double patient rooms are to be kept at 22,500 sq ft for the smoke control area. Tis added wording only relates to the AHJ that there are conforming staffing standards hospitals must abide by to maintain their Certificate of Need based on the number of patients in their facility at any one time, day or night. Related Item First Revision No NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 232-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Kelly Nicolello Organization: Affilliation: National Association of State Fire Marshals. Submittal Date: Sun May 15 12:40:37 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: The proposed language is unenforceable.

207 55 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 45-NFPA [ Section No ] * Doors in smoke barriers shall be substantial doors, such as nonrated in. (44 mm) thick, solid-bonded wood-core doors, or shall be of construction that resists fire for a minimum of 20 minutes, and shall meet the following requirements: (1) Nonrated factory- or field-applied protective plates, unlimited in height, shall be permitted. (2) Cross-corridor openings in smoke barriers shall be protected by a pair of swinging doors or a special-purpose horizontally sliding accordion or folding door assembly complying with , unless otherwise permitted by (3) The swinging doors addressed by (2) shall be arranged so that each door swings in a direction opposite from the other. (4) The minimum clear width of swinging doors shall be as follows: (5) Where the corridor is required to be a minimum of 8 ft (2440 mm) wide in. (1055 mm) (6) Where the corridor is required to be a minimum of 6 ft (1830 mm) wide 32 in. (810 mm) (7) The minimum clear width opening for horizontal sliding doors shall be as follows: (8) Where the corridor is required to be a minimum of 8 ft (2440 mm) wide 6 ft 11 in. (2110 mm) (9) Where the corridor is required to be a minimum of 6 ft (1830 mm) wide 64 in. (1625 mm) (10) The clearance under the bottom of smoke barrier doors shall not exceed 3 4 (1) 1 in. (19 mm). Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment The intent of my recommendation is to avoid inconsistency and confusion. Smoke barriers are required to be of 1 hour rated construction. All penetrations/openings in a rated assembly are required to be protected. It is misleading to allow anything other than a 20 minute rated door to protect the opening in a one hour rated assembly. For example, we do not say "penetrations in a 1 hour rated assembly shall be UL approved, one hour rated fire stop assemblies, or solid bonded 5/8" thick products". One has a tested performance standard, and one does not. The LSC should clearly establish the standard of performance for the doors in smoke barriers; ie, 20 minute, labeled fire doors. As it is currently written,it is acceptable to use a solid bonded wood door, and the closer and frame do not have to be fire rated. Now lift up the ceiling tile above these doors, and every penetration in the smoke barrier (cabling, conduit, etc) has to be protected by an approved/listed product. It is both ideal and necessary to have consistency in thinking/application of standards. One hour rated assemblies should have the openings properly protected with products that are tested/listed/labeled for this use. I believe this is a very confusing standard, and the only place in Chapter 18 that is inconsistent with logical thinking in regard to how penetrations in a barrier are protected. Additionally, we allow 1" of undercut under a patient door, but only 3/4" under a smoke barrier door. Both are designed to resist the passage of smoke. Make the undercut standard, either 3/4" or 1". There is no logic to having them different. Related Item First Revision No NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Todd Wenger Organization: Wenger Construction Services Affilliation: none

208 56 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Submittal Date: Fri Mar 04 14:19:31 EST 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Rejected Resolution: New material. No justification provided to remove the provision for 1 3/4 inch solid-bonded wood-core doors.

