roc meeting agenda building code – life safety technical ...€¦ · building code – life...

ROC MEETING AGENDA Building Code – Life Safety Technical Committee on

Means of Egress Thursday-Friday, October 7-8, 2010

Hotel Monteleone New Orleans, LA

1. Call to Order. Call meeting to order by Chair James Lathrop at 8:00 a.m. on

Thursday, October 7, 2010, at the Hotel Monteleone, New Orleans, LA.

2. Introduction of Attendees. See committee roster, page 03.

3. Approval of Minutes. Approve the September 23-25, 2009 meeting minutes. See minutes, page 07.

4. The Revision Process. Staff presentation on actions the committee can take at ROC stage of revision cycle. See PowerPoint presentation handout and the code revision cycle calendar, page 12.

5. Retail Sale of Consumer Fireworks (NFPA 1124) Task Group. David de Vries (Chair), Ken Bush, Waymon Jackson, Mike Sinsigalli and Joe Versteeg. See MEA ballot results on NFPA 1124 egress items, page 18.

6. Premises Security NFPA 731 Task Group. Josh Elvove (Chair), Keith Pardoe,

Bob Perry and Phillip Tapper. See NFPA 731 public comments, page 31.

7. NFPA 5000 List-formatted Provisions. See Comment 5000- (Log #CC1), page 34.

8. Elevator Machine Room Sprinklers Task Group. Dave Frable (Chair) and

Dave Collins. See NFPA 13 Rejected public comment, page 38.

9. Exit and Exit Discharge Task Group. Joe Versteeg (Chair), Dave Collins, Mike Crowley and Stephen Orlowski.

10. Atrium Egress Task Group. Dave Collins (Chair), Warren Bonisch and

Waymon Jackson.

11. Stair Descent Devices Task Group. Dave Frable (Chair) and Jake Pauls.

12. Smokeproof Enclosures Task Group. Mike Crowley (Chair) and Randy Tucker.

of 73

13. NFPA 101 ROC Preparation. See Comments, page 39.

14. NFPA 5000 ROC Preparation. See Comments, page 61.

15. Other Business.

16. Future Meetings.

17. Adjournment. Attachments

of 73

Address List No PhoneMeans of Egress SAF-MEA

Safety to Life

Ron Coté9/2/2010

SAF-MEAJames K. LathropChairKoffel Associates, Inc.81 Pennsylvania AvenueNiantic, CT 06357Alternate: William E. Koffel

SE 1/1/1992SAF-MEA

Ron CotéSecretary (Staff-Nonvoting)National Fire Protection Association1 Batterymarch ParkQuincy, MA 02169-7471

1/1/1991

SAF-MEAJason D. AverillPrincipalNational Institute of Standards & TechnologyBuilding & Fire Research Laboratory100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8664Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8664Alternate: Richard D. Peacock

RT 03/21/2006SAF-MEA

Charles V. BarlowPrincipalEverGlow NA, Inc.1122 Industrial DriveMatthews, NC 28106-0830

M 4/14/2005

SAF-MEAWarren D. BonischPrincipalAon/Schirmer Engineering Corporation1701 North Collins Blvd., Suite 235Richardson, TX 75080-3553

I 7/1/1995SAF-MEA

Kenneth E. BushPrincipalMaryland State Fire Marshals Office301 Bay Street, Lower LevelEaston, MD 21601International Fire Marshals AssociationAlternate: R. T. Leicht

E 1/1/1987

SAF-MEADavid S. CollinsPrincipalThe Preview Group, Inc.632 Race StreetCincinnati, OH 45202American Institute of Architects

SE 3/4/2009SAF-MEA

David A. de VriesPrincipalFiretech Engineering Inc.2715 Harrison StreetEvanston, IL 60201

SE 7/1/1993

SAF-MEAJoseph M. DeRosierPrincipalUS Department of Veterans AffairsVA National Center for Patient Safety24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive, Lobby MAnn Arbor, MI 48106

U 9/30/2004SAF-MEA

Steven Di PillaPrincipalESIS Global Risk Control ServicesPO Box 282Haddon Heights, NJ 08035American Society of Safety Engineers

I 7/1/1994

SAF-MEADavid W. FrablePrincipalUS General Services AdministrationPublic Buildings Service665 Green Meadow LaneGenera, IL 60134Alternate: Joshua W. Elvove

U 1/1/1991SAF-MEA

Robert E. Goodwin, Jr.PrincipalKentucky State Fire Marshal’s Office2032 Osprey CoveShelbyville, KY 40065

E 11/2/2006

1 of 73


Safety to Life

Ron Coté9/2/2010

SAF-MEARita C. GuestPrincipalCarson Guest, Inc.1776 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 120Atlanta, GA 30309-2306American Society of Interior Designers

U 7/20/2000SAF-MEA

Waymon JacksonPrincipalUniversity of Texas at Austin1 University Station, Stop C2600PO Box 7729Austin, TX 78713

U 7/23/2008

SAF-MEARobert L. LeonPrincipalLife-Pack Technologies, Inc.1401 Comly CourtMaple Glen, PA 19002The Safe Evacuation CoalitionAlternate: Ryan Alles

M 7/26/2007SAF-MEA

Christine McMahonPrincipalEaster Seals NH/NY/VT/ME555 Auburn StreetManchester, NH 03103

C 10/27/2005

SAF-MEAGary L. NuschlerPrincipalOtis Elevator Company5 Farm Springs RoadFarmington, CT 06032-2575National Elevator Industry Inc.

M 4/15/2004SAF-MEA

Steven OrlowskiPrincipalNational Association of Home Builders1201 15th Street, NWWashington, DC 20005-2800Alternate: Lawrence Brown

U 7/26/2007

SAF-MEAJake PaulsPrincipalJake Pauls Consulting Services in Building Use & Safety12507 Winexburg Manor Drive, Suite 201Silver Spring, MD 20906American Public Health Association

C 7/24/1997SAF-MEA

Robert R. PerryPrincipalRobert Perry Associates Inc.470 Waubonsee CircleOswego, IL 60543Door and Hardware InstituteAlternate: Keith E. Pardoe

M 7/22/1999

SAF-MEAEric R. RosenbaumPrincipalHughes Associates, Inc.3610 Commerce Drive, Suite 817Baltimore, MD 21227-1652Alternate: Brian T. Rhodes

SE 1/1/1995SAF-MEA

Roy W. SchwarzenbergPrincipalUS Central Intelligence AgencyOMS/ESG/FPEBWashington, DC 20505Alternate: Kelly R. Tilton

U 7/1/1993

SAF-MEAMichael S. ShulmanPrincipalUnderwriters Laboratories Inc.455 East Trimble RoadSan Jose, CA 95131-1230

RT 1/15/1999SAF-MEA

Thomas StollPrincipalPhilips Emergency Lighting236 Mount Pleasant RoadCollierville, TN 38017National Electrical Manufacturers AssociationAlternate: Denise L. Pappas

M 7/26/2007

2 of 73


Safety to Life

Ron Coté9/2/2010

SAF-MEALeslie StrullPrincipalThe RJA Group, Inc.Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc.409 Randall LaneCoatesville, PA 19320Alternate: Michael A. Crowley

SE 1/1/1973SAF-MEA

Phillip Z. TapperPrincipalUS Department of Defense9800 Savage Road, Suite 6605Fort Meade, MD 20755

U 7/26/2007

SAF-MEAMichael TierneyPrincipalBuilders Hardware Manufacturers Association18 Hebron RoadBolton, CT 06043Builders Hardware Manufacturers AssociationAlternate: John Woestman

M 1/12/2000SAF-MEA

Joseph H. VersteegPrincipalVersteeg Associates86 University DriveTorrington, CT 06790

SE 1/1/1990

SAF-MEARyan AllesAlternateHigh Rise Escape Systems, Inc.209 Meadow Beauty TerraceSanford, FL 32771The Safe Evacuation CoalitionPrincipal: Robert L. Leon

M 7/26/2007SAF-MEA

Brian D. BlackAlternateBDBlack Codes, Inc.4034 North Hampton Brook DriveHamburg, NY 14075National Elevator Industry Inc.Principal: Gary L. Nuschler

M 01/10/2008

SAF-MEALawrence BrownAlternateNational Association of Home Builders1201 15th Street, NWWashington, DC 20005-2800Principal: Steven Orlowski

U 10/10/1998SAF-MEA

Michael A. CrowleyAlternateThe RJA Group, Inc.Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc.13831 Northwest Freeway, Suite 330Houston, TX 77040-5215Principal: Leslie Strull

SE 1/15/2004

SAF-MEAJoshua W. ElvoveAlternateUS General Services AdministrationPublic Buildings Service3478 South Cimarron WayAurora, CO 80014-3912Principal: David W. Frable

U 1/1/1990SAF-MEA

Steven D. HolmesAlternateUnderwriters Laboratories Inc.455 East Trimble AvenueSan Jose, CA 95131-1230Principal: Michael S. Shulman

RT 4/15/2004

SAF-MEAWilliam E. KoffelAlternateKoffel Associates, Inc.6522 Meadowridge Road, Suite 101Elkridge, MD 21075Principal: James K. Lathrop

SE 1/1/1992SAF-MEA

R. T. LeichtAlternateState of DelawareOffice of State Fire Marshal4 Drummond DriveWilmington, DE 19808International Fire Marshals AssociationPrincipal: Kenneth E. Bush

E 7/20/2000

3 of 73


Safety to Life

Ron Coté9/2/2010

SAF-MEADenise L. PappasAlternateValcom, Inc.5614 Hollins RoadRoanoke, VA 24019National Electrical Manufacturers AssociationPrincipal: Thomas Stoll

M 7/26/2007SAF-MEA

Keith E. PardoeAlternateDoor and Hardware Institute14150 Newbrook Drive, Suite 200Chantilly, VA 20151-2223Principal: Robert R. Perry

M 3/15/2007

SAF-MEARichard D. PeacockAlternateNational Institute of Standards & TechnologyBuilding & Fire Research Laboratory100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8664Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8664Principal: Jason D. Averill

RT 03/21/2006SAF-MEA

Brian T. RhodesAlternateHughes Associates, Inc.3610 Commerce Drive, Suite 817Baltimore, MD 21227-1652Principal: Eric R. Rosenbaum

SE 4/3/2003

SAF-MEAKelly R. TiltonAlternateUS Central Intelligence Agency15160 Winesap DriveNorth Potomac, MD 20878Principal: Roy W. Schwarzenberg

U 01/10/2008SAF-MEA

John WoestmanAlternateThe Kellen Company808 North York Street, Box 989Monroe, IA 51070-0989Builders Hardware Manufacturers AssociationPrincipal: Michael Tierney

M 8/5/2009

SAF-MEAPichaya ChantranuwatNonvoting MemberFusion Consultants Co. Ltd/Thailand81/55 Soi Phumijit, Rama 4 RoadPrakanong, KlontoeyBangkok, 10110 Thailand

SE 1/18/2001SAF-MEA

Matthew I. ChibbaroNonvoting MemberUS Department of LaborOccupational Safety & Health Administration200 Constitution Ave. NW, Room N3609Washington, DC 20210

E 4/15/2004

SAF-MEAWilliam R. HamiltonAlt. to Nonvoting MemberUS Department of LaborOccupational Safety & Health Administration200 Constitution Ave. NW, Room N3609Washington, DC 20210Principal: Matthew I. Chibbaro

E 3/4/2009SAF-MEA

John L. BryanMember Emeritus2399 Bear Den RoadFrederick, MD 21701-9328

SE 1/1/1969

SAF-MEARon CotéStaff LiaisonNational Fire Protection Association1 Batterymarch ParkQuincy, MA 02169-7471

1/1/1991

4 of 73

BLD/SAF-MEA September 23-25, 2009 Meeting Minutes / Page 1

ROP MEETING MINUTES Building Code – Life Safety Technical Committee

on Means of Egress Wednesday - Friday, September 23-25, 2009 Meeting

Embassy Suites Hotel Cleveland – Downtown

1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Chair James Lathrop at 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at the Embassy Suites Hotel Cleveland – Downtown, Cleveland, OH. The Chair provided introductory remarks. Staff liaison Ron Coté presented the actions that the committee could take at the meeting.

2. Introduction of Attendees.

The following committee members and guests were in attendance:

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT NAME REPRESENTING James Lathrop, Chair Koffel Associates, Inc. Ron Coté, Secretary (nonvoting) NFPA Ryan Alles High Rise Escape Systems, Inc. (Alternate to R. Leon) Rep. The Safe Evacuation Coalition Charles Barlow, Principal EverGlow NA, Inc. Warren Bonisch, Principal Aon/Schirmer Engineering Corporation Kenneth Bush, Principal Maryland State Fire Marshals Office Rep. Int’l Fire Marshals Association David Collins, Principal The Preview Group, Inc. Rep. American Institute of Architects Michael Crowley The RJA Group, Inc. (Alternate to L. Strull)

of 73


David de Vries, Principal Firetech Engineering, Inc. Joseph DeRosier, Principal US Department of Veterans Affairs Joshua Elvove US General Services Administration (Alternate to D. Frable) David Frable, Principal US General Services Administration Robert Goodwin, Principal Kentucky State Fire Marshal’s Office Rita Guest, Principal Carson Guest, Inc. Rep. American Society of Interior Designers Waymon Jackson, Principal University of Texas at Austin William Koffel Koffel Associates, Inc. (Alternate to J. Lathrop) Gary Nuschler, Principal Otis Elevator Company Rep. National Elevator Industry Inc. Stephen Orlowski, Principal National Association of Home Builders Denise Pappas, Principal Valcom, Inc.

Rep. National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Inc.

