first draft meeting ppt

National Fire Protection Association

1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471

Phone: 617-770-3000 • Fax: 617-770-0700 • www.nfpa.org

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies

FROM: Kelly Carey, Project Administrator

DATE: December 2, 2015

SUBJECT: NFPA 101 First Draft Technical Committee FINAL Ballot Results (A2017)

According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass

ballot.

28 Members Eligible to Vote

5 Members Not Returned (H.W. Boyd, P. Boyer, D. Damron, J. Sharry, J. Zwirn)

15 Members Voted Affirmative on All Revisions (w/ comment: R. Asp, S. Harbuck, M. Klein,

C. Weaver)

8 Members Voted Negative on one or more Revisions (D. Buuck, M. Klein, J. Lathrop,

A. Longhitano, E. Mayl, R. Nickson, K. Spangler, C. Weaver)

0 Members Abstained on one or more Revisions

The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the

explanation of the vote for each revision.

To pass ballot, each revision requires: (1) a simple majority of those eligible to vote and (2) an

affirmative vote of 2/3 of ballots returned. See Sections 3.3.4.3.(c) and 4.3.10.1 of the Regulations

Governing the Development of NFPA Standards.

Eligible to Vote: 28

Not Returned : 5

H. Wayne Boyd,Patrick

Boyer,Jeffrey D.

Zwirn,Donald P.

Damron,John A. Sharry

Vote Selection Votes Comments

Affirmative 20

Affirmative with Comment 3

Marshall A. Klein The requirement addressing both NFPA 13R and NFPA 13D requirements in the same sentence is

confusing since the NFPA 13R requirements dealing with the number of stories and 60' in height only

relate to NFPA 13R, not NFPA 13D. Should read: "Where an automatic sprinkler system is installed,

either for total or partial building coverage, the system shall be in accordance with Section 9.7; in

buildings of four or fewer stories in height, and not exceeding 60 ft (18.3 m) in height above grade

plane, systems in accordance with NFPA 13R, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Low-

Rise Residential Occupancies shall be permitted; and in buildings with NFPA 13D shall also be

permitted."

Carl F. Weaver Editorial change to correlate to other codes.

NFPA 101 - TC ON RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCIES

FIRST DRAFT BALLOT - FINAL RESULTS

FR-6003, Section No. 24.3.5.2, See FR-6003

1 of 21

http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/FormLaunch?id=/TerraView/Content/101-2015.ditamap/2/C1440618934253.xml&viewmode=nfpa/xslt/nfpaviewmode.xsl

Roland A. Asp I agree with the concept but the wording is awkward, it sounds like this section would allow a NFPA 13D

system in a four story apartment building. Wording should be modified to something like "Where an

automatic sprinkler system is installed, either for total or partial building coverage, the system shall be

in accordance with Section 9.7; in buildings of four or fewer stories in height, and not exceeding 60 ft

(18.3 m) in height above grade plane, systems in accordance with NFPA 13R shall be permitted, in one-

and two family dwellings and manufactured homes, systems in accordance with NFPA 13D shall also be

permitted".

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 5


Boyer,Jeffrey D.

Zwirn,Donald P.



Affirmative 22

For Simple majority and also two-third majority election; the simple affirmative votes needed are 15 and the two-third affirmative votes

needed are 16

FR-6005, Section No. 26.3.6.2.2, See FR-6005

Total Voted : 23

2 of 21




Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 5


Boyer,Jeffrey D.

Zwirn,Donald P.



Affirmative 22



Negative 0

Abstain 0


Total Voted : 23


needed are 16

Total Voted : 23


needed are 16

3 of 21



Not Returned : 5


Boyer,Jeffrey D.

Zwirn,Donald P.



Affirmative 22



Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 5


needed are 16



Total Voted : 23

4 of 21




Boyer,Jeffrey D.

Zwirn,Donald P.



Affirmative 22



Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 5


Boyer,Jeffrey D.

Zwirn,Donald P.



Affirmative 22




Total Voted : 23


needed are 16

5 of 21


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 5


Boyer,Jeffrey D.

Zwirn,Donald P.



Affirmative 19


Negative 4

Marshall A. Klein I have changed my vote on this issue based on the negative Ballot comments of Mr. Longhitano, Mr.

Weaver and Mr. Mayl.

Carl F. Weaver I do not see how this requirement could be enforced in a single-family home.