209 57 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 130-NFPA [ Section No ] Soiled Linen and Trash Receptacles Soiled linen or trash collection receptacles shall not exceed 32 gal (121 L) in capacity and shall meet all of the following requirements: (1) The average density of container capacity in a room or space shall not exceed 0.5 gal/ft 2 (20.4 L/m 2 ). (2) * Mobile soiled linen or trash collection receptacles with capacities greater than 32 gal (121 L) shall be located in a room protected as a hazardous area when not attended. (3) Container size and density shall not be limited in hazardous areas * Containers used solely for recycling clean waste or for patient records awaiting destruction shall be permitted to be excluded from the requirements of where all the following conditions conditions of , as well as the conditions either of or of , are met: (1) Each container shall be limited to a maximum capacity of 96 gal (363 L), except as permitted by (2) or (3). (2) * Containers with capacities greater than 96 gal (363 L) shall be located in a room protected as a hazardous area when not attended. (3) Container size shall not be limited in hazardous areas. Containers for combustibles The containers shall be labeled and listed as meeting the requirements of FM Approval 6921, Approval Standard for Containers for Combustible Waste ; however, such testing, listing, and labeling shall not be limited to FM Approvals The containers shall be labeled and listed in accordance with the provisions of , applicable to containers for waste, or linen, shall not apply..1 or of Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment This section contains an exclusion from the normal provision in Chapter 10 (section ) for fire safety requirements of waste containers. In actual fact the requirements of (which apply to the majority of large waste containers) are a very reasonable substitute for the requirements of the FM standard and are probably more severe. There is no reason that waste containers listed to these requirements and used for other applications could not be used here. This proposed change does not introduce any new requirements but provides an alternate option that can be used by someone who already complies with the alternate requirements. Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Public Comment No. 131-NFPA [Section No ] Related Item First Revision No NFPA [Global Input] Relationship Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler Organization: GBH International Submittal Date: Mon May 09 18:24:59 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Resolution: Rejected New material. Language in is confusing. Proposed revision appears to relax requirements for containers with no technical substantiation.

210 58 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 153-NFPA [ Section No ] * Sections of health care facilities shall be permitted to be classified as other occupancies, provided that they meet all of the following conditions: (1) They are not intended to provide services simultaneously for four or more inpatients for purposes of housing, treatment, or customary access by inpatients incapable of self-preservation. (2) They are separated from areas of health care occupancies by construction having a minimum 2-hour fire resistance rating in accordance with Chapter 8. (3) The requirement of (2) shall not apply to ambulatory health care occupancies located with a health care occupancy. (4) For other than previously approved occupancy separation arrangements, the entire building is protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment Ambulatory health care occupancies and health care occupancies are often intermingled within hospitals. Currently the Code does not specifically allow ambulatory health care occupancies to be located within a health care occupancy without providing a 1-hour fire resistance rated occupancy separation. The safeguards required by health care occupancies are sufficient to permit ambulatory health care occupancies to be located within health care occupancies. The proposed text was inadvertently submitted in Chapter 21 during the PI stage. Related Item Public Input No. 318-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Lennon Peake Organization: Koffel Associates, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu May 12 13:35:47 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Resolution: Rejected The current separation requirement intends to protect the health care occupants from other occupancies. No substantiation has been provided to indicate health care occupancies are adequately protected without the currently required separation.

211 59 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 78-NFPA [ Section No ]