Jake Pauls, Principal Jake Pauls Consulting Services in Building Use and Safety Rep. American Public Health Association Richard Peacock U. S. National Institute of Standards (Alternate to J. Averill) & Technology Robert Perry, Principal Robert Perry Associates Inc. Rep. Door & Hardware Institute Brian Rhodes Hughes Associates, Inc. (Alternate to E. Rosenbaum) Roy Schwarzenberg, Principal US Central Intelligence Agency Michael Shulman, Principal Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

of 73


Thomas Stoll Phillips Emergency Lighting (Alternate to D. Pappas) Rep. NEMA Phillip Tapper, Principal U.S. Department of Defense Michael Tierney, Principal Builders Hardware Manufacturers Association Joe Versteeg, Principal Versteeg Associates

John Woestman The Kellen Company (Alternate to M. Tierney) Rep. Builders Hardware Manufacturers

GUESTS NAME REPRESENTING Mannu Muniz National Code Services Association Dan Finnegan Siemens – Fire Kristin Collette NFPA Ralph Gerdes Ralph Gerdes Consultants, LLC Will Corry Lightstep Technologies Ltd. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS NOT PRESENT NAME REPRESENTING Steven Di Pilla, Principal ESIS Global Risk Control Services - Rep. American Society of Safety Engineers Christine McMahon, Principal Easter Seals NH/NY/VT/ME Michael Sinsigalli West Hartford Fire Department

3. Approval of Minutes. The minutes of the October 4-5, 2007 meeting were approved as written and distributed

4. Task Group Reports (as needed).

All task groups from earlier meetings, other than that working with NFPA 1124 on retail sale of consumer fireworks, were discharged. New task groups were formed for purposes of the 3-day meeting; the task groups met, presented, associated actions taken on public proposals, and committee proposals generated.

of 73


The Retail Sale of Consumer Fireworks (NFPA 1124) Task Group is: Chair David de Vries, Ken Bush, Waymon Jackson, Mike Sinsigalli and Joe Versteeg. New task groups were formed for purposes of the 2010 ROC meeting. The task groups are: Exit and Exit Discharge Task Group: Chair Joe Versteeg, Dave Collins, Mike Crowley and Stephen Orlowski Atrium Egress Task Group: Chair Dave Collins, Warren Bonisch and Waymon Jackson Stair Descent Devices Task Group: Chair Dave Frable and Jake Pauls Smokeproof Enclosures Task Group: Chair Mike Crowley and Randy Tucker Premises Security NFPA 731 Task Group: Chair Josh Elvove, Keith Pardoe, Bob Perry and Phillip Tapper Elevator Machine Room Sprinklers Task Group: Chair Dave Frable and Dave Collins

5. Standardization of Language Where Supervision of Sprinkler Systems Is

Required. Issue addressed via committee-generated proposal.

6. Consistency of List Based Options – i.e., when all conditions must be met or some conditions must be met.

Task group met and issue was addressed via committee-generated proposal.

7. Capacity from Point of Convergence.

Issue addressed via committee-generated proposal.

8. NFPA 731 Conflict. Task group formed [see item (4) above] to address issue before ROC meeting.

9. NFPA 1124 Task Group.

The task group [see item (4) above] will continue its work by receiving and reacting to the NFPA 1124 committee’s report.

10. NFPA 13 Elevator Machine Room.

Task group formed [see item (4) above] to address issue before ROC meeting

of 73


11. Lighting Motion Sensors. Issue addressed via committee-generated proposal.

12. Accessible Means of Egress Stairs. Issue addressed via committee-generated proposal.

13. Latch Release Mounting Height.

Issue addressed via committee-generated proposal.

14. Door Fire Pins. Issue addressed by committee action on public proposal from Michael Tierney.

15. Escape Plan Signs – Steven Di Pilla. Issue not addressed as Steven was not present.

16. NFPA 101 ROP Preparation. All proposals were addressed. See the ROP letter ballot.

17. NFPA 5000 ROP Preparation.

All proposals were addressed. See the ROP letter ballot.

18. Other Business.

Committee proposals were generated to address issues raised by Warren Bonisch, Charles Barlow and Dave Collins.

19. Future Meetings. The MEA Report on Comments (ROC) meeting will be held the week of October 4, 2010 along with the other “core” technical committees. Members asked that the meetings be held in New Orleans to permit attendance at meetings by SFPE. The occupancy committees will meet the week of October 18, 2010.

20. Adjournment.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 AM on Friday, September 25.

Minutes prepared by Ron Coté and Linda MacKay

of 73

BLD/SAF CommitteesReport on Comments (ROC) Meetings

NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000 ROC Meetings

1

Meetings

October 2010

Monteleone Hotel

New Orleans, LA


NFPA is concerned with your Safety

If the fire alarm sounds, we will evacuate

2

,

Exiting…exits are ……..


OverviewGeneral Procedures for Meeting

Timeline for Processing the Code

3

Committee Actions

Committee Statements

Balloting


Participation in NFPA Committee Meetings is generally limited to Committee Members and NFPA Staff

4

Participation by guests is usually granted by the Chair

The Chair may limit the time of any presentation (member or guest)


All guests are requested to sign-in and identify their affiliation

Members please verify/update your contact

5

Members, please verify/update your contact information on pages attached to sign-in

Use of tape recorders or other means of reproducing verbatim transcriptions of the meeting are prohibited


Formal voting Secured by post-meeting letter ballot (2/3

majority agreement)

V ti d i ti i i l

6

Voting during meeting requires simple majority vote and is used to establish a sense of agreement that can be letter balloted

Only the results of the letter ballot determine the official position of the Committee on any Comment

of 73


Reminder to Members in Special Expert (SE) Category: If representing a non-SE interest (such as a consultant representing a manufacturer or an association of

7

a manufacturer or an association of users), this must be declared. The member should refrain from voting on the issue.


Remaining timeline for processing the 2012 edition of NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000

Comment Closing Date: September 3, 2010 TC ROC meetings:

8

g Core Chapters October 4-8; balloting follows Occupancy Chapters October 18-22; balloting follows

TCCs meet: January 5-6, 2011 NITMAM Closing Date: April 8, 2011 NFPA Annual Meeting: June 12-15, 2011 Amendment ballots: mid to late June (TCC – July) Standards Council Issuance: August 11, 2011


Report on Comments (ROC) preparation - today

9


General Procedures Follow Robert’s Rules of Order

Prior to discussion, a motion is

10

o to d scuss o , a ot o srequired


Committee Member participation:

Member addresses the Chair

Member receives recognition from the

11

e be ece es ecog t o o t eChair

Member speaks to the Chair

Member poses questions to others through the Chair

Member answers questions through the Chair


Committee Chair Actions:

States the Motion

Calls for discussion

12

Ca s o d scuss o

Ensures all issues have been heard

Takes the Vote

Announces the result of the Vote

of 73


Committee Actions on Comments:

Accept

Accept In Principle

13

Accept In Principle

Accept In Part

Accept In Principle In Part

Reject

Hold


Accept: The Comment is accepted by the Committee

without change

No Committee Statement is required for an

14

No Committee Statement is required for an Accept, but one is permitted to be provided for clarification


Accept in Principle: The Committee agrees with the change in

principle, and accepts the Comment but with change in wording

15

change in wording

Committee must indicate change in Committee Action and rationale in Committee Statement


Accept in Part: Only part of the Comment is accepted

Committee must indicate accepted part in Committee Action and address rejected part and

16

Committee Action and address rejected part and rationale for rejection in Committee Statement


Accept in Principle in Part: A combination of Accept in Principle and Accept

in Part

Committee must indicate accepted and changed

17

Committee must indicate accepted and changed parts in Committee Action

Committee must indicate rejected parts and rationale for changed/rejected parts in Committee Statement


Reject: The Committee rejects the Comment in entirety

Committee must indicate reasons for rejection in Committee Statement

18

Committee Statement

of 73


Hold:The Committee holds for processing as a proposal for next cycle, a Comment that:

19

introduces concept that has not had public review

changes text to point TC would have to restudy ROP or other affected parts of document

proposes something that can’t be handled within time frame for processing the ROC


Committee Statements (Explaining the Committee Action): Action of “Accept” requires no

20

Committee Statement

All other actions require a Committee Statement to explain the action of the Committee


Committee Statement must include a valid reason for the action

The reason should be technical where li bl

21

applicable

Must explain why the Comment was not accepted

Acceptance of another Comment is not an adequate reason to reject a Comment


Committee Statements (continued)

Should not reference a Comment with opposing action unless the referenced C t ti f t il l i th

22

Comment satisfactorily explains the rejection

Should not make a vague reference to intent

Should explain how submitter’s substantiation is inadequate


Letter ballots are on the Committee Action

The Ballot form allows you to vote

Affirmative on all actions

23

Affirmative on all actions except those specifically noted

The Ballot form provides a column for affirmative with comment

Note: This box only needs to be checked if there is an accompanying comment


Your ballot form is electronically submit-ableYou can save a copy f lf

24

for yourself

You can also print and fax/mail it to NFPA

All you need is (free) Adobe Reader

of 73


Alternates are encouraged to return ballots (insurance if Principal’s ballot not received)

B ll ti P

25

Balloting Process: Initial letter ballot

Circulation of Negatives, if any received

Circulation serves as second ballot to allow change of vote

Final vote reported


Questions?

26

Questions?

of 73

ANNUAL 2011 REVISION CYCLE

NFPA 101 AND NFPA 5000

PROCESS STAGE PROCESS STEP

DATES FOR TC

DATES FOR TCC

1 PRELIMINARY 1.0 Notification of intent to enter cycle

2 REPORT ON PROPOSALS

(ROP)

2.1 Proposal closing date 7/31/09 7/31/09 2.2 Final date for ROP meeting 12/11/09 2.3 Final date for mailing TC ballots 12/18/09 2.4 Receipt of (TC) ballots by staff liaison 1/8/10 2.5 Receipt of TC recirculation ballots 1/22/10 2.6 Final date for TCC meeting 3/31/10 2.7 Final date for mailing TCC ballots 4/6/10 2.8 Receipt of TCC ballots 4/27/10 2.9 Receipt of TCC recirculation ballots 5/14/10 2.10 Final copy (w/ ballot statements) to Secretary, Standards Council 5/18/10 2.11 Completion of Reports 6/4/10 2.12 ROP Published and Posted 6/25/10

3 REPORT ON COMMENTS

(ROC)

3.1 Comment closing date 9/3/10 9/3/10 3.2 Final date for ROC meeting 10/22/10 3.3 Final date for mailing TC ballots 10/29/10 3.4 Receipt of (TC) ballots by staff liaison 11/12/10 3.5 Receipt of TC recirculation ballots 11/26/10 3.6 Final date for TCC meeting 1/6/11 3.7 Final date for mailing TCC ballots 1/11/11 3.8 Receipt of TCC ballots 1/21/11 3.9 Receipt of TCC recirculation ballots 2/1/11 3.10 Final copy (w/ ballot statements) to Secretary, Standards Council 2/10/11 3.11 Completion of Reports 2/17/11 3.12 ROC Published and Posted 2/25/11

4

TECH SESSION PREPARATION

ON & ISSUANCE OF

CONSENT DOCUMENTS

4.1 Notice of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAM) Closing Date 4/8/11 4/8/11 4.2 Posting of Filed NITMAM 5/6/11 5/6/11 4.3 Council Issuance Date for Consent Documents 5/31/11 5/31/11

4.4 Appeal Closing Date for Consent Documents 6/15/11 6/15/11

5 TECHNICAL SESSION

5.0 Association Meeting for Documents with Certified Amending Motions 6/12-16/11 6/12-16/11

6

APPEALS & ISSUANCE OF DOCUMENTS

W/CAMS

6.1 Appeal closing date for Documents with Certified Amending Motions 7/6/11 7/6/11

6.2 Council issuance for Documents with Certified Amending Motions 8/11/11 8/11/11

Schedules for Revision Cycles may change. Please check the NFPA website (www.nfpa.org) for the most up-to-date information on schedules. March 2009 REVISED: September, 2010

of 73

http://www.nfpa.org/�

NFPA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON MEANS OF EGRESS

M E M O R A N D U M TO: Technical Committee on Means of Egress (BLD/SAF-MEA) FROM: Linda MacKay DATE: August 11, 2010 SUBJECT: Circulation of Comments for Approval Committee Ballots

for NFPA 1124 The August 6, 2010 date for receipt of the Approval ballots for NFPA 1124 has passed. In accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects, included are reasons for “Disagreement” with the actions/revisions made to Draft CP#9 and CP#10 so you may change your ballot if you wish. Reasons for negative vote, etc. from alternate members are not included unless the ballot from the principal member was not received. (Brian Rhodes voted for Eric Rosenbaum) Please review the attached comments and submit your vote, or change in vote not later than Wednesday, August 18, 2010 to the attention of Linda MacKay by email to [email protected] or by fax to 617-984-7110. RC/lm Encl: Preliminary Results for Draft CP#9 Comments on “Disagree” Votes for CP#9

Preliminary results for Draft CP#9 Comments on “Disagree” Votes for CP#10

of 73

APPROVAL COMMITTEE BALLOT FOR NFPA 1124

Draft CP#9 With regard to the action on Draft CP #9 concerning Section 6.8 Means of Egress: 28 Members eligible to vote 2 Ballots not returned (McMahon, Sinsigalli) 23 Agree 3 Disagree (Bonisch, Bush and Perry) (Comments attached)

of 73

APPROVAL COMMITTEE BALLOT FOR NFPA 1124

Draft CP#10 With regard to the action on Draft CP #10 concerning 7.3.14.3 Egress Capacity: 28 Members eligible to vote 2 Ballots not returned (McMahon, Sinsigalli) 24 Agree 2 Disagree (Bonisch and Perry) (Comments attached)

of 73

NFPA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON MEANS OF EGRESS

M E M O R A N D U M TO: Technical Committee on Means of Egress (BLD/SAF-MEA) FROM: Linda MacKay DATE: August 24, 2010 SUBJECT: Approval Committee Ballots for NFPA 1124 Final Results The August 18, 2010 date for receipt of the Approval ballots for NFPA 1124 has passed. The final results of this balloting are: With regard to the action on Draft CP #9 concerning Section 6.8 Means of Egress: 28 Members eligible to vote 2 Ballots not returned (McMahon, Sinsigalli) 21 Agree 5 Disagree (Bonisch, Bush, Collins, Frable and Perry) With regard to the action on Draft CP #10 concerning 7.3.14.3 Egress Capacity: 28 Members eligible to vote 2 Ballots not returned (McMahon, Sinsigalli) 22 Agree 4 Disagree (Bonisch, Collins, Frable and Perry) Reasons for negative vote, etc. from alternate members are not included unless the ballot from the principal member was not received. (Brian Rhodes voted for Eric Rosenbaum) Mr. Collins and Mr. Frable submitted changes in vote during the circulation of comments, their changes in vote are attached. /lm

of 73

Report on Comments – November 2010 NFPA 731_______________________________________________________________________________________________731-18 Log #1

_______________________________________________________________________________________________James K. Lathrop, Koffel Associates, Inc.