Total Voted : 23


needed are 16

FR-6015, Section No. 24.3.2, See FR-6015

6 of 21


Alfred J. Longhitano This language is so broad that an inspector seeing an alcohol hand sanitizer could require egress as

required for a hazardous area.

Eric N. Mayl Compliance with §8.7.3.1 is overly restrictive in single family homes.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 5


Boyer,Jeffrey D.

Zwirn,Donald P.



Affirmative 22


Carl F. Weaver Editorial change.

Negative 0

Abstain 0


needed are 16

FR-6021, New Section after 26.1.1.4, See FR-6021

Total Voted : 23

Total Voted : 23

7 of 21



Not Returned : 5


Boyer,Jeffrey D.

Zwirn,Donald P.



Affirmative 22


Carl F. Weaver The revision incorporates the 8.7.3.1 hazardous materials storage and handling provisions for lodging or

rooming houses.

Negative 0

Abstain 0

FR-6016, Section No. 26.3.2, See FR-6016

Total Voted : 23


needed are 16


needed are 16


8 of 21




Not Returned : 5


Boyer,Jeffrey D.

Zwirn,Donald P.



Affirmative 22



Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 5


Boyer,Jeffrey D.

Zwirn,Donald P.



Affirmative 16


needed are 16


Total Voted : 23

9 of 21



Stanley C. Harbuck Affirmative Ballot Comment on FR-6008 (submitted by RES TC Representatives for APHA: Harbuck & Pauls): Grab bars for NFPA

101, Ch 28, New Hotels & Dormitories Comments by the 5 Negative Balloters (Lathrop, Buuck, Longhitano, Weaver and Mayl)

warrant rebuttal during the RES TC ballot circulation as follows. An argument, from James Lathrop, about the topic not being

appropriate for NFPA 101 because it is “typically enforced by fire safety personnel,” is ironic at best and unfair at worst. Fire

personnel now apparently respond to more non-fire injury incidents than to fire incidents. This should not be surprising in view

of epidemiological data presented in the detailed justification for grab bars for baths/showers; namely that for each civilian fire-

related injury now, there are about 13 ER-treated injuries due to falls related to baths and showers (and many more due to stair-

related injuries which has been within the scope of NFPA 101 for decades). Moreover the baths/showers-related injuries are

growing relatively rapidly—doubling or tripling respectively for ER-treated and hospital-admitted—in a two-decade period, 1991-

2010. This rapid growth is exactly opposite the declining trend seen in civilian fire-related injuries in recent decades. Fire services

have more time—not dominated by fire—on their hands now and some of that time is quite rightly going to other injury events,

notably falls and, most dramatically, falls associated with baths/showers. (These epidemiology data were in the proposal.) The

three main claims by Daniel Buuck are without foundation. First, the proposed requirements are consistent with the

requirements of the widely used standards used by the “accessibility community” at the smaller number of locations, within

bath/shower facilities, called for in the NFPA proposals; any review that has been made, and will be further made, by leaders in

the accessibility field, confirms that the safety-focused requirements are not at odds with those for accessibility. Ramifications

are, moreover, being intensively examined by US accessibility experts prior to public comment concluding in the NFPA process.

Finally, the fear about children climbing the vertical pole-form grab bars is completely unfounded; as specified in the proposed

requirements—without footholds, they are not conducive to climbing. Pulling yes, but climbing no. Alfred Longhitano is being

unfair with the characterization that a fire safety standard (which is an outdated characterization of NFPA 101 which is

concerned with life safety with regard to means of egress) is being turned into a “social engineering document.” Furthermore,

given the proposal’s explicit statements that the proposed measures do NOT provide what is in the usual accessibility standards

and rules, it is unfair to claim that the proposal requires “every bathtub to be fully handicapped-accessible.” That requires more

features than included in the proposal. Carl Weaver apparently misunderstands the comparisons made between baths/showers

and stairs in terms of relative risks per use and the significantly more conservative approach traditionally taken by the NFPA

documents in requiring at least twice as many “points of control” for stairs as is now the common situation with baths/showers

which have only one point of control and a dicey one at that, i.e., one foot on a potentially slippery surface. Before making the

groundless statement that “mandating grab bars for all hotel rooms is not warranted,” Eric Mayl should perhaps stay in more

hotels, especially the chain that has had a chain-wide policy to provide at least one grab bar for baths/showers for a long time.