212 60 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM *

213 61 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Any required aisle, corridor, or ramp shall be not less than 48 in. (1220 mm) in clear width where serving as means of egress from patient sleeping rooms, unless otherwise permitted by one of the following: (1) Aisles, corridors, and ramps in adjunct areas not intended for the housing, treatment, or use of inpatients shall be not less than 44 in. (1120 mm) in clear and unobstructed width. (2) * Where corridor width is at least 6 ft (1830 mm), projections from the corridor wall shall be permitted by one of the following:. (3) Noncontinuous projections not more than 4 in. (100 mm) from the corridor wall, positioned above handrail height, are permitted. (4) Noncontinuous projections of more than 4 in. (100 mm) but not more than 6 in. (150 mm) from the corridor wall are permitted provided that both of the following are met: (5) The projecting item is positioned above handrail height (6) A vertical extension is provided below the projection such that the extension has a leading edge that is within 4 in. (100 mm) of the leading edge of the projection at a point that is 27 in. (685 mm) maximum above the floor. (7) Exit access within a room or suite of rooms complying with the requirements of shall be permitted. (8) Projections into the required width shall be permitted for wheeled equipment, provided that all of the following conditions are met: (9) The wheeled equipment does not reduce the clear unobstructed corridor width to less than 60 in. (1525 mm). (10) The health care occupancy fire safety plan and training program address the relocation of the wheeled equipment during a fire or similar emergency. (11) * The wheeled equipment is limited to the following: (12) (13) (14) Equipment in use and carts in use Medical emergency equipment not in use Patient lift and transport equipment (15)* Where the corridor width is at least 8 ft (2440 mm), projections into the required width shall be permitted for fixed furniture, provided that all of the following conditions are met: (16) The fixed furniture is securely attached to the floor or to the wall. (17) The fixed furniture does not reduce the clear unobstructed corridor width to less than 6 ft (1830 mm), except as permitted by (2). (18) The fixed furniture is located only on one side of the corridor. (19) The fixed furniture is grouped such that each grouping does not exceed an area of 50 ft 2 (4.6 m 2 ). (20) The fixed furniture groupings addressed in (5) (d) are separated from each other by a distance of at least 10 ft (3050 mm). (21)* The fixed furniture is located so as to not obstruct access to building service and fire protection equipment. (22) Corridors throughout the smoke compartment are protected by an electrically supervised automatic smoke detection system in accordance with , or the fixed furniture spaces are arranged and located to allow direct supervision by the facility staff from a nurses station or similar space. (23) The smoke compartment is protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with (24) Where the corridor width is at least 8 ft (2440 mm), projections into the required width shall be permitted for emergency stair travel devices, provided that all of the following conditions are met:

214 62 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM (25) These devices do not reduce the clear unobstructed corridor width to less than 72 in. (1830 mm). (26) These devices are secured to the wall. (27) Where furniture is placed in the corridor in accordance with (5), the emergency stair travel devices are placed on the same side of the corridor as the furniture. (28) These devices are located so as to not obstruct access to building service and fire protection equipment. (29) These devices are grouped such that each grouping does not exceed a projected floor area of 12 ft 2 (3.7 m 2 ). (30) The groupings addressed in (6) (e) are separated from each other by a distance of at least 10 ft (3050 mm). (31) The smoke compartment is protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with (32) Self-retracting seats fixed to the wall shall be permitted provided all of the following are met: (33) the seats comply with ASTM F851, Standard Test Method for Self-Rising Seat Mechanisms. (34) the seats automatically return to their normally retracted position at which time the seat projection into the means of egress complies with and does not interfere with the means of egress. (35) the self-retracting seats are normally in the retracted position and project not more than 4 in. (100 mm) from the wall. (36) exposed upholstery components, where provided, meet the requirements for Class I when tested in accordance with NFPA 260. (37) * where seats are installed, a handrail is available on the opposite side of the means of egress. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment Provisions are provided for self-retracting seats and the provisions should not have to meet the more onerous furniture requirements that require the corridor to be provided with smoke detection. The seats must meet ASTM F851 to ensure that they will retract. Provisions are provided to restrict the projection to less than 4 inches if it were to go above 38 inches and to 4-1/2 inches in accordance with when it is below 38 inches above the floor. The requirement to have a handrail on the opposite wall is intended to ensure that all handrails are not removed to install seats since I believe that the FGI guidelines require handrails. Related Item Committee Input No NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Peter Larrimer Organization: US Department of Veterans Affa Submittal Date: Tue Mar 22 15:53:48 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-4013-NFPA Statement: The revision incorporates PC-78 as modified by omitting the proposed provision for handrails as no handrail details were provided and handrails are required by the Code only on stairs and ramps.

215 63 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 151-NFPA [ Section No ]

216 64 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Corridor Separation.