731-6Further revise the new definition of “Request to Exit (RTE)” to change the words “to allow egress”

to “to allow travel through the portal” as follows:A device on the protected side of a portal that bypasses the door position switch or

locking device to allow egress travel through the portal without causing an alarm.This is one of two public comments drafted by a task group of the NFPA Safety to Life Technical

Committee on Means of Egress and submitted by me, the chair of the technical committee. The task group was formedto identify conflicts between NFPA 731 and NFPA 101 and to work toward resolution.The term “request to exit” is used in Chapter 6 of NFPA 731 in the context of portal locking. This comment is for

correlation with our other comment which addresses a provision of Chapter 6 related to the release of active locks onportals in a required egress route. The definition proposed in the ROP already refers to the RTE being on the protectedside of the portal. Travel from the protected side and through the portal might not involve a required egress route. It isbetter to generalize the definition and replace the word “egress” with the words “travel through the portal.”

Affirmative: 209 Abbott, D., Apo, A., Brown, J., Collins, D., Fiore, L., Hahl, C., King, III, C., Strother, B.,

Walker, R.

1Printed on 9/3/2010

of 73

Report on Comments – November 2010 NFPA 731_______________________________________________________________________________________________731-30 Log #2


731-28Revise text as follows:

Where a portal is a required means of egress and is provided with an active lock, a manual means,independent of the access control system, shall be provided that directly releases the active lock. the locking systemshall comply with 6.1.5.5(1) OR (2) except as otherwise permitted by 6.1.5.5.1:(1)* Manual RTE on Door. A manual request-to-exit (RTE) device meeting all of the following criteria shall be provided:(a) The manual RTE device shall be provided on the egress side of the portal.(b) The manual RTE device shall be positioned on the door leaf, gate, or other physical barrier at the portal egress

opening.(c) The manual RTE device, when operated, shall result in direct release of the active lock, independently of the

access control system, in the direction of egress.(2) Automatic RTE and a Manual RTE Not on Door. An automatic and a manual request-to-exit RTE device meeting

all of the following criteria shall be provided:(a) The automatic (RTE) device shall be provided on the egress side, arranged to detect an occupant approaching the

portal, to release the active lock in the direction of egress upon detection of an approaching occupant.(b) The manual (RTE) device shall be provided to meet all of the following criteria:(i) The manual RTE device shall be provided on the egress side of the portal.(ii) The manual RTE device shall be located 1015 mm to 1220 mm (40 in. to 48 in.) vertically above the floor and

within 1525 mm (60 in.) of the portal.(iii) The manual RTE device shall be readily accessible and clearly identified by a sign that reads: PUSH TO EXIT.(iv) The manual RTE device, when operated, shall result in direct release of the active lock, independently of the

access control system, in the direction of egress.The manual means of lock release required for emergency egress portals in 6.1.4.5 by 6.1.5.5 shall not be

required where:(1) Allowed by applicable codes, and(2) Approved by the AHJ.

The manual RTE device referenced in 6.1.5.5(1) is typically a push pad device (i.e., panic hardware or fireexit hardware) that has a micro-switch, or similar feature, that directly interrupts power to the lock.

The manual means of release is The means of lock release detailed in 6.1.5.5 are notnecessarily required for occupancies such as penal institutions detention and correctional occupancies, mental hospitalspsychiatric hospitals, or other occupancies where direct supervision locked doors are permitted and egress or relocationis supervised by trained staff, is provided and provided staff has a means to release the lock and the AHJ approvessuch an installation.

This is one of two public comments drafted by a task group of the NFPA Safety to Life TechnicalCommittee on Means of Egress and submitted by me, the chair of the technical committee. The task group was formedto identify conflicts between NFPA 731 and NFPA 101 and to work toward resolution.NFPA 731 6.1.5.5 (numbered as 6.1.4.5 in the current standard) conflicts with the door locking provisions of NFPA

101. Proposed new 6.1.5.5(1) preserves the concept of the current edition of NFPA 731 that permits a manual RTE toserve as the sole means of releasing the active lock, but only if the RTE is mounted on the door leaf, gate, or otherphysical barrier that sits across the egress path. This is consistent with NFPA 101-2009 7.2.1.5.5 Electrically ControlledEgress Door Assemblies. In other words, it is not good enough to provide a manual RTE, by itself, off-to-the-side of theportal opening. Where the RTE is not mounted to the door leaf, gate, or other physical barrier that sits across the egresspath, proposed 6.1.5.5(2) offers the option of providing an automatic means via a motion detector and a second,redundant means (in case the automatic means fails) via a manual RTE that is provided within 60 inches of the portalopening. This is consistent with NFPA 101-2009 7.2.1.6.2 Access-Controlled Egress Door Assemblies.The revision to 6.1.5.5.1 retains NFPA 731’s current exemption to having to provide lock releasing means. The revised

advisory annex text explains situations where this might be permitted by codes and the AHJ, but clarifies that there stillneeds to be some means for staff to release locks in the required egress path.


of 73

Report on Comments – November 2010 NFPA 731

Affirmative: 209 Abbott, D., Apo, A., Brown, J., Collins, D., Fiore, L., Hahl, C., King, III, C., Strother, B.,

Walker, R.


of 73

Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 5000_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000- Log #CC1 BLD-MEA

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Technical Committee on Means of Egress,

5000-113cRevise text as follows (note that the text that follows is from 2009 edition of NFPA 5000, and

wording changes might have been made by various proposals at the ROP stage):Walking surfaces, other than as provided in 11.1.6.3.2, shall comply with all of the following:

(1) Walking surfaces shall be nominally level.(2) The slope of a walking surface in the direction of travel shall not exceed 1 in 20, unless the ramp requirements of11.2.5 are met.(3) The slope perpendicular to the direction of travel shall not exceed 1 in 48.

Guards shall not be required for any of the following locations:(1) On the loading side of loading docks or piers(2) On the audience side of stages and raised platforms, including steps leading up to stages and raised platforms(3) On raised stage and platform floor areas, such as runways, ramps, and side stages used for entertainment orpresentations(4) Where vertical openings are included in the performance area of stages and platforms(5) At walking surfaces appurtenant to stages and platforms for utilization of special lighting or equipment(6) Along vehicle service pits not accessible to the public(7) In assembly seating in accordance with 16.2.11

Any door assembly in a means of egress shall be of the side-hinged orpivoted-swinging type. The door leaf shall be designed and installed so that it is capable of swinging from any position tothe full required width of the opening in which it is installed, unless otherwise specified as follows:(3) Where permitted in Chapters 15 and 33 through 34, horizontal-sliding or vertical-rolling security grilles or doorassemblies that are part of the required means of egress shall be permitted, provided that all of the following criteria aremet:(a) Such grilles or door leaves shall remain secured in the fully open position during the period of occupancy by thegeneral public.(b) On or adjacent to the door opening, there shall be a readily visible, durable sign in letters at least 1 in. (25 mm) highon a contrasting background that reads as follows: THIS DOOR TO REMAIN OPEN WHEN THE BUILDING ISOCCUPIED.(c) Door leaves or grilles shall not be brought to the closed position when the space is occupied.(d) Door leaves or grilles shall be operable from within the space without the use of any special knowledge or effort.(e) Where two or more means of egress are required, not more than half of the means of egress shall be equipped withhorizontal-sliding or vertical-rolling door assemblies, or horizontal-sliding or vertical-rolling grilles.

The forces required to fully open any door leaf manually in a means of egress shall not exceed 15 lbf (67N) to release the latch, 30 lbf (133 N) to set the door leaf in motion, and 15 lbf (67 N) to open the door leaf to theminimum required width, unless otherwise specified as follows:(1) The forces specified in 11.2.1.4.5 shall be applied at the latch stile.(1) (2) Opening forces for interior side-hinged or pivoted-swinging door leaves without closers shall not be more than 5lbf (22 N).(2) (3) The opening forces for horizontal-sliding door leaves in detention and correctional occupancies shall be asprovided in 21.2.11.(3) (4) The opening forces for power-operated door leaves shall be as provided in 11.2.1.9.

The forces specified in 11.2.1.4.5.1 shall be applied at the latch stile.Exterior door assemblies shall be permitted to have key-operated locks from the egress side, provided that

all of the following criteria are met:(1) The alternative specified in 11.2.1.5.5.1 is permitted in Chapters 16 through 31 for the specific occupancy.(2) A readily visible, durable sign in letters not less than 1 in. (25 mm) high on a contrasting background that reads asfollows is located on or adjacent to the door opening: THIS DOOR TO REMAIN UNLOCKED WHEN THE BUILDING ISOCCUPIED.(3) The locking device is of a type that is readily distinguishable as locked.(4) A key is immediately available to any occupant inside the building when it is locked.


of 73

Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 5000Door assemblies in the means of egress shall be

permitted to be electrically locked if equipped with approved, listed hardware that incorporates a built-in switch, providedthat all of the following criteria are met:(1) The hardware for occupant release of the lock is affixed to the door leaf.(2) The hardware has an obvious method of operation that is readily operated in the direction of egress.(3) The hardware is capable of being operated with one hand in the direction of egress.(4) Operation of the hardware directly interrupts the power supply to the electric lock and unlocks the door assembly inthe direction of egress.(5) Loss of power to the hardware automatically unlocks the door assembly in the direction of egress.cannot be removed when the door leaf is locked from the side from which egress is to be made.

Door assemblies on stair enclosures shall be permitted to be equipped with hardware that preventsre-entry into the interior of the building, provided that all of the following criteria are met:(1) There shall be not less than two levels where it is possible to leave the stair enclosure to access another exit.(2) There shall be not more than four stories intervening between stories where it is possible to leave the stair enclosureto access another exit.(3) Re-entry shall be possible on the top, or next to top, story that allows access to another exit.(4) Door assemblies allowing re-entry shall be identified as such on the stair side of the door.(5) Door assemblies not allowing re-entry shall be provided with a sign on the stair side indicating the location of thenearest door opening, in each direction of travel, that allows re-entry or exit.

Where pairs of door leaves are required in a means of egress, one of the following criteria shall be met:(1) Each leaf of the pair shall be provided with a releasing device that does not depend on the release of one doorbefore the other.(2) Approved automatic flush bolts shall be used and arranged such that both of the following criteria are met:(a) The door leaf equipped with the automatic flush bolts shall have no doorknob or surface-mounted hardware.(b) Unlatching of any leaf shall not require more than one operation.

Where a door assembly is required to be equipped with panic hardware or fire exit hardware, such hardwareshall meet all of the following criteria:(1) It shall consist of a cross bar or push pad, the actuating portion of which extends across not less than one-half of thewidth of the door leaf.(2) It shall be mounted not less than 34 in. (865 mm), and not more than 48 in. (1220 mm), above the floor.(3) It shall be constructed so that a horizontal force not to exceed 15 lbf (67 N) actuates the cross bar or push pad andlatches.

In any building of low or ordinary hazard contents, as defined in 6.3.2, or where approved by the authorityhaving jurisdiction, door leaves shall be permitted to be automatic-closing, provided that all of the following criteria aremet:(1) Upon release of the hold-open mechanism, the door leaf becomes self-closing.(2) The release device is designed so that the door leaf instantly releases manually and, upon release, becomesself-closing, or the leaf can be readily closed.(3) The automatic releasing mechanism or medium is activated by the operation of approved smoke detectors installedin accordance with the requirements for smoke detectors for door leaf release service in ,

.(4) Upon loss of power to the hold-open device, the hold-open mechanism is released, and the door leaf becomesself-closing.(5) The release by means of smoke detection of one door leaf in a stair enclosure results in closing all door leavesserving that stair.

Revolving door assemblies shall comply with all of the following:(1) Revolving door wings shall be capable of being collapsed into a book-fold position.(2) When revolving door wings are collapsed into the book-fold position, the parallel egress paths formed shall providean aggregate width of 36 in. (915 mm).(3) Revolving door assemblies shall not be used within 10 ft (3050 mm) of the foot or the top of stairs or escalators.(4) Under all conditions, there shall be a dispersal area acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction between the stairsor escalators and revolving door assemblies.(5) The revolutions per minute (rpm) of revolving door wings shall not exceed the values in Table 11.2.1.10.1.(6) Each revolving door assembly shall have a conforming side-hinged swinging door assembly in the same wall as therevolving door and within 10 ft (3050 mm) of the revolving door.(7) Revolving door assemblies shall be permitted without the adjacent swinging door assemblies required by11.2.1.10.1(6) for street floor elevator lobbies, provided that no stairways or door openings from other parts of the


of 73

Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 5000building discharge through the lobby, and the lobby has no occupancy other than as a means of travel between theelevators and street.

Where permitted in Chapters 15 through 31 and 33 through 34, revolving door assemblies shall bepermitted as a component in a means of egress, provided that all of the following criteria are met:(1) Revolving door openings shall not be given credit for more than 50 percent of the required egress capacity.(2) Each revolving door opening shall be credited with not more than a 50-person capacity, or, if of not less than 9 ft(2745 mm) in diameter, revolving door assemblies shall be permitted egress capacity based on the clear opening widthprovided when collapsed into a book-fold position.(3) Revolving door wings shall be capable of being collapsed into a book-fold position when a force not exceeding 130lbf (580 N) is applied to the wings within 3 in. (75 mm) of the outer edge.