Apparently he is as confused about the scope of full accessibility for certain hotel rooms versus the simpler set of fall-mitigation

measures proposed now for all new hotel baths/showers based on safety, not full accessibility!

Negative 6

10 of 21

James K. Lathrop Although I concur with the intent of this provision. I should be in NFPA 5000 but not NFPA 101. NFPA

101 is typically enforced by fire safety personnel

Daniel Buuck A Committee Input should have been created for this section similar to CI 6004 which, according to the

Committee Statement, "is intended to solicit public comments for review during the second draft

stage." First of all, I am concerned that the proposed requirements have not been adequately reviewed

by the accessibility community. There is also the issue of the proposed vertical grab bars, especially

those from the floor to the ceiling, which will be inviting for children to climb. This will more than likely

lead to the unintended consequence of serious injuries due to the misuse of the grab bars in hotels and

apartment buildings. It is obvious that the ramifications of this major change to the nation’s living

spaces has not been fully vetted.

Alfred J. Longhitano While I agree that providing the structural blocking to accommodate grab bars makes sense in new

construction, I am not willing to turn a fire safety standard into a social engineering document by

requiring every bathtub to be fully handicapped-accessible.

Carl F. Weaver While I agree that there have been injuries in the bathtub, I believe this is a stretch to equate entering

and exiting a bathtub to using stairs in a means of egress.

Eric N. Mayl Mandating grab grab in all hotel rooms is not warranted.

11 of 21

Kevin Spangler Suggest adjusting code requirement to only be required for Dormitories, not hotels. The reason being

that hotels are provided with ADA compliant rooms with the grab bar provisions. Many examples

provided in the justification included persons in their home rather than hotels, which would indicate

dormitories would be an appropriate inclusion in the code. In hotel settings, higher risk individuals, such

as the data examples of an elderly individual with a walker who fell, would be in an ADA room with the

grab bar provisions. Requiring grab bars in all hotel rooms is an unnecessary cost for all rooms.

Additional data should be provided for hotel injuries to require hotel grab bars as part of the code.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 5


Boyer,Jeffrey D.

Zwirn,Donald P.



Affirmative 21


FR-6017, New Section after 28.3.2.2.3, See FR-6017

Total Voted : 23


needed are 16

12 of 21


Carl F. Weaver The revision incorporates the 8.7.3.1 hazardous materials storage and handling provisions for hotels and

dormitories.

Negative 1



Abstain 0


Not Returned : 5


Boyer,Jeffrey D.

Zwirn,Donald P.



Affirmative 22



Negative 0

Abstain 0

Total Voted : 23


needed are 16


13 of 21



Not Returned : 5


Boyer,Jeffrey D.

Zwirn,Donald P.



Affirmative 21


Carl F. Weaver The revision incorporates the 8.7.3.1 hazardous materials storage and handling provisions for hotels and

dormitories.

Negative 1



Abstain 0


needed are 16


Total Voted : 23

Total Voted : 23


needed are 16

14 of 21



Not Returned : 5


Boyer,Jeffrey D.

Zwirn,Donald P.



Affirmative 22



Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 5


Boyer,Jeffrey D.

Zwirn,Donald P.



Total Voted : 23


needed are 16


15 of 21




Affirmative 16


16 of 21

Stanley C. Harbuck Affirmative Ballot Comment on FR-6011 (submitted by RES TC Representatives for APHA: Harbuck & Pauls): Grab bars for NFPA

101, Ch 30, New Apartment Buildings Comments by the 6 Negative Balloters (Lathrop, Buuck, Longhitano, Weaver, Nickson and

Mayl) warrant rebuttal during the RES TC ballot circulation as follows. An argument, from James Lathrop, about the topic not

being appropriate for NFPA 101 because it is “typically enforced by fire safety personnel,” is ironic at best and unfair at worst.