217 65 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Corridors shall be separated from all other areas by partitions complying with through (see also ), unless otherwise permitted by one of the following: (1) * Smoke compartments protected throughout by an approved supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with shall be permitted to have spaces that are unlimited in size and open to the corridor, provided that all of the following criteria are met: (2) * The spaces are not used for patient sleeping rooms, treatment rooms, or hazardous areas. (3) The corridors onto which the spaces open in the same smoke compartment are protected by an electrically supervised automatic smoke detection system in accordance with , or the smoke compartment in which the space is located is protected throughout by quick-response sprinklers. (4) The open space is protected by an electrically supervised automatic smoke detection system in accordance with , or the entire space is arranged and located to allow direct supervision by the facility staff from a nurses station or similar space A (1)(c) The omission of smoke detection does not pertain to satellite nurses stations which are not continuously occupied as there would not be early detection by staff in these areas during off hours. (a) The space does not obstruct access to required exits. (5) In smoke compartments protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with , waiting areas shall be permitted to be open to the corridor, provided that all of the following criteria are met: (6) The aggregate waiting area in each smoke compartment does not exceed 600 ft 2 (55.7 m 2 ). (7) Each area is protected by an electrically supervised automatic smoke detection system in accordance with , or each area is arranged and located to allow direct supervision by the facility staff from a nursing station or similar space. A (2)(b) The omission of smoke detection does not pertain to satellite nurses stations which are not continuously occupied as there would not be early detection by staff in these areas during off hours. (a) The area does not obstruct access to required exits. (8) * This requirement shall not apply to spaces for nurses stations A (c) The omission of smoke detection does not pertain to satellite nurses stations which are not continuously occupied as there would not be early detection by staff in these areas during off hours. (1) Gift shops not exceeding 500 ft 2 (46.4 m 2 ) shall be permitted to be open to the corridor or lobby, provided that one of the following criteria is met: (2) The building is protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7. (3) The gift shop is protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7, and storage is separately protected. (4) Limited care facilities in smoke compartments protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with shall be permitted to have group meeting or multipurpose therapeutic spaces open to the corridor, provided that all of the following criteria are met: (5) The space is not a hazardous area. (6) The space is protected by an electrically supervised automatic smoke detection system in accordance with , or the space is arranged and located to allow direct supervision by the facility staff from the nurses station or similar location. A (5)(b) The omission of smoke detection does not pertain to satellite nurses stations which are not continuously occupied as there would not be early detection by staff in these areas during off hours. (a) The space does not obstruct access to required exits. (7) Cooking facilities in accordance with shall be permitted to be open to the corridor. (8) Spaces, other than patient sleeping rooms, treatment rooms, and hazardous areas, shall be permitted to be open to the corridor and unlimited in area, provided that all of the following criteria are met: (9) The space and the corridors onto which it opens, where located in the same smoke compartment, are protected by an electrically supervised automatic smoke detection system in accordance with (10) * Each space is protected by automatic sprinklers, or the furnishings and furniture, in combination with all other combustibles within the area, are of such minimum quantity and arrangement that a fully developed fire is unlikely to occur.

218 66 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM (11) The space does not obstruct access to required exits. (12)* Waiting areas shall be permitted to be open to the corridor, provided that all of the following criteria are met: (13) (14) (15) Each area does not exceed 600 ft 2 (55.7 m 2 ). The area is equipped with an electrically supervised automatic smoke detection system in accordance with The area does not obstruct any access to required exits. (16) Group meeting or multipurpose therapeutic spaces, other than hazardous areas, that are under continuous supervision by facility staff shall be permitted to be open to the corridor, provided that all of the following criteria are met: (17) Each area does not exceed 1500 ft 2 (139 m 2 ). (18) Not more than one such space is permitted per smoke compartment. (19) The area is equipped with an electrically supervised automatic smoke detection system in accordance with (20) The area does not obstruct access to required exits. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment One of the arrangements where the Code permits areas in health care occupancies to be non-separated from exit access corridors without being provided with smoke detection is in nurses stations or nursing stations. It is becoming more common in the design of health care occupancies to provide satellite nurses stations which may only be occupied during specific hours. The annex notes makes is clear that the exception for the omission of smoke detection should not pertain to satellite nurses stations which are not normally occupied as there would not be early detection in these areas during off hours. Related Item Public Input No. 287-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: Lennon Peake Organization: Koffel Associates, Inc. Submittal Date: Thu May 12 13:13:53 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-4012-NFPA Statement: The revision incorporates PC-151 as modified by deleting the term "satellite" (not defined) and replacing "continuously occupied" with "continuously staffed."