The requirement of 11.2.1.10.3 shall not apply to revolving door wings, provided that the collapsing force isreduced to a force not to exceed 130 lbf (580 N) under all of the following conditions:(1) Power failure, or removal of power to the device holding the wings in position(2) Actuation of the automatic sprinkler system, where such a system is provided(3) Actuation of a smoke detection system that is installed to provide coverage in all areas within the building that arewithin 75 ft (23 m) of the revolving door assemblies(4) Actuation of a clearly identified manual control switch in an approved location that reduces the holding force to aforce not to exceed 130 lbf (580 N)

Where turnstiles are approved by the authority having jurisdiction and permitted in Chapters 15 through31 and 33 through 34, each turnstile shall be credited for a 50-person capacity, provided that such turnstiles meet all ofthe following criteria:(1) They freewheel in the egress direction when primary power is lost, and they freewheel in the direction of egresstravel upon manual release by an employee assigned in the area.(2) They are not given credit for more than 50 percent of the required egress width.(3) They are not in excess of 39 in. (990 mm) in height and have a clear width of not less than 16 1/2 in. (420 mm).

A door leaf or opening in the folding partition shall not be required, provided that all of the following criteriaare met:(1) The subdivided space is not used by more than 20 persons at any time.(2) The use of the space is under adult supervision.(3) The partitions are arranged so that they do not extend across any aisle or corridor used as an exit access to therequired exits from the story.(4) The partitions conform to the interior finish and other requirements of this .(5) The partitions are of an approved type, have a simple method of release, and are capable of being opened quicklyand easily by experienced persons in case of emergency.

Spiral stairs shall be permitted, provided that all of the following criteria are met:(1) Riser heights shall not exceed 7 in. (180 mm).(2) The stairway shall have a tread depth of not less than 11 in. (280 mm) for a portion of the stairway width sufficient toprovide egress capacity for the occupant load served in accordance with 11.3.3.1.(3) At the outer side of the stairway, an additional 10 1/2 in. (265 mm) of width shall be provided clear to the otherhandrail, and this width shall not be included as part of the required egress capacity.(4) Handrails complying with 11.2.2.4 shall be provided on both sides of the spiral stairway.(5) The inner handrail shall be located within 24 in. (610 mm), measured horizontally, of the point where a tread depth ofnot less than 11 in. (280 mm) is provided.(6) The turn of the stairway shall be such that descending users have the outer handrail at their right side.

Where the occupant load served does not exceed three, spiral stairs shall be permitted, provided that all ofthe following criteria are met:(1) The clear width of the stairs shall be not less than 26 in. (660 mm).(2) The height of risers shall not exceed 9 1/2 in. (240 mm).(3) The headroom shall be not less than 6 ft 6 in. (1980 mm).(4) Treads shall have a depth not less than 7 1/2 in. (190 mm) at a point 12 in. (305 mm) from the narrower edge.(5) All treads shall be identical.(6) Handrails shall be provided on both sides of the stairway.

Separation shall not be required between corridors and outside stairs, provided that all of the followingconditions are met:(1) The building, including corridors and stairs, shall be protected throughout by an approved, electrically supervisedautomatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, , or, whereapplicable, NFPA 13R,


of 73

Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 5000.

(2) The corridors shall comply with 11.1.3.1.(3) The corridors shall be connected on each end to an outside stair complying with 11.2.2.7.(4) At any location in the corridor where a change in direction exceeding 45 degrees occurs, a clear opening to theexterior of not less than 35 ft2 (3.25 m2), located to restrict the accumulation of smoke and toxic gases, or an outsidestair shall be provided.

All openings below an outside stair shall be protected with an assembly having notless than a ¾-hour fire protection rating where any of the following conditions exist:(1) Where the stair is located in an enclosed court , the smallest dimension of which does not exceedone-third its height(2) Where the stair is located in an alcove having a width that does not exceed one-third its height and a depth that doesnot exceed one-fourth its height

Proposal 5000-113c was Rejected at the ROP stage as the MEA technical committee did not havesufficient time to identify all the needed changes to the provisions of Means of Egress Chapter 11 that are formatted aslists. The review has been done and the needed changes noted. The changes proposed are consistent with the changesmade to Means of Egress Chapter 7 of NFPA 101 via Proposal 101-66a at the ROP stage.


of 73

Report on Comments – June 2009 NFPA 13_______________________________________________________________________________________________13-137 Log #4 AUT-SSI


13-196Insert a new 8.15.5.3 as follows:

Sprinklers shall not be required in elevator machine rooms where all of the following conditions are met:(1) The elevator machine room is dedicated to elevator machine equipment only.(2) The elevator machine room and any hoistway to which it has openings are separated from the remainder of the

building by minimum 2-hour fire resistance–rated barriersand minimum 1 1/2-hour fire protection–rated opening protectives.(3) No combustible storage is permitted to be stored in the room.Renumber the remainder of the section accordingly.

I serve as chair of the NFPA Technical Committee on Means of Egress which has responsibility forportions of NFPA 101, Life Safety Code and NFPA 5000, Building Construction and Safety Code. This commentaddresses a correlation issue between NFPA 13 and the new 2009 edition of NFPA 101/5000.The Technical Correlating Committee on Automatic Sprinkler Systems is aware of the correlation issue as it acted at its

ROP meeting to create a proposal with an action of Reject, which recommended the same language for a new 8.15.5.3as shown above in the Recommendation field, “to assure the subject appears in the ROP to permit public review andcomment” (quote from TCC’s Committee Statement). Following the TCC’s ROP meeting, NFPA staff forgot to ballot theTCC on the Rejected proposal and the proposal was not included in the ROP.Further, the TCC prepared a TCC Note to accompany the proposal that read: “The TCC directs that a public comment

be submitted in its name requesting the Sprinkler System Installation Committee to consider the subject at its ROCmeeting and develop text to help correlate NFPA 13 with the requirements of NFPA 101.”The substantiation for the change follows:NFPA 13 currently offers a similar exemption for electrical equipment rooms where the room is dedicated to electrical

equipment only; the equipment is installed in a 2-hour fire rated enclosure, including protection for penetrations; and nocombustible storage is permitted to be stored in the room. It is proposed that if similar safeguards are imposed on theelevator machine rooms, the sprinklers can be safely omitted from the elevator machine room for correlation with NFPA101, , Annex B – Elevators for Occupant-Controlled Evacuation Prior to Phase I Emergency RecallOperations, and NFPA 5000, Annex F – Elevators for Occupant-Controlled Evacuation Prior to Phase I EmergencyRecall Operations. The presence of sprinklers in the elevator machine room would necessitate the installation of a shunttrip for automatically disconnecting the main line power for compliance with ASME A17.1/CSA B44,

, as it is unsafe to operate elevators while sprinkler water is being discharged in the elevatormachine room. The presence of a shunt trip conflicts with the needs of the occupant evacuation elevator, as itdisconnects the power without assuring that the elevator is first returned to a safe floor so as not to trap occupants.

The committee feels strongly that elevator machine rooms require automatic sprinklers andthat no substantiation, other than correlation was provided to justify the elimination of sprinklers for the protection of lifeand property.

Affirmative: 24 Negative: 11 Meehan, M.

GERDES, R.: I agree with the proponent. The hazard of an elevator machine room separated by 2 hours is minimal.The issue of the shunt trip is real. Future elevator evacuation schemes will not be possible.


of 73

Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 101_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-16 Log #130 SAF-MEA


101-34Reject the proposal in its entirety.

This definition works with a very flawed proposal 101-160. One only needs to look at Proposals 101-32and 101-33 to see that we are mixing apples and oranges with regard to the type of space we are regulating here. BothProposals 101-32 and 101-33 have annex notes that tell us they are referring to areas RARELY occupied. Thisdefinition needs a lot of work to make it clear that we are not talking about normal mechanical or machine rooms. Theterm “interstitial” needs to be either deleted or better defined. I have been in numerous “interstitial” spaces that are verymuch used on a routine basis.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-36 Log #231 SAF-MEA

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal

101-69Reconsider.

7.1.3.2.1(8)(d) Existing openings in exit enclosures to normally unoccupied attics and basements that are nothazardous areas shall be permitted when:(i) Opening protectives compatible with the enclosure requirements of the exitand either(ii) Detection throughout the attic or basement with building wide notification,or(iii) Automatic sprinklers according to 9.7 throughout the attic or basement.

Reworded proposals addresses Committee Statement and provides an equivalent safeguard to acondition commonly occurring in existing 3-6 unit apartment buildings found by the tens of thousands throughout thenortheastern US.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-37 Log #232 SAF-MEA


101-70Reconsider.

7.1.9.1 Security Devices. Any security device or system that emits any medium that could obscure a means of egressin any building, structure or premises shall be prohibited.

The Committee Statement is not clear. Many jurisdictions adopt 101 as their fire code. What othercode are they referencing? The requirement is taken from the International Building Code.


of 73



101-74Ad new text to read as follows:

7.2.1.1.3.2 “health care occupancies and locked elevator lobbies in existing buildings according to 7.2.1.6.3.”Reconsider.

The Committee Statement raises an interesting point. Why does this section permit by exception, thelocking of occupants beyond their control in specified occupancies, when the building is not considered occupied, asstated? Is the original requirement accurately stated?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-40 Log #234 SAF-MEA


101-82Revise text to read as follows:

Reconsider.7.2.1.6.1.x In new buildings that have a fire command center, the door locks shall have the capability of being unlocked

by a signal from the fire command center.Allows emergency responders to release doors in non-fire emergencies. This can reduce evacuation

delays particularly since other accepted proposals now permit multiple delayed egress locks in the means of egress.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-41 Log #235 SAF-MEA





delays.


of 73




Reconsider.7.2.1.6.3 Where permitted for rehabilitation and reconfiguration in existing buildings occupancy chapters, door

assemblies. . .1 – Section 7.5.1.1 requires access to exits to be readily accessible at times.

2 – The need to lock lobbies occurs in existing central core buildings that were designed with open floor plans for singletenants that were later subdivided for multiple tenants.3 – This provision not only restricts free access to an exit from the elevator lobby, but it can also restrict access to a

second exit by passage through the locked lobby from any one tenant space to another. The two exits from every storyrequired by 7.4.1.1 are both meant to be accessible per story.4 – While the need to accommodate rehabilitations and new configurations in existing buildings is acknowledged, there

is no need to accommodate deficient designs in buildings that have yet to be designed and constructed. Compromising7.5.1.1 by characterizing its provisions as “‘wasting space” is a serious challenge to the ideal of providing life safetybefore other concerns. This is the first time that the code potentially denies free exit access to the public occupant whohas not been voluntarily, judicially, or medically incarcerated.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-43 Log #236 SAF-MEA


101-93Revised text to read as follows:



delays.


of 73


_______________________________________________________________________________________________Keith Pardoe, Door and Hardware Institute

101-98Where required by Chapters 11 through 43, the following door assemblies for which

the door leaf is required to swing in the direction of egress travel shall be inspected and tested not less than annually inaccordance with 7.2.1.15.2 through 7.2.1.15.8.:

(1) Door leaves equipped with panic hardware or fire exit hardware in accordance with 7.2.1.7(2) Door assemblies in exit enclosures(3) Electrically-Controlled Egress Doors(4) Door assemblies with Special Locking Arrangements subject to 7.2.1.6

Door assemblies (fire-rated and non-fire rated) within the required means of egress (e.g., doorassemblies that discharge from exit enclosures) require a higher level of care and maintenance throughout the life oftheir installations to ensure they perform as intended according to the Code. Annual inspection and functional testing ofthese door assemblies is necessary to verify they are being maintained in proper working condition. Panic hardwareand fire exit hardware devices are specifically required to be used in Assembly and Educational occupancies. However,door leaves that are equipped with panic hardware or fire exit hardware, in areas not specifically required by the Code(i.e., stairwell entry doors not serving an assembly occupancy, double egress cross-corridor door assemblies, etc.),should be subject to annual inspection and functional testing to ensure the operating hardware functions correctly inaccordance with 7.2.1.7, since the presence of panic hardware and fire exit hardware implies it is required by the Code.Additionally, door assemblies that are designed as Electrically-Controlled Egress Doors (7.2.1.5.5) and door

assemblies that are equipped with Special Locking Arrangements in accordance with 7.2.1.6 are outfitted withelectrified hardware and access control devices that are susceptible to wear and abuse. Consequently, these doorassemblies need to be inspected and tested on an annual basis, regardless of the occupant load being served.In cases where the AHJ determines there is a distinct hazard to the building’s occupants’ safety, these inspection

requirements should be applied to other types of exit access, exit, and exit discharge door assemblies.Proposal 101-98, Log #286 (submitted by Joshua Elvove) highlights the point that the requirement of

7.2.1.15.1 requires the formal inspection of all door openings where the door leaves are required to swing in thedirection of egress travel. The unintended consequence of the current language is that it creates an inspection processthat might be unenforceable in the field. As it stands now, inspectors of egress door assemblies will need to be able todistinguish which “out-swinging” door leaves in a property or space are required by the Code to swing in the direction ofegress travel from those door leaves that are merely installed as “out-swinging” as a matter of design (and therefore notsubject to the inspection requirements).The above modification better addresses those doors that we think should be subject to the annual inspection and

testing requirements of 7.2.1.15.1 such as door leaves with panic hardware or fire exit hardware, which is required ondoor leaves serving high hazard content areas and door leaves in assembly and educational serving more than 100occupants.In addition, door assemblies in exit enclosures, such as the exterior door assemblies in stair towers (at the level of exit

discharge) need to be inspected to ensure they are functioning properly and occupants are able to use them whenneeded in emergency conditions. Likewise, Electrically-Controlled Egress Door Assemblies (7.2.1.5.5) and doorassemblies subject to Special Locking Arrangements (7.2.1.6) are equipped with electrified hardware and access controldevices that are especially susceptible to wear and often installed incorrectly need to be properly maintained, regardlessof occupant load.Eliminating door swing as the threshold for triggering inspections might also make these inspection requirements more

acceptable to other occupancy chapters. Conversely, each occupancy chapter is still free to add additionalrequirements to the base requirements to the base requirements of 7.2.1.5.1 (e.g., door assemblies serving an occupantload of 50 or more).


of 73


_______________________________________________________________________________________________Jake Pauls, Jake Pauls Consulting Services

101-103The variation in the horizontal projection of all nosings, other than existing nosings,

within each stair flight, including the projection of the landing nosing, shall not exceed 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) within each thestair flight and, for other than existing nosings, shall not exceed 3/16 inch (4.8 mm) between adjacent nosings.