Fire personnel now apparently respond to more non-fire injury incidents than to fire incidents. This should not be surprising in

view of epidemiological data presented in the detailed justification for grab bars for baths/showers; namely that for each civilian

fire-related injury now, there are about 13 ER-treated injuries due to falls related to baths and showers (and many more due to

stair-related injuries which has been within the scope of NFPA 101 for decades). Moreover the baths/showers-related injuries

are growing relatively rapidly—doubling or tripling respectively for ER-treated and hospital-admitted—in a two-decade period,

1991-2010. This rapid growth is exactly opposite the declining trend seen in civilian fire-related injuries in recent decades. Fire

services have more time—not dominated by fire—on their hands now and some of that time is quite rightly going to other injury

events, notably falls and, most dramatically, falls associated with baths/showers. (These epidemiology data were in the

proposal.) The three main claims by Daniel Buuck are without foundation. First, the proposed requirements are consistent with

the requirements of the widely used standards used by the “accessibility community” at the smaller number of locations, within

bath/shower facilities, called for in the NFPA proposals; any review that has been made, and will be further made, by leaders in

the accessibility field, confirms that the safety-focused requirements are not at odds with those for accessibility. Ramifications

are, moreover, being intensively examined by US accessibility experts prior to public comment concluding in the NFPA process.

Finally, the fear about children climbing the vertical pole-form grab bars is completely unfounded; as specified in the proposed

requirements—without footholds, they are not conducive to climbing. Pulling yes, but climbing no. Alfred Longhitano is being

unfair with the characterization that a fire safety standard (which is an outdated characterization of NFPA 101 which is

concerned with life safety with regard to means of egress) is being turned into a “social engineering document.” Furthermore,

given the proposal’s explicit statements that the proposed measures do NOT provide what is in the usual accessibility standards

and rules, it is unfair to claim that the proposal requires “every bathtub to be fully handicapped-accessible.” That requires more

features than included in the proposal. Carl Weaver apparently misunderstands the comparisons made between baths/showers

and stairs in terms of relative risks per use and the significantly more conservative approach traditionally taken by the NFPA

documents in requiring at least twice as many “points of control” for stairs as is now the common situation with baths/showers

which have only one point of control and a dicey one at that, i.e., one foot on a potentially slippery surface. Ron Nickson’s

statement is if it is qualified to state ANSI A117.1’s provisions address accessibility for a small subset of the population, not

safety for the entire population. Eric Mayl’s comment should have recognized that apartments are occupied by many persons

vulnerable to falls and, increasingly, persons whose falls result in more serious, life-changing injuries and disabilities at worst and

fear of taking showers and baths at best.

Negative 6

17 of 21

James K. Lathrop Although I concur with the intent of this provision. I should be in NFPA 5000 but not NFPA 101. NFPA

101 is typically enforced by fire safety personnel

Daniel Buuck A Committee Input should have been created for this section similar to CI 6004 which, according to the

Committee Statement, "is intended to solicit public comments for review during the second draft

stage." First of all, I am concerned that the proposed requirements have not been adequately reviewed

by the accessibility community. There is also the issue of the proposed vertical grab bars, especially

those from the floor to the ceiling, which will be inviting for children to climb. This will more than likely

lead to the unintended consequence of serious injuries due to the misuse of the grab bars in hotels and

apartment buildings. It is obvious that the ramifications of this major change to the nation’s living

spaces has not been fully vetted.

Alfred J. Longhitano While I agree that providing the structural blocking to accommodate grab bars makes sense in new

construction, I am not willing to turn a fire safety standard into a social engineering document by

requiring every bathtub to be fully handicapped-accessible.

Carl F. Weaver While I agree that there have been injuries in the bathtub, I believe this is a stretch to equate entering

and exiting a bathtub to using stairs in a means of egress.

Ronald G. Nickson Necessary grab bar provisions are already covered by ANSI A117.1

Eric N. Mayl Requiring grab bars in all apartment showers is not warranted.

Abstain 0


needed are 16

Total Voted : 23

18 of 21


Not Returned : 5


Boyer,Jeffrey D.

Zwirn,Donald P.



Affirmative 21


Carl F. Weaver The revision incorporates the 8.7.3.1 hazardous materials storage and handling provisions for

apartment buildings.

Negative 1



Abstain 0


Not Returned : 5



Total Voted : 23


needed are 16

19 of 21




Boyer,Jeffrey D.

Zwirn,Donald P.



Affirmative 22



Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 5


Boyer,Jeffrey D.

Zwirn,Donald P.



Affirmative 21


Total Voted : 23


needed are 16


20 of 21


Carl F. Weaver The revision incorporates the 8.7.3.1 hazardous materials storage and handling provisions for

apartment buildings.

Negative 1



Abstain 0


needed are 16

Total Voted : 23

21 of 21

first draft meeting ppt

Documents