219 67 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 131-NFPA [ Section No ] Soiled Linen and Trash Receptacles Soiled linen or trash collection receptacles shall not exceed 32 gal (121 L) in capacity and shall meet all of the following requirements: (1) The average density of container capacity in a room or space shall not exceed 0.5 gal/ft 2 (20.4 L/m 2 ). (2) * Mobile soiled linen or trash collection receptacles with capacities greater than 32 gal (121 L) shall be located in a room protected as a hazardous area when not attended. (3) Container size and density shall not be limited in hazardous areas * Containers used solely for recycling clean waste or for patient records awaiting destruction shall be permitted to be excluded from the requirements of where all the following conditions conditions of , as well as the conditions either of or of , are met: (1) Each container shall be limited to a maximum capacity of 96 gal (363 L), except as permitted by (2) or (3). (2) * Containers with capacities greater than 96 gal (363 L) shall be located in a room protected as a hazardous area when not attended. (3) Container size shall not be limited in hazardous areas. Containers for combustibles The containers shall be labeled and listed as meeting the requirements of FM Approval 6921, Approval Standard for Containers for Combustible Waste ; however, such testing, listing, and labeling shall not be limited to FM Approvals The containers shall be labeled and listed in accordance with the provisions of , applicable to containers for waste, or linen, shall not apply..1 or of Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment This section contains an exclusion from the normal provision in Chapter 10 (section ) for fire safety requirements of waste containers. In actual fact the requirements of (which apply to the majority of large waste containers) are a very reasonable substitute for the requirements of the FM standard and are probably more severe. There is no reason that waste containers listed to these requirements and used for other applications could not be used here. This proposed change does not introduce any new requirements but provides an alternate option that can be used by someone who already complies with the alternate requirements. Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Public Comment No. 130-NFPA [Section No ] Related Item First Revision No NFPA [Global Input] Relationship Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler Organization: GBH International Submittal Date: Mon May 09 18:49:23 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Resolution: Rejected New material. Language in is confusing. Proposed revision appears to relax requirements for containers with no technical substantiation.