This goes half way to what I originally proposed in proposal 101-103 with regard to the 3/16-inchcriterion which NFPA has used for a long time for permitted variation between adjacent tread depths. Thus I have takena cue from the Committee's action except I have made it consistent with longstanding code conventions (e.g., a limited"existing" exception). Moreover, the 3/16-inch criterion is easily accomplished as it is only applied to nosing projectionsof a small size relative to tread depth. If a 3/16-inch criterion is good for uniformity of tread depths, then it is even betterfor uniformity of nosing projections; moreover, we know, as set out in the original proposal, that consistency of nosingprojection is critical to safety. Finally, we need to keep in mind that we are dealing here with the NFPA codes, not thoseof another organization in which stairway safety has not achieved the same importance as in the NFPA codes (animportance that is thoroughly warranted, given the huge injury problem with stairs, especially ones with nonuniformdimensions).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-46 Log #178 SAF-MEA

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Manny Muniz, Lander, WY

101-114Delete text to read as follows:

(3) An alternate standard deemed equivalent and approved by the authority having jurisdiction.The committee statement for rejection given in 101-109 Log #150 for not allowing an adhesive

standard to be approved by the AHJ is that “…the AHJ is not expected to have the expertise needed to judge whether atest standard is adequate.”An alternate to ASTM E2072 or to UL 1994 is certainly much more complicated than an adhesive standard and the

same rationale used to reject 101-109 Log #150 should be used to approve this proposal as the AHJ is not expected tohave the expertise needed to judge whether a test standard is equivalent to ASTM E2072 or to UL 1994.Technical knowledge and understanding of test methodologies and the science of photometrics is something not

usually within the education and training of an AHJ. Both the ASTM E2072 and UL 1994 standards committees haveindustry experts and representatives from users and the public which typically results in a well written and valid ASTM orUL standard.To specifically insert equivalency language from Section 1.4.3 into a section in chapter 7 is to invite and encourage

those with more regard for money than for safety to develop an alternate standard and take advantage of the local AHJwho has little or no education or training in test standard development or the science of radioluminescence orphotoluminescence. The value of requiring compliance with a specific test standard is that those test standards haveundergone rigorous review in accordance with established ASTM and UL procedures which are often ANSI accredited.The equivalency language in Section 1.4.3 is sufficient for the purposes of the code and should not be repeated invarious sections of the code.Having the AHJ review and approve alternate standards to ASTM E2072 and UL 1994 will only result in confusion in

the market place as you will invite companies of questionable integrity to develop their own “alternate standard”.


of 73


_______________________________________________________________________________________________Dave Frable, U.S. General Services Administration


Exit enclosures where photoluminescent materials are installed shall becontinuously illuminated for at least 60 minutes prior to periods when the building is occupied. Lighting control deviceswithin an exit enclosure shall also meet the following requirements:(1) Lighting control devices that automatically turn exit enclosure lighting on and off, based on occupancy, shall not be

installed unless it is used to turn on illumination for photoluminescent materials for at least 60 minutes prior to periodswhen the building is occupied and then off when the building is unoccupied. Lighting used to charge photoluminescentmaterials shall not be controlled by motion sensors.(2) Lighting control devices that dim the lighting levels within the exit enclosure shall not be installed unless it provides

a minimum of 10.8 lux (1 ft-candle) of fluorescent illumination within the exit enclosure.The intent of this comment is to permit lighting control devices that dim lighting levels within exit

enclosures that will not impact the charging and performance of the photoluminescent material.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-48 Log #204 SAF-MEA



Every smokeproof enclosure shall discharge into a public way, into a yard or court having direct access to apublic way, or into an exit passageway. Such exit passageways shall be without openings, other than the entrance tothe smokeproof enclosure and the door opening to the outside yard, court, or public way. The exit passageway shall beseparated from the remainder of the building by a 2-hour fire resistance rating.

The smokeproof enclosure shall be permitted to discharge through interior building areas on the level of exitdischarge provided that all the following criteria are met:(1) The building shall be protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance

with Section 9.7.(2) The discharge from the smokeproof enclosure shall lead to a free and unobstructed way to an exterior exit, and

such way shall be readily visible and identifiable from the point of discharge from the smokeproof enclosure.(3) Not more than 50 percent of the required number and capacity of exits shall discharge through interior building

areas in accordance with 7.7.2 on the level of exit discharge.The intent of this comment is to provide clarification and consistency with Section 7.7.2.


of 73


_______________________________________________________________________________________________Joshua Elvove, U.S. General Services Administration


The smokeproof enclosure shall be permitted to discharge through areas on the level of exit discharge provided that allthe following criteria are met:(1) The building shall be protected throughout by an approved, automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section

9.7.(2) The discharge from the smokeproof enclosure shall lead to a free and unobstructed way to an exterior exit, and

such way shall be readily visible and identifiable from the point of discharge from the smokeproof enclosure.(3) Not more than 50 percent of the required number and capacity of exits from the smokeproof enclosure shall

discharge through areas on the level of exit discharge.As written, it could be (mis)interpreted that the “required number and capacity of exits” apply to exits

serving the level of exit discharge when the intent is for this to only apply to the required number and capacity of exitsbeing served by the smokeproof enclosure. Proposed terminology attempts to clarify this.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-50 Log #238 SAF-MEA



Reconsider.7.2.3.9.1.x A self resetting, appropriately rated and relieved damper that opens momentarily by activation of fire exit

hardware may be provided to momentarily relieve stairway pressurization forces to permit the door opening forces to setthe door in motion.

Text revised as per Committee Statement guidance. While good design obviates the need,miscalculated designs require a working alternative to allow the building to enter service on time.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-53 Log #199b SAF-MEA



Portions of Table 7.3.1.2 not shown remain unchangedBusiness Use (other than below) 150 (ft2 per person) 13.9 (m2 per person)Concentrated usef - 100 (ft2 per person) 9.3 (m2 per person)fFor example, telephone call centers

Several Technical Committee members raised a concern that revising the occupant load factor forbusiness occupancies from 100 ft2 per person to 150 ft2 per person has not take into consideration non-typicalcommercial office building work settings such as "concentrated use" call centers. Therefore, I have attempted to addressthis concern by including a separate condition for determining the occupant load factor for non-typical commercial officebuilding work settings (i.e., "concentrated use") that will remain at 100 ft2 per person. The term "concentrated use" hasbeen taken from the assembly use occupancy.


of 73

Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 101_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-55 Log #203b SAF-MEA



Portions of Table 7.3.1.2 not shown remain unchangedBusiness Use (other than below) 150 (ft2 per person) 13.9 (m2 per person)Concentrated usef - 100 ft2 per person) 9.3 (m2 per person)fFor example, telephone call centers

Several Technical Committee members raised a concern that revising the occupant load factor forbusiness occupancies from 100 ft2 per person to 150 ft2 per person has not take into consideration non-typicalcommercial office building work settings such as "concentrated use" call centers. Therefore, I have attempted to addressthis concern by including a separate condition for determining the occupant load factor for non-typical commercial officebuilding work settings (i.e., "concentrated use") that will remain at 100 ft2 per person. The term "concentrated use" hasbeen taken from the assembly use occupancy.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-57 Log #239b SAF-MEA


101-133Reconsider to Reject.

The substantiation is limited, US centric, and a statistically small sample. It will also requirereconsideration of single exit, common path, travel distance, and fire alarm thresholds based on occupant load.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-59 Log #240b SAF-MEA



The substantiation is limited, US centric and a statistically small sample. It will also requirereconsideration of single exit, common path, travel distance, and fire alarm thresholds based on occupant load.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-61 Log #276b SAF-MEA





of 73

Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 101_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-63 Log #280b SAF-MEA




_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-65 Log #281b SAF-MEA




_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-67 Log #295b SAF-MEA




_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-69 Log #296b SAF-MEA



The substantiation is limited, US centric and a statistically small sample. It will also requirereconsideration of single exit, common path, travel distance, and fire alarm thresholds based on occupant load.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-70 Log #241 SAF-MEA



7.4.1.6.3 Doors separating the elevator lobbies constructed as Areas of Refuge from the exit access. .Reconsider.

Wording changed to reflect the original intent of the proposal to construct elevator lobbies subject tolocking, with the safeguards required for Areas of Refuge because of the similarity of application.


of 73



101-137Reconsider.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-72 Log #297 SAF-MEA


101-137Reconsider.

7.4.1.6.3 Doors separating the elevator lobbies constructed as Areas of Refuge from the exit access.Wording changed to reflect the original intent of the proposal to construct elevator lobbies subject to

locking, with the safeguards required for Areas of Refuge because of the similarity of application.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-73 Log #242 SAF-MEA


101-139Add text to read as follows:

Reconsider.7.5.2.1 “room, elevator lobbies or other rooms or spaces subject to locking. . .

Although the present text includes “other rooms or spaces subject to locking,” elevator lobbies are anew addition that is different from the presently listed examples. Adding elevator lobbies to the list serves the user byalerting them to the change.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-74 Log #283 SAF-MEA


101-139Reconsider.

7.5.2.1 “room, elevator lobbies or other rooms or spaces subject to locking. . .Although the present text includes “other rooms or spaces subject to locking,” elevator lobbies are a

new addition that is different from the presently listed examples. Adding elevator lobbies to the list serves the user byalerting them to the change.


of 73



101-139New text to read as follows:

Reconsider.7.5.2.1 “room, elevator lobbies or other rooms or spaces subject to locking...".


_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-76 Log #131 SAF-MEA



Yards, courts, open spaces, or other portions of the exit discharge shall be of the required width and size andprotected to provide all occupants with a safe access to a public way.

This is to give the committee a second opportunity to close this loop-hole in the Code. Therequirement only address the size of the exit discharge not any potential needed protection. If one goes out a glass doorand walks down a glass lined aisle to get outside is that really the exit discharge? “Width” has been recommended fordeletion as it is included within size. “a” has been deleted as it is unnecessary.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-77 Log #105a SAF-MEA

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Chad E. Beebe, American Society for Healthcare Engineering

101-141Add text to read as follows:

Reconsider proposal 101-141 by the MEA committee as well as the HEA committee as modified below:The requirement of 7.7.1 shall not apply to exterior exit discharge as otherwise provided in 7.7.7.

Where approved by the authority having jurisdiction, exits in healthcare facilities shall bepermitted to discharge to safe dispersal areasprovided:

(1) The safe dispersal area shall be large enough to accommodate 50 square feet per person(2) The safe dispersal area shall be protected from other hazards such as traffic and severe flooding.

The 50 s.f. has been used for many years under other model codes. The AHJ doesn’t really have theauthority to allow the exit discharge to stop short of the public way since the code requires the exit discharge to go to thepublic way. This is particularly problematic in healthcare where critical access hospitals or rural hospitals are remotelylocated and often would have to provide the means of egress for ½ to a mile away. The intent of the code should be toget occupants to a safe distance from the building. This is also an area of great concern when you need to keep controlof patients, either with mental disabilities or requiring acute care, to expect them to have to travel a half mile isimpractical.


of 73


_______________________________________________________________________________________________Max Hauth, Hauth Health Care Consultants, Inc.

101-141, 101-242, 101-243Add text to read as follows:

Paved exit with illumination to public way.I support the change. The problem is what is a safe distance to be from a facility. Different authorities

have different opinions that have led to repeat cites.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-80 Log #CC6 SAF-MEA


101-119Revise 7.7.2 as follows:

Exits shall be permitted todischarge through interior building areas provided that all of the following are met:(1) Not more than 50 percent of the required number of exits, and not more than 50 percent of the required egresscapacity, shall discharge through areas on any the level of exit discharge, except as otherwise permitted by one of thefollowing: in 7.7.2.1 and 7.7.2.2 and provided that the criteria of 7.7.2.3 through 7.7.2.7 also are met.

(a) One hundred percent of the exits shall be permitted to discharge through areas on any the level of exitdischarge in detention and correctional occupancies as otherwise provided in Chapters 22 and 23.

(b) In existing buildings, the 50 percent limit on egress capacity shall not apply if the 50 percent limit on therequired number of exits is met.(2) Each level of discharge shall discharge directly outside at the finished ground level, or discharge directly outside andprovide access to the finished ground level by outside stairs or outside ramps.(3) The interior exit discharge specified in 7.7.2 shall lead to a free and unobstructed way to the exterior of thebuilding, and such way shall be readily visible and identifiable from the point of discharge from the exit.(4) The interior exit discharge shall be protected by one of the following methods:

(a) The level of discharge shall be protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordancewith Section 9.7, or the portion of the level of discharge used for interior exit discharge shall be protected by anapproved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7 and shall be separated from the nonsprinkleredportion of the floor by fire barriers with a fire resistance rating meeting the requirements for the enclosure of exits. (

.)(b) The requirement of 7.7.2.4 shall not apply where the The interior exit discharge area shall be in is a

vestibule or foyer that meets all of the following criteria:(i) The depth from the exterior of the building shall be not more than 10 ft (3050 mm), and the length shall be not

more than 30 ft (9140 mm).(ii) The foyer shall be separated from the remainder of the level of discharge by construction providing protection

not less than the equivalent of wired glass in steel frames.

(iii) The foyer shall serve only as means of egress and shall include an exit directly to the outside.(5) The entire area on the level of discharge shall be separated from areas below by construction having a fireresistance rating not less than that required for the exit enclosure, unless otherwise provided in 7.7.2(6) 7.7.2.7.(6) Levels below the level of discharge in an atrium shall be permitted to be open to the level of dischargewhere such level of discharge is protected in accordance with 8.6.7.