220 68 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM

221 69 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 172-NFPA [ Section No ] General. Every aisle, passageway, corridor, exit discharge, exit location, and access shall be in accordance with Chapter 7, unless otherwise modified by through Where bathtubs, bathtub-shower combinations, or showers are present, grab bars shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment The proposed new text is based on standard text proposed for adoption by several NFPA 101 occupancy chapter committees in mid Given the text of the current, prior sentence (20.2.1) the proposed text might be redundant as nowhere that I can find in the current Chapter 20 requirements is there provision for exempting Chapter 7's proposed new requirements of bath tubs, bathtub-shower combinations and showers. Thus the proposed language for the body of the Code could easily be made a simple annex item so the new rules are not missed. There has been significant work on the topic in recent months but not yet held are any discussions that I am aware of, for example, by a task group formed in August 2015 on this topic and including, as a member, Public Health Nurse Linda Strobl who was (with me) the co-proponent of the original public input No I am appending below, the lengthy justification for the slight reworking of Public Input No. 341 (within my Public Comment No. 170) to underline that, beyond what was provided as justification for the original Public Input, there is far more now warranting the changes to NFPA 101 on this topic. ALSO PLEASE NOTE THAT WHATEVER CHANGE IS MADE IN CHAPTER 20 OF NFPA 101, THE SAME CHANGE SHOULD BE MADE IN NFPA 500O FOR AMBULATORY HEALTH CARE OCCUPANCIES. The proposed changes to the originally proposed text resulted from months of consultation with experts in the US and Canada, especially during a face-to-face meeting held in Toronto on March 31 and April 1, In addition, editorial changes are based on those suggested by one of the experts, Marsha Mazz, from the US Access Board and member of NFPA's Disability Advisory Review Committee. At the face-to-face meeting there was extensive discussion and consensus on provision of a vertical grab bar on the wall opposite the control-end wall, especially where (as is fairly common in smaller bathrooms) water supply and drainage, for toileting, bathing/showering and other washing, etc. are located on a common wall. This leads to a significant portion of the length of a typical bathtub, at the control wall end, being partly obstructed, typically by a water closet. The substantive revisions suggested in this comment address this issue effectively by providing more flexibility in grab bar provision than first proposed. Also reflecting expert input from the meeting, is the revision to the lower height threshold for vertical grab bars for bathtubs and bathtub-shower combinations used by shorter adults and children, especially in either the bathing mode or the shower mode. The additional grab bar length specified is not a major cost issue as wall-mounted (or other) grab bar length is not a large component of purchase cost and does not significantly affect installation cost. The combination of purchase and installation costs, per bathroom, is quite comparable to the average, per-household cost of bathing/showering/toileting-related fall injuries occurring over a two or three-year period in the USA. Usability is a benefit of at least similar value and this is especially significant for older users. The addition of toileting-related usability and safety in the considerations behind the proposals and comments is especially related to the dual benefits of the pole-type grab bars that can serve not only the bathing/showering transfer functions but the more pervasive use of water closets, particularly in smaller bathrooms that are found in large proportions of bathrooms in all types of facilities. There has also been much study of actual installations, especially as one of the original proponents travels extensively and uses many bathing/showering facilities in hotels around the world. This provided additional insights justifying and, in some respects, suggesting fine-tuning of the concepts at the core of the first revision proposal. Work has also been done especially on the addition of grab bars to existing bathtubs and bathtub-shower combinations i.e., not just new facilities. The vertical poles (plus some horizontally-oriented poles at the back wall of bathtubs) show great promise for relatively inexpensive and highly functional grab bars in retrofit situations for existing facilities, including those in rental properties where holes cannot be made in walls (as is the case for conventional, wall-mounted grab bars. There has also been much attention given, in consultation with top experts on injury epidemiology and costs to the relatively high risks and consequences of falls involving not only bathing/showering but also toileting. Much of this will be reflected in national and international conferences being held in Canada, the US and the UK prior to or shortly after the public comments are addressed by NFPA committees. These include two national and international conferences focused on falls and two national conference focused on public health generally. More information on these will be shared directly with NFPA committee members responsible for this core menu item and for scoping in all or most occupancy chapters of NFPA 101 and NFPA Significantly, due to the crush of preparation for such conferences (in which the submitter of these comments is deeply involved as an organizer and presenter), it is not possible to submit parallel comments for NFPA 101. Therefore, it is explicitly requested that in all cases, the committees process these comments in relation to both codes. Finally, the conferences as well as the recent, face-to-face meeting of several US and Canadian experts are all documented with video. The first two videos in this series are available for streaming viewing by anyone, at no cost, at These two early videos not only identify the experts, but provide an excellent introduction to the extensive evidence obtained in research performed over the last two decades. Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Public Comment No. 171-NFPA [Section No ] Public Comment No. 170-NFPA [Section No ] Related Item Committee Input No NFPA [Section No ] Relationship

222 70 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Submitter Full Name: Jake Pauls Organization: Jake Pauls Consulting Services Submittal Date: Sun May 15 00:41:29 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Resolution: Rejected NFPA 101 is not the appropriate code to address grab bars for bathing facility safety - it belongs in other codes or standards. Fire officials may encounter enforcement issues with regard to bathing facility safety if grab bars are required (e.g., means of egress floor levels, slip resistance, etc.). In health care facilities, evacuation or relocation is facilitated by staff when necessary. Many other hazards exist that are outside the scope of enforcers of NFPA 101.