The proposed revisions to the text of 7.7.2 are the subject of Proposed TIA 993 which is beingprocessed as the committee prepares for its ROC meeting. The definition of "level of exit discharge" permits a buildingto have only one level of exit discharge. The changes are needed to recognize that interior exit discharge can be safelyaccomplished from any discharge level provided that the criteria of 7.7.2 are met, not from just the level of exitdischarge.


of 73




Exits shall be permitted todischarge through interior building areas provided that all of the following are met:(1) Not more than 50 percent of the required number of exits, and not more than 50 percent of the required egress

capacity, shall discharge through areas on any the level of exit-discharge, except as otherwise permitted by one of thefollowing: in 7.7.2.1 and 7.7.2.2 and provided that the criteria of 7.7.2.3 through 7.7.2.7 also are met.(a) One hundred percent of the exits shall be permitted to discharge through areas on any the level of exit

discharge in detention and correctional occupancies as otherwise provided in Chapters 22 and 23.(b) In existing buildings, the 50 percent limit on egress capacity shall not apply if the 50 percent limit on the

required number of exits is met.(2) Each level of discharge shall discharge directly outside at the finished ground level, or discharge directly outside

and provide access to the finished ground level by outside stairs or outside ramps.(3) The An exit that discharges through interior building areas discharge specified in 7.7.2 shall lead to a free

and unobstructed way to the exterior of the building, and such way shall be readily visible and identifiable from the pointof discharge from the exit.(4) An exit that discharges through interior building areas shall be protected by one of the following methods:(a) The level of discharge shall be protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with

Section 9.7, or the portion of the level of discharge used for an exit that discharges through interior building areasdischarge shall be protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7 and shall beseparated from the nonsprinklered portion of the floor by fire barriers with a fire resistance rating meeting therequirements for the enclosure of exits. 7.1.3.2.1.)(b) The requirement of 7.7.2.4 shall not apply where the The interior building area where the exit discharges

area shall be in is a vestibule or foyer that meets all of the following criteria:(i) The depth from the exterior of the building shall be not more than 10ft (3050 mm), and the length shall be not more

than 30 ft (9140 mm).(ii) The foyer shall be separated from the remainder of the level of discharge by construction providing protection not

less than the equivalent of wired glass in steel frames.(iii) The foyer shall serve only as means of egress and shall include an exit directly to the outside.(5) The entire area on the level of discharge shall be separated from areas below by construction having a fire

resistance rating not less than that required for the exit enclosure, unless otherwise provided in 7.7.2(6) 7.7.2.7(6) Levels below the level of discharge in an atrium shall be permitted to be open to the level of discharge

where such level of discharge is protected in accordance with 8.6.7.Per the current NFPA 101 requirements, a building cannot have more than 1 level of exit discharge.

The intent of this comment is to address situations when a building is located on a sloped site and that has more than 1level of exit discharge that discharge onto 2 separate levels. This comment would permit the exit stairs to discharge ontomultiple levels if it meets one of the requirements within the 50% rule for exit discharge. It is my opinion that thiscomment will not create an undue risk to building occupants. I also believe it will provide more design flexibility andwould recognize that a building may have more than 1 level of exit discharge, and therefore should be acceptable, if it isprotected by one of the required protection schemes. This comment is consistent with the actions taken by the TechnicalCommittee on ROP comment 101-119.


of 73




The exit discharge shall be arranged and marked to make clear the direction of egress to a public way.Stairs or ramps shall be arranged so as to make clear the direction of egress from the exit discharge to a public

way.Stairs or ramps that continue more than one-half story beyond the level of exit discharge shall be provided

with a means to prevent or dissuade occupants from passing by the level of exit discharge.Revise the new annex note to 7.7.3.2 (7.7.3.4) as follows:

Examples include partitions and gates. The design should not obstruct the normal flow of occupants to theexit discharge. Signs, graphics or pictograms, including tactile types may be permitted for existing exit enclosures wherepartitions or gates would obstruct the normal flow of occupants to the exit discharge.

There are five changes proposed. First, in accordance with the manual of style, the three distinctprovisions currently within 7.7.3.2 have been broken out into three separate requirements. Second, “or ramps” has beenadded wherever the term “stairs” has been used to ensure these requirements are also applied to ramps. Third, thedefined term “level of exit discharge” has been removed to ensure that the requirement for creating a means to preventoccupants from continuing beyond an exit discharge that is not located on the level of exit discharge is not incorrectlyapplied. As written, if a stair happens to discharge to the building exterior at the basement level, when the basement isnot the “level of exit discharge” it could be construed that a barrier needs to be constructed on the first floor, which wouldpotentially prevent occupants from reaching the exit discharge (i.e., the intent should be to prevent occupants frompassing whatever story happens to contain the discharge for a stair, not just the “level of exit discharge”). Fourth, theterm “dissuade” occupants has been added because certain means may not be able to “prevent” occupants frompassing the level of discharge (e.g,. signs). Finally, though gates and partitions could be constructed so not to interferewith normal egress within a new exit stair enclosure, neither may be practical to use in many existing exit enclosures asthey could create a greater hazard. Signage should therefore be permitted to be used for existing enclosures. The twosentences have been relocated as they actually apply to exit enclosures, not exit discharges. Note: another change toconsider, but not included in this comment, have been proposed to move new 7.7.3.3 and 7.7.3.4 into 7.1.3.2 as new7.1.3.2.4 and 7.1.3.2.5, since in reality, these are not exit discharge issues, but issues that pertain to arrangement andmarking of stair enclosures.


of 73


_______________________________________________________________________________________________Masoud Sabounchi, Advanced Consulting Engineers, Inc.

101-145Revise 7.7.3.2 by adding next text as follows:

The exit discharge shall be arranged and marked to make clear the direction of egress to a public way. Stairsshall be arranged so as to make clear the direction of egress to a public way. Stairs that continue more than one-halfstory beyond the level of exit discharge shall be provided with a means to prevent occupants from passing by the levelof exit discharge.

A means to prevent occupants from continuing into levels below the level of exit discharge shall not berequired where the exit enclosure extends below the level of exit discharge and continues via an exit passageway to anexit door directly at the finished ground level.Add new A.7.7.3.2

The intent of this section is to prevent occupants from continuing into levels below and potentially leavingthe exit enclosure at a lower level in search of another exit such as a stair which would then take them back up to thelevel of exit discharge. There would be no need for a means to prevent occupants from passing the level of exitdischarge where the discharge from a stair enclosure occurs below the level of exit discharge and leads to an exteriorexit door in a protected enclosure.

The intent of section 7.7.3.3 is to prevent occupants from leaving the exit enclosure, enter the lowerlevel to find another exit stair that takes them back up to the level of exit discharge. Site topography may not allow exitenclosures to discharge at the level of exit discharge and where occupants remain in a protected exit enclosure andpassageway and do not exit at the level of exit discharge there would not be a need to install a barrier. This exitarrangement should not be prohibited as occupants remain in a safe and protected environment until reaching theexterior exit door.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-84 Log #284 SAF-MEA


101-153Reconsider.

7.9.2.3.x Required illumination emergency lighting shall be arranged so that the failure of any single lamp does notresult in an illumination level of less than 0.2 foot-candle at the floor level.

Proposal requires performance of emergency lighting to match 7.8.1.4.4 egress illumination.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-85 Log #299 SAF-MEA



Reconsider.7.9.2.3.x Required illumination emergency lighting shall be arranged so that the failure of any single lamp does not

result in an illumination level of less than 0.2 foot-candle at the floor level.Proposal requires performance of emergency lighting to match 7.8.1.4.4 egress illumination.


of 73


_______________________________________________________________________________________________Max Hauth, Hauth Health Care Consultants, Inc.


Test of emergency lighting system (support).Note that additional testing requirements are found in NFPA 99.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-87 Log #103 SAF-MEA

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development Committee

101-160Revise to read:

A minimum of two remotely located means of egress with a maximum travel distance of 400 ft shall beprovided within the normally unoccupied building service equipment support area where the normally unoccupied areaexceeds 45,000 ft2 (4180 m2) in buildings not protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinklersystem in accordance with 9.7.1.1(1).

A minimum of two remotely located means of egress with a maximum travel distance of 500 ft shall beprovided within the normally unoccupied building service equipment support area where the normally unoccupied areaexceeds 90,000 ft2 (8370 m2) in buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler systemin accordance with 9.7.1.1(1).

The size of the room is extremely large to only require two means of egress. The format also does notfollow all the occupancy chapters which also require some travel distance to exits. We have proposed the addition of aminimum of two means of egress based on a longer travel distance for consistency with the rest of the code. We agreewith the negative of Mr. Lathrop that this section needs work.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-88 Log #132 SAF-MEA


101-160Reject Proposal 101-160.

This attempt to address normally unoccupied areas has again fallen very short of the mark. It fails fornumerous reasons, but let’s address the two main ones. If the areas are truly normally unoccupied as envisioned in thedefinition submitted by Savannah River, then the provisions are probably too strict. Even in large areas one must oftenhave to climb over and under items and in smaller areas there is no regulation. Unfortunately this is made worse by apoor definition for the type of area. The committee needs to better address the definition (we really are talking about 2different types of areas), and then provide comprehensive exemptions from the Chapter 7 provisions that really addressthe problems (head room, floor surface, common paths of travel, illumination, emergency lighting, signage, etc). Formany types of spaces the area allowed with NO egress requirements is excessive.


of 73




A relatively common error in much home stair construction and, more rarely, in other stair construction is afailure to make the landing nosing projection consistent with the projection of all other nosings in the stair flight. (Suchan error can easily occur if the stair flight is installed as a prefabricated unit and the unit includes nosing projections.)This heightens the risk of an overstepping misstep, at the second or third step down, by a descending person. Thefollowing check is appropriate to check dimensional and nosing alignment.A fairly reliable test of step dimension uniformity is the crouch and sight test in which the inspector crouches on the

landing above a flight to confirm that all of the nosings, including the landing nosing, line up. Unless there is a rarematched variation in the height of a step riser and in the tread depth, both proportionally larger or smaller than othersteps in the flight - such that the inter-nosing slope or pitch is maintained consistent in the flight, the visual alignment ofthe nosings in the crouch and sight test will indicate dimensional uniformity. Thus, as a first task in any stair inspection,the crouch and sight test should be routinely performed. If the stair does not pass this visual test, careful measurementsperformed in accordance with 7.2.2.3.5 are essential. If the stair appears to pass this test indicating the inter-nosingslope or pitch is consistent, a prudent second, quick test is to measure the inter-nosing distances for each step toconfirm their consistency.Step dimensions or their uniformity should not be made by simply laying a measuring tape or stick on the tread or

against the riser. Such measurements may be misleading and erroneous relative to the criteria set out in 7.2.2.3.5.particularly if nosing projections are not uniform (as addressed in 7.2.2.3.6.5), if treads slope. or if the slopes vary withina stair flight.

While my original proposal was accused (without justification) as "severe" or "extreme," this can hardlybe claimed for the wording that Committee member Peacock suggested in his Affirmative Ballot comment. Thus,stressing again the importance of guidance on this centrally important stair safety issue, I now propose the formaladoption of Mr. Peacock's suggested language for the Annex.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-313 Log #185 SAF-MEA


101-158Add new text to read as follows:

Access to exits shall be marked by approved, readily visible signs in all cases where the exit or way toreach the exit is not readily apparent to the occupants.

Example of where exit access signs are not required include exit access doors that are in addition to therequired number of exit access doors needed for egress purposes or doors from rooms that only serve occupants whoare familiar with building evacuation procedures and/or responsible for the safe evacuation of others (e.g., detention andcorrectional occupancies, portions of health care occupancies serving patients who are incapable of self-preservation orindustrial facilities).

In its decision to reject my original proposal, the committee indicated that existing code language wassufficient. Though that appear to be so, there still is a proliferation of exit access signs where clearly not required.Therefore, an annex note has been suggested instead, that attempts to provide some guidance where exit access signsmay not be needed. These are only a few examples of locations where signs have been installed needlessly.


of 73


_______________________________________________________________________________________________High Rise Building Safety Advisory Committee,

101-418Reject proposal 101-418.

This public comment was prepared by the NFPA High-Rise Building Safety Advisory Committee(HRB-SAC). The HRB-SAC members are:

HRB-SAC is an advisory committee established by the NFPA Standards Council to advise the association, andespecially the association’s technical committees, on all safety issues related to high-rise buildings. This public commentis in reaction to the action taken in the ROP.The HRB-SAC committee recommends rejecting the proposal to include requirements for occupant controlled

elevators for evacuation prior to Phase I Recall in the body of the Code, but does support the language remaining in theAnnex of the Code. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) currently has an expert committee formedthat is tasked with the research and development of requirements for occupant controlled elevators for evacuation andthis committee has not yet completed its work. Including these requirements would be premature and rushed. Occupantsafety could be at risk if we are placing requirements into the Code that have not yet been fully developed or tested. TheASME Task Group Hazard Analysis on Elevator Evacuation in an Emergency, Note 3 Section 3 from the May 2010meeting agenda states that “corrective actions involving occupant behavior should be evaluated with representativepopulation before codifying”.Elevators for occupant evacuation have not been tested under actual emergency conditions so we cannot yet predict

the behavior of occupants when offered elevators for evacuation in various emergency conditions. There has not yetbeen enough work completed with regards to the elevators prioritizing floors to pick up occupants, handing the demandof occupants trying to evacuate during emergency conditions, training occupants to use the elevators, capacity ofelevators, or the mechanical and computer systems needed to support the operation and efficiency of these elevatorsduring evacuation. At this time the language is not appropriate for the body of the code and should be retained in AnnexB. The committee is very much in support of the concept of elevators for occupant evacuation but the material is notready for inclusion in the body of the Code at this time. The committee looks forward to the future development of thistopic.Following the meeting at which HRB-SAC prepared this public comment, it was letter balloted by HRB-SAC. The ballot

results follow:HRBSAC Ballot Results for This CommentAgree - 8Agree with Comment - 0Disagree - 0Abstain - 0Not Returned -2 (Nilles, Pratt)Total – 10


of 73




The size of lobbies serving multiple banks of elevators shall be exempt from the requirement of B.8.2.1(1)provided the area of such lobbies is approved on an individual basis and is consistent with the building’s fire safety andevacuation plan emergency plan.


HRB-SAC is an advisory committee established by the NFPA Standards Council to advise the association, andespecially the association’s technical committees, on all safety issues related to high-rise buildings. This public commentis in reaction to the action taken in the ROP.The term “fire safety and evacuation plan” as accepted in Proposal 101-424 is not used throughout the Code. To be

consistent with terminology and requirements for emergency plans in Chapter 4, the text should be corrected toreference the building’s “emergency plan”.Following the meeting at which HRB-SAC prepared this public comment, it was letter balloted by HRB-SAC. The ballot



of 73




An method to prevent water from infiltrating into the hoistway enclosure from the operation of theautomatic sprinkler system outside the enclosed occupant evacuation elevator lobby shall be provided. The occupantevacuation shaft system shall be protected from water infiltration by one of the following methods:(1) The shaft system perimeter walls and opening protectives, other than the elevator lobby doors, shall be constructed

such that an accumulation of water to a depth of 2 in. (51 mm) on the side of the wall not within the occupant evacuationshaft system shall be prevented from entering the shaft system.(2) Drains shall be installed to manage the flow of two fire department hoses and three fire sprinklers concurrently

discharging such that water does not enter the shaft system.Note: This performance language will permit alternate design options to provide a means to prevent water from an

operating sprinkler system from infiltrating into the hoistway enclosure. For example, such approved means couldinclude: drains, sloping floor, etc. The objective of the water protection is to limit water being discharged from sprinklersoperating on the floor of fire origin from entering the lobby and flowing under the landing doors and down the hoistwaywhere it might interfere with safety controls that are normally located on the front of the elevator car. A small flow ofwater (of the order of the flow from a single sprinkler) will usually be diverted by the landing doorway nose plate to thesides of the opening where it can do little harm. The protection is intended to protect from sprinklers outside the lobbysince the activation of sprinklers in the lobby would be expected to be proceeded by activation of the lobby smokedetector and recall of the elevators.Water protection can be achieved in any of several ways. Listed be below are a few examples, which should be

effective in keeping the water flow from a sprinkler into a lobby to a minimum.1. A raised lip (approximately 1 inch or 25 mm),2. a sloped floor and a floor drain sized to accommodate the flow of a sprinkler outside the lobby, or3. sealing the sill plates and baseboards on both sides of the lobby partitions,

The intent of this code change proposal is to provide performance language that will permit alternatedesign options to provide a means to prevent water from an operating sprinkler system from infiltrating into the hoistwayenclosure. For example, such approved means could include: drains, sloping floor, etc. It is my opinion that the currentprescriptive language has not been technically justified or has shown that they are equivalent in attempting to achive thesame objective. For example, designing and installing perimeter drains to manage the flow of two fire department hosesand three fire sprinklers concurrently or designing an enclosure around the shaft system such that an accumulation ofwater to a depth of 2 inches does not enter the shaft system. What size fire hoses? Why 2 inches of wateraccumulation? I believe the proposed performance language addresses the main objective to prevent water from anoperating sprinkler system from infiltrating into the shaft enclosure by permitting alternative design options.


of 73



101-428Accept proposal 101-428 to delete Annex C.


HRB-SAC is an advisory committee established by the NFPA Standards Council to advise the association, andespecially the association’s technical committees, on all safety issues related to high-rise buildings. This public commentis in reaction to the action taken in the ROP.It is the opinion of the High Rise Building Safety Advisory Committee that Annex C on Supplemental Evacuation

Equipment should be deleted. There are multiple reasons to support this deletion from the Code.First, the equipment addressed by Annex C is still lacking the proper credibility and safety to offer to occupants as an

evacuation method. ASTM currently produces standards addressing this equipment and the acceptance criteria shouldremain with ASTM and not NFPA. This language does not belong in the body of the Code as it should not replace, norreduce the effort to further develop requirements for improved stairs and elevators for occupant evacuation. The textshould be deleted from the Annex because it implies credibility and usefulness which HRB-SAC does not think exists.The concern about safe systems can be dealt with via the ASTM process and therefore it need not be in an NFPAdocument.In addition, there are many flaws in these supplemental evacuation systems. They are designed for traditional vertical

buildings but do not address new building designs which are often not appropriate for the operation of these systems.The systems may be located outside of buildings but have not been designed for all weather conditions. There areadditional concerns with the maintenance of systems which have not been addressed and may require additionalresources to maintain the systems in working order. Some supplemental equipment require operable windows whichmay not be possible for selected buildings and accessing the equipment can be difficult and unsafe for occupants andoperators of the equipment. Finally, these systems would draw away fire department resources to assist with theevacuation equipment rather than focusing on occupants using elevators or stairs or other emergency actions.Following the meeting at which HRB-SAC prepared this public comment, it was letter balloted by HRB-SAC. The ballot



of 73


_______________________________________________________________________________________________Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International


D.1.2.6 ASTM Publications. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA19428-2959. www.astm.orgASTM C 1629/C 1629M, Standard Classification for Abuse-Resistant Nondecorated Interior Gypsum Panel Products

and Fiber-Reinforced Cement Panels, 2006 .ASTM D 2859, Standard Test Method for Ignition Characteristics of Finished Textile Floor Covering Materials, 2006.ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, 2010 2009aASTM E 119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, 2009c 2008a.ASTM E 814, Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Through-Penetration Fire Stops, 2010 2008b.ASTM E 1352, Standard Test Method for Cigarette Ignition Resistance of Mock-Up Upholstered Furniture Assemblies,

2008a .ASTM E 1353, Standard Test Methods for Cigarette Ignition Resistance of Components of Upholstered Furniture,

2008a .ASTM E 1355, Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability of Deterministic Fire Models, 2005a .ASTM E 1472, Standard Guide for Documenting Computer Software for Fire Models, 2007.ASTM E 1537, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Upholstered Furniture, 2007 .ASTM E 1590, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Mattresses, 2007.ASTM E 1966 Standard Test Method for Fire-Resistive Joint Systems, 2007 .ASTM E 2030, Standard Guide for Recommended Uses of Photoluminescent (Phosphorescent) Safety Markings,

2009a 2008.ASTM E 2174, Standard Practice for On-Site Inspection of Installed Fire Stops, 2009 2004.ASTM E 2238, Standard Guide for Evacuation Route Diagrams, 2002.ASTM E 2307, Standard Test Method for Determining Fire Resistance of Perimeter Fire Barrier Systems Using

Intermediate-Scale, Multi-Story Test Apparatus, 2010 2004 e1.ASTM E 2393, Standard Practice for On-Site Inspection of Installed Fire Resistive Joint Systems and Perimeter Fire

Barriers, 2010 2004.ASTM E 2484, Standard Specification for Multi-Story Building External Evacuation Controlled Descent Devices, 2008 .ASTM E 2513, Standard Specification for Multi-Story Building External Evacuation Platform Rescue Systems, 2007.ASTM F 1637, Standard Practice for Safe Walking Surfaces, 2009 2007.ASTM F 1870, Standard Guide for Selection of Fire Test Methods for the Assessment of Upholstered Furnishings in

Detention and Correctional Facilities, 2005.ASTM standards update, per ASTM web site August 12, 2010. The commenter requests that NFPA

staff checks the most recent editions at the time of the code going to print.


of 73

Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 5000_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-108 Log #CC1 BLD-MEA


5000-113cRevise text as follows (note that the text that follows is from 2009 edition of NFPA 5000, and

wording changes might have been made by various proposals at the ROP stage):Walking surfaces, other than as provided in 11.1.6.3.2, shall comply with all of the following:

(1) Walking surfaces shall be nominally level.(2) The slope of a walking surface in the direction of travel shall not exceed 1 in 20, unless the ramp requirements of11.2.5 are met.(3) The slope perpendicular to the direction of travel shall not exceed 1 in 48.

Guards shall not be required for any of the following locations:(1) On the loading side of loading docks or piers(2) On the audience side of stages and raised platforms, including steps leading up to stages and raised platforms(3) On raised stage and platform floor areas, such as runways, ramps, and side stages used for entertainment orpresentations(4) Where vertical openings are included in the performance area of stages and platforms(5) At walking surfaces appurtenant to stages and platforms for utilization of special lighting or equipment(6) Along vehicle service pits not accessible to the public(7) In assembly seating in accordance with 16.2.11

Any door assembly in a means of egress shall be of the side-hinged orpivoted-swinging type. The door leaf shall be designed and installed so that it is capable of swinging from any position tothe full required width of the opening in which it is installed, unless otherwise specified as follows:(3) Where permitted in Chapters 15 and 33 through 34, horizontal-sliding or vertical-rolling security grilles or doorassemblies that are part of the required means of egress shall be permitted, provided that all of the following criteria aremet:(a) Such grilles or door leaves shall remain secured in the fully open position during the period of occupancy by thegeneral public.(b) On or adjacent to the door opening, there shall be a readily visible, durable sign in letters at least 1 in. (25 mm) highon a contrasting background that reads as follows: THIS DOOR TO REMAIN OPEN WHEN THE BUILDING ISOCCUPIED.(c) Door leaves or grilles shall not be brought to the closed position when the space is occupied.(d) Door leaves or grilles shall be operable from within the space without the use of any special knowledge or effort.(e) Where two or more means of egress are required, not more than half of the means of egress shall be equipped withhorizontal-sliding or vertical-rolling door assemblies, or horizontal-sliding or vertical-rolling grilles.

The forces required to fully open any door leaf manually in a means of egress shall not exceed 15 lbf (67N) to release the latch, 30 lbf (133 N) to set the door leaf in motion, and 15 lbf (67 N) to open the door leaf to theminimum required width, unless otherwise specified as follows:(1) The forces specified in 11.2.1.4.5 shall be applied at the latch stile.(1) (2) Opening forces for interior side-hinged or pivoted-swinging door leaves without closers shall not be more than 5lbf (22 N).(2) (3) The opening forces for horizontal-sliding door leaves in detention and correctional occupancies shall be asprovided in 21.2.11.(3) (4) The opening forces for power-operated door leaves shall be as provided in 11.2.1.9.

The forces specified in 11.2.1.4.5.1 shall be applied at the latch stile.Exterior door assemblies shall be permitted to have key-operated locks from the egress side, provided that

all of the following criteria are met:(1) The alternative specified in 11.2.1.5.5.1 is permitted in Chapters 16 through 31 for the specific occupancy.(2) A readily visible, durable sign in letters not less than 1 in. (25 mm) high on a contrasting background that reads asfollows is located on or adjacent to the door opening: THIS DOOR TO REMAIN UNLOCKED WHEN THE BUILDING ISOCCUPIED.(3) The locking device is of a type that is readily distinguishable as locked.(4) A key is immediately available to any occupant inside the building when it is locked.


of 73

Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 5000Door assemblies in the means of egress shall be

permitted to be electrically locked if equipped with approved, listed hardware that incorporates a built-in switch, providedthat all of the following criteria are met:(1) The hardware for occupant release of the lock is affixed to the door leaf.(2) The hardware has an obvious method of operation that is readily operated in the direction of egress.(3) The hardware is capable of being operated with one hand in the direction of egress.(4) Operation of the hardware directly interrupts the power supply to the electric lock and unlocks the door assembly inthe direction of egress.(5) Loss of power to the hardware automatically unlocks the door assembly in the direction of egress.cannot be removed when the door leaf is locked from the side from which egress is to be made.

Door assemblies on stair enclosures shall be permitted to be equipped with hardware that preventsre-entry into the interior of the building, provided that all of the following criteria are met:(1) There shall be not less than two levels where it is possible to leave the stair enclosure to access another exit.(2) There shall be not more than four stories intervening between stories where it is possible to leave the stair enclosureto access another exit.(3) Re-entry shall be possible on the top, or next to top, story that allows access to another exit.(4) Door assemblies allowing re-entry shall be identified as such on the stair side of the door.(5) Door assemblies not allowing re-entry shall be provided with a sign on the stair side indicating the location of thenearest door opening, in each direction of travel, that allows re-entry or exit.

Where pairs of door leaves are required in a means of egress, one of the following criteria shall be met:(1) Each leaf of the pair shall be provided with a releasing device that does not depend on the release of one doorbefore the other.(2) Approved automatic flush bolts shall be used and arranged such that both of the following criteria are met:(a) The door leaf equipped with the automatic flush bolts shall have no doorknob or surface-mounted hardware.(b) Unlatching of any leaf shall not require more than one operation.

Where a door assembly is required to be equipped with panic hardware or fire exit hardware, such hardwareshall meet all of the following criteria:(1) It shall consist of a cross bar or push pad, the actuating portion of which extends across not less than one-half of thewidth of the door leaf.(2) It shall be mounted not less than 34 in. (865 mm), and not more than 48 in. (1220 mm), above the floor.(3) It shall be constructed so that a horizontal force not to exceed 15 lbf (67 N) actuates the cross bar or push pad andlatches.

In any building of low or ordinary hazard contents, as defined in 6.3.2, or where approved by the authorityhaving jurisdiction, door leaves shall be permitted to be automatic-closing, provided that all of the following criteria aremet:(1) Upon release of the hold-open mechanism, the door leaf becomes self-closing.(2) The release device is designed so that the door leaf instantly releases manually and, upon release, becomesself-closing, or the leaf can be readily closed.(3) The automatic releasing mechanism or medium is activated by the operation of approved smoke detectors installedin accordance with the requirements for smoke detectors for door leaf release service in ,

.(4) Upon loss of power to the hold-open device, the hold-open mechanism is released, and the door leaf becomesself-closing.(5) The release by means of smoke detection of one door leaf in a stair enclosure results in closing all door leavesserving that stair.

Revolving door assemblies shall comply with all of the following:(1) Revolving door wings shall be capable of being collapsed into a book-fold position.(2) When revolving door wings are collapsed into the book-fold position, the parallel egress paths formed shall providean aggregate width of 36 in. (915 mm).(3) Revolving door assemblies shall not be used within 10 ft (3050 mm) of the foot or the top of stairs or escalators.(4) Under all conditions, there shall be a dispersal area acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction between the stairsor escalators and revolving door assemblies.(5) The revolutions per minute (rpm) of revolving door wings shall not exceed the values in Table 11.2.1.10.1.(6) Each revolving door assembly shall have a conforming side-hinged swinging door assembly in the same wall as therevolving door and within 10 ft (3050 mm) of the revolving door.(7) Revolving door assemblies shall be permitted without the adjacent swinging door assemblies required by11.2.1.10.1(6) for street floor elevator lobbies, provided that no stairways or door openings from other parts of the


of 73

Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 5000building discharge through the lobby, and the lobby has no occupancy other than as a means of travel between theelevators and street.