223 71 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 28-NFPA [ Section No ] The emergency power required by (1) shall be arranged to provide the required power automatically in the event of any interruption of normal power due to any of the following: (1) Failure of a public utility or other outside electrical power supply (2) Opening of a circuit breaker or fuse (3) Manual act(s), including accidental opening of a switch controlling normal lighting facilities Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 101_CCN_29.pdf 101 CC Note #29 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 29 in the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Detention and Correctional Occupancies (DET) to consider the Affirmative with Comment ballot of Gaw so as to correct the reference in from (1) to (1). This action will be considered as a public comment. Related Item Correlating Committee Note No. 29-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: CC ON SAF_AAC Organization: NFPA CC ON SAFETY TO LIFE Submittal Date: Thu Mar 03 11:01:07 EST 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Accepted Resolution: SR-1501-NFPA Statement: This is an editorial correction.

224 1 of 1 3/2/ :50 PM Correlating Committee Note No. 29-NFPA [ Section No ] Submitter Full Name: SAF-AAC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Jan 08 09:29:26 EST 2016 Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Detention and Correctional Occupancies (DET) to consider the Affirmative with Comment ballot of Gaw so as to correct the reference in from (1) to (1). This action will be considered as a public comment. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 11 Eligible Voters 0 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Affirmative All Bush, Kenneth E. Hopper, Howard Hrustich, Stephen Hugo, Jeffrey M. Kalie, Jr., J. Edmund Koffel, William E. Pauls, Jake Quiter, James R. Reiswig, Rodger Reynolds, Ronald C. Rosenbaum, Eric R.

225 72 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 29-NFPA [ Section No ] Special Features Doors Doors within means of egress shall be in accordance with Chapter 7, unless otherwise provided in through Doors shall be permitted to be locked in accordance with the applicable use condition Where egress doors are locked with key-operated locks, the provisions of shall apply * Doors to resident sleeping rooms shall be not less than 28 in. (710 mm) in clear width Existing doors to resident sleeping rooms housing four or fewer residents shall be permitted to be not less than 19 in. (485 mm) in clear width Doors in a means of egress shall be permitted to be of the horizontal-sliding type, provided that the force necessary to slide the door to its fully open position does not exceed 50 lbf (222 N) where a force of 50 lbf (222 N) is simultaneously applied perpendicular to the door Doors from areas of refuge to the exterior shall be permitted to be locked with key locks in lieu of locking methods described in , the keys to unlock such doors shall be maintained and available at the facility at all times, and the locks shall be operable from the outside * Any remote-control release used in a means of egress shall be provided with a reliable means of operation to release locks on all doors and shall be remotely located from the resident living area, unless otherwise permitted by The remote location of a remote-control release used in a means of egress shall provide sight and sound supervision of the resident living areas Remote-control locking and unlocking of occupied rooms in Use Condition IV shall not be required, provided that both of the following criteria are met: (1) Not more than 10 locks need to be unlocked to relocate all occupants from one smoke compartment to an area of refuge as promptly as is required where remote-control unlocking is used. (See for requirements for smoke barrier doors.) (2) Unlocking of all necessary locks is accomplished with not more than two separate keys Remote-Control Release Operated Doors All remote-control release operated doors shall be provided with a redundant means of operation as follows: (1) Power-operated sliding doors or power-operated locks shall be constructed so that, in the event of power failure, a manual mechanical means to release and open the doors is provided at each door, and either emergency power arranged in accordance with (1) is provided for the power operation or a remote-control manual mechanical release is provided. (2) A combination of the emergency power operated release of selected individual doors and remote-control manual mechanical ganged release specified in (1) shall be permitted without mechanical release means at each door. (3) Mechanically operated sliding doors or mechanically operated locks shall be provided with a manual mechanical means at each door to release and open the door The emergency power required by (1) shall be arranged to provide the required power automatically in the event of any interruption of normal power due to any of the following: (1) Failure of a public utility or other outside electrical power supply (2) Opening of a circuit breaker or fuse (3) Manual act(s), including accidental opening of a switch controlling normal lighting facilities