Where permitted in Chapters 15 through 31 and 33 through 34, revolving door assemblies shall bepermitted as a component in a means of egress, provided that all of the following criteria are met:(1) Revolving door openings shall not be given credit for more than 50 percent of the required egress capacity.(2) Each revolving door opening shall be credited with not more than a 50-person capacity, or, if of not less than 9 ft(2745 mm) in diameter, revolving door assemblies shall be permitted egress capacity based on the clear opening widthprovided when collapsed into a book-fold position.(3) Revolving door wings shall be capable of being collapsed into a book-fold position when a force not exceeding 130lbf (580 N) is applied to the wings within 3 in. (75 mm) of the outer edge.

The requirement of 11.2.1.10.3 shall not apply to revolving door wings, provided that the collapsing force isreduced to a force not to exceed 130 lbf (580 N) under all of the following conditions:(1) Power failure, or removal of power to the device holding the wings in position(2) Actuation of the automatic sprinkler system, where such a system is provided(3) Actuation of a smoke detection system that is installed to provide coverage in all areas within the building that arewithin 75 ft (23 m) of the revolving door assemblies(4) Actuation of a clearly identified manual control switch in an approved location that reduces the holding force to aforce not to exceed 130 lbf (580 N)

Where turnstiles are approved by the authority having jurisdiction and permitted in Chapters 15 through31 and 33 through 34, each turnstile shall be credited for a 50-person capacity, provided that such turnstiles meet all ofthe following criteria:(1) They freewheel in the egress direction when primary power is lost, and they freewheel in the direction of egresstravel upon manual release by an employee assigned in the area.(2) They are not given credit for more than 50 percent of the required egress width.(3) They are not in excess of 39 in. (990 mm) in height and have a clear width of not less than 16 1/2 in. (420 mm).

A door leaf or opening in the folding partition shall not be required, provided that all of the following criteriaare met:(1) The subdivided space is not used by more than 20 persons at any time.(2) The use of the space is under adult supervision.(3) The partitions are arranged so that they do not extend across any aisle or corridor used as an exit access to therequired exits from the story.(4) The partitions conform to the interior finish and other requirements of this .(5) The partitions are of an approved type, have a simple method of release, and are capable of being opened quicklyand easily by experienced persons in case of emergency.

Spiral stairs shall be permitted, provided that all of the following criteria are met:(1) Riser heights shall not exceed 7 in. (180 mm).(2) The stairway shall have a tread depth of not less than 11 in. (280 mm) for a portion of the stairway width sufficient toprovide egress capacity for the occupant load served in accordance with 11.3.3.1.(3) At the outer side of the stairway, an additional 10 1/2 in. (265 mm) of width shall be provided clear to the otherhandrail, and this width shall not be included as part of the required egress capacity.(4) Handrails complying with 11.2.2.4 shall be provided on both sides of the spiral stairway.(5) The inner handrail shall be located within 24 in. (610 mm), measured horizontally, of the point where a tread depth ofnot less than 11 in. (280 mm) is provided.(6) The turn of the stairway shall be such that descending users have the outer handrail at their right side.

Where the occupant load served does not exceed three, spiral stairs shall be permitted, provided that all ofthe following criteria are met:(1) The clear width of the stairs shall be not less than 26 in. (660 mm).(2) The height of risers shall not exceed 9 1/2 in. (240 mm).(3) The headroom shall be not less than 6 ft 6 in. (1980 mm).(4) Treads shall have a depth not less than 7 1/2 in. (190 mm) at a point 12 in. (305 mm) from the narrower edge.(5) All treads shall be identical.(6) Handrails shall be provided on both sides of the stairway.

Separation shall not be required between corridors and outside stairs, provided that all of the followingconditions are met:(1) The building, including corridors and stairs, shall be protected throughout by an approved, electrically supervisedautomatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, , or, whereapplicable, NFPA 13R,


of 73

Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 5000.

(2) The corridors shall comply with 11.1.3.1.(3) The corridors shall be connected on each end to an outside stair complying with 11.2.2.7.(4) At any location in the corridor where a change in direction exceeding 45 degrees occurs, a clear opening to theexterior of not less than 35 ft2 (3.25 m2), located to restrict the accumulation of smoke and toxic gases, or an outsidestair shall be provided.

All openings below an outside stair shall be protected with an assembly having notless than a ¾-hour fire protection rating where any of the following conditions exist:(1) Where the stair is located in an enclosed court , the smallest dimension of which does not exceedone-third its height(2) Where the stair is located in an alcove having a width that does not exceed one-third its height and a depth that doesnot exceed one-fourth its height

Proposal 5000-113c was Rejected at the ROP stage as the MEA technical committee did not havesufficient time to identify all the needed changes to the provisions of Means of Egress Chapter 11 that are formatted aslists. The review has been done and the needed changes noted. The changes proposed are consistent with the changesmade to Means of Egress Chapter 7 of NFPA 101 via Proposal 101-66a at the ROP stage.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-109 Log #147 BLD-MEA



Reconsider11.2.1.1.3.2 “health care occupancies and locked elevator lobbies in existing buildings according to 11.2.1.6.3.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-110 Log #174 BLD-MEA



Reconsider.11.2.1.1.3.2 “health care occupancies and locked elevator lobbies in existing buildings according to 11.2.1.6.3.



of 73

Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 5000_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-111 Log #175 BLD-MEA



Reconsider.11.2.1.6.1.x In new buildings that have a fire command center, the door locks shall have the capability of being

unlocked by a signal from the fire command center.Allows emergency responders to release doors in non-fire emergencies. This can reduce evacuation

delays particularly since other accepted proposals now permit multiple delayed egress locks in the means of egress.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-112 Log #176 BLD-MEA





delays.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-113 Log #178 BLD-MEA


5000-126New/Revise text to read as follows:

Reconsider.11.2.1.6.3 Where permitted for rehabilitation and reconfiguration in existing buildings occupancy chapters, door

assemblies. . .1 – Section 11.5.1.1 requires access to exits to be readily accessible at times.

2 – The need to lock lobbies occurs in existing central core buildings that were designed with open floor plans for singletenants that were later subdivided for multiple tenants.3 – This provision not only restricts free access to an exit from the elevator lobby, but it can also restrict access to a

second exit by passage through the locked lobby from any one tenant space to another. The two exits from every storyrequired by 11.4.1.1 are both meant to be accessible per story.4 – While the need to accommodate rehabilitations and new configurations in existing buildings is acknowledged, there

is no need to accommodate deficient designs in buildings that have yet to be designed and constructed. Compromising11.5.1.1 by characterizing its provisions as “‘wasting space” is a serious challenge to the ideal of providing life safetybefore other concerns. This is the first time that the code potentially denies free exit access to the public occupant whohas not been voluntarily, judicially, or medically incarcerated.


of 73






delays.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-115 Log #118 BLD-MEA



11.2.2.3.6.6 The variation in the horizontal projection of all nosings, other than existing nosings, within each stair flight,including the projection of the landing nosing, shall not exceed 3/16 in. (4.8 mm) between adjacent nosings and shall notexceed 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) within each the stair flight.

This goes half way to what I originally proposed in Proposal 5000-131 with regard to the 3/16-in.criterion which NFPA has used for a long time for permitted variation between adjacent tread depth. Thus I have taken acue from the Committee's action except I have made it consistent with longstanding code conventions (also deleting the"existing" exception). Moreover, the 3/16-in. criterion is easily accomplished as it is only applied to nosing projections ofa small size relative to tread depths. If a 3/16-in. criterion is good for uniformity of tread depths, then it is even better foruniformity of nosing projections; moreover, we know, as set out in the original proposal, that consistency of nosingprojection is critical to safety. Finally, we need to keep in mind that we are dealing here with the NFPA codes, not thoseof another organization in which stairway safety has not achieved the same importance as in the NFPA codes (animportance that is thoroughly warranted, given the huge injury problem with stairs, especially ones with nonuniformdimensions.)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-116 Log #179 BLD-MEA


5000-135Revised/new text to read as follows:

Reconsider.11.2.3.9.1.x A self resetting, appropriately rated and relieved damper that opens momentarily by activation of fire exit

hardware may be provided to momentarily relieve stairway pressurization forces to permit the door opening forces to setthe door in motion.

Text revised as per Committee Statement guidance. While good design obviates the need,miscalculated designs require a working alternative to allow the building to enter service on time.


of 73




Reconsider11.4.1.6.3 Doors separating the elevator lobbies constructed as Areas of Refuge from the exit access…


_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-123 Log #149 BLD-MEA



Reconsider11.5.2.1 “room, elevator lobbies or other rooms or spaces subject to locking. . .


_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-124 Log #150 BLD-MEA



Reconsider.11.9.2.3.x Required illumination emergency lighting shall be arranged so that the failure of any single lamp does not

result in an illumination level of less than 0.2 foot-candle at the floor level.Proposal requires performance of emergency lighting to match 11.8.1.4.4 egress illumination.


of 73

Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 5000_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-176 Log #23a BLD-MEA

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International / Rep. American Fire Safety Council


H.1.2.7 ASTM Publications. American Society of Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken,PA 19428-2959.ASTM C 1629/C 1629M, Standard Classification for Abuse-Resistant Nondecorated Interior Gypsum Panel Productsand Fiber-Reinforced Cement Panels, 2006.ASTM D 56, Standard Test Method for Flash Point by Tag Closed Tester, 2005.ASTM D 86, Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure, 2010 2009 e1.ASTM D 93, Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester, 2010 2008.ASTM D 3278, Standard Test Methods for Flash Point of Liquids by Small Scale Closed-Cup Apparatus, 1996 (2004e1).ASTM D 3828, Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by Small Scale Closed Tester, 2009 2007a.ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, 2010 2009a.ASTM E 96/E 96 M, Standard Test Methods for Water Vapor Transmission of Materials, 2005.ASTM E 119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, 2009c 2008a.ASTM E 648, Standard Test Method for Critical Radiant Flux of Floor-Covering Systems Using a Radiant Heat EnergySource, 2010 2009a.ASTM E 736, Standard Test Method for Cohesion/Adhesion of Sprayed Fire-Resistive Materials Applied to StructuralMembers, 2000 (2006) .ASTM E 814, Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Through-Penetration Fire Stops, 2010 2008b.ASTM E 1472, Standard Guide for Documenting Computer Software for Fire Models, 2007.ASTM E 1592, Standard Test Method for Structural Performance of Sheet Metal Roof and Siding Systems by UniformStatic Air Pressure Difference, 2005.ASTM E 1966, Standard Test Method for Fire-Resistive Joint Systems, 2007.ASTM E 2030, Guide for Recommended Uses of Photoluminescent (Phosphorescent) Safety Markings, 2009a 2008.ASTM E 2280, Standard Guide for Fire Hazard Assessment of the Effect of Upholstered Seating Furniture within PatientRooms of Health Care Facilities, 2009 .ASTM E 2307, Standard Test Method for Determining Fire Resistance of Perimeter Fire Barrier Systems UsingIntermediate-Scale, Multi-Story Test Apparatus, 2010 2004 e1 .ASTM E 2484, Standard Specification for High-Rise Building External Evacuation Controlled Descent Devices, 2008.ASTM E 2513, Standard Specification for Multi-Story Building External Evacuation Platform Rescue Systems, 2007.ASTM F 1677, Standard Test Method for Using a Portable Inclinable Articulated Strut Tester (PIAST), withdrawn, lastedition1996.ASTM F 1679, Standard Test Method for Using a Variable Incidence Tribometer (VIT), withdrawn, last edition 20042000.A.11.1.6.4 The foreseeable conditions are the conditions that are likely to be present at the location of the walkingsurface during the use of the building or area. A foreseeable condition of a swimming pool deck is that it is likely to bewet.Regarding the slip resistance of treads, it should be recognized that, when walking up or down stairs, a person's footexerts a smaller horizontal force against treads than is exerted when walking on level floors. Therefore, materials usedfor floors that are acceptable as slip resistant (as described by withdrawn test method ASTM F 1679, Standard TestMethod for the Variable Incidence Tribometer, or withdrawn test method ASTM F 1677, Standard Test Method for Usinga Portable Inclineable Articulate Strut Tester) provide adequate slip resistance where used for stair treads. Adequateslip resistance includes the important leading edge of a tread, that is, the part of the tread that the foot first contactsduring descent, which is the most critical direction of travel. If stair treads are wet, there is an increased danger ofslipping, just as there is an increased danger of slipping on wet floors of similar materials. A small wash or drainageslope on exterior stair treads is, therefore, recommended to shed water. (See Templer, J. A., The Staircase: Studies ofHazards, Falls, and Safer Design, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.)

This proposal consisted of two portions: update of standards and correction to section A.11.1.6.4. Thiswas explained in the substantiation and can be seen in the second sentence of the substantiation of proposal 5000-264.The proposal was somehow logged in as two proposals, one of which was logged in as 5000-264 and accepted. The


of 73

Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 5000remainder of the action for the proposal was split by staff into an action and a substantiation which made no sense, witha portion of code text being shown as action (without any recommendation from me) and one portion of code text beingshown as substantiation. This became meaningless.This comment updates the standards as done also in proposal 5000-264 and updates further to today’s dates for

standards. the action proposed for A.11.1.6.4 is simply to clarify in Annex A that standards ASTM F 1679 and ASTM F1677 have been withdrawn.The original proposal submitted follows this comment.The commenter requests that NFPA staff checks the most recent editions at the time of the code going to print.


of 73

Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 5000_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-178 Log #26a BLD-MEA

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International / Rep. American Fire Safety Council


H.1.2.7 ASTM Publications. American Society of Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken,PA 19428-2959.ASTM C 1629/C 1629M, Standard Classification for Abuse-Resistant Nondecorated Interior Gypsum Panel Productsand Fiber-Reinforced Cement Panels, 2006.ASTM D 56, Standard Test Method for Flash Point by Tag Closed Tester, 2