226 73 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM The provisions of for stairway re-entry shall not apply Reserved Hazardous Materials. Where hazardous materials are present, the provisions of shall apply. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 101_CCN_30.pdf 101 CC Note #30 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment NOTE: This public comment appeared as CC Note No.. 30 is the First Draft Report. The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Detention and Correctional Occupancies (DET) to renumber and to become and for consistency with the numbering in Chapter 22. This action will be considered as a public comment. Related Item Correlating Committee Note No. 30-NFPA [Section No ] Submitter Full Name: CC ON SAF_AAC Organization: NFPA CC ON SAFETY TO LIFE Submittal Date: Thu Mar 03 11:24:02 EST 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Rejected but see related SR Resolution: SR-1502-NFPA Statement: This is an editorial correction.

227 1 of 1 3/2/ :51 PM Correlating Committee Note No. 30-NFPA [ Section No ] Submitter Full Name: SAF-AAC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Submittal Date: Fri Jan 08 09:31:32 EST 2016 Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: The Correlating Committee directs the TC on Detention and Correctional Occupancies (DET) to renumber and to become and for consistency with the numbering in Chapter 22. This action will be considered as a public comment. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 11 Eligible Voters 0 Not Returned 11 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Affirmative All Bush, Kenneth E. Hopper, Howard Hrustich, Stephen Hugo, Jeffrey M. Kalie, Jr., J. Edmund Koffel, William E. Pauls, Jake Quiter, James R. Reiswig, Rodger Reynolds, Ronald C. Rosenbaum, Eric R.

228 74 of 287 8/15/2016 8:48 AM Public Comment No. 147-NFPA [ Section No ] * One- and two-family dwellings shall be limited to buildings containing not more than two dwelling units in which each dwelling unit is occupied by members of a single family with not more than three outsiders, if any, accommodated in rented rooms or by no more than two persons per sleeping room, whichever is greater. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved 101_PC147_-_REFERENCE_MATERIALS.pdf 101 Reference Materials to PC147 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment This section should be changed to accommodate individuals in a group that are capable of self-preservation to be accommodated within the definition of single family dwelling. While the current provision allows for any number of related individuals or "insiders" to occupy a single family dwelling, it currently limits the number of "outsiders" to three, regardless of the size, number of bedrooms or possible sleeping rooms, or the configuration of the home. A more reasonable definition that proposes the limits of occupancy should establish limits based on size, number of bedrooms or possible sleeping rooms, and the configuration of the home. This would help prevent the exclusion of the number of those that are "outsiders" that, under the provision, might be allowed for the same number of individuals if they were related. For instance, if in a given situation 6 insiders or related individuals were allowed to live in a given single family dwelling that have 4 bedrooms, it might seem unreasonable to prevent 6 "outsiders" or unrelated individuals from living in that same single family dwelling. Attached are some reference materials that should help explain this situation. While the New York government document does go beyond explaining what the U.S. Supreme Court has decided by also including rulings that are only applicable to New York State, it does a good job of explaining what the U.S. Supreme Court has decided. The HUD document provides some informative discussion on some of the parameters, such as size, number of bedrooms or possible sleeping rooms, and the configuration of the home, that could be involved in evaluating a situation should an attempt be made to have consistent policies for occupying single family dwellings across the spectrums (see beginning on page 5 where the topic says "24 C.F.R. Chapter..."). This proposed modification only extends the definition with regard to what, perhaps, most would consider, the most salient parameter: number of bedrooms. Related Item First Correlating Revision No. 3-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 449-NFPA [New Section after ] Submitter Full Name: Stanley Harbuck Organization: School of Building Inspection Submittal Date: Wed May 11 16:22:59 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Resolution: Rejected The maximum number of outsiders have been already addressed in the definition of Board and Care Facilities (4+ unrelated). There is no technical justification for changing the limit of 3 outsiders to anything greater - and doing so would impact the B&C and L&R chapters. Adult foster homes housing 4 or more occupants should be considered B&C.

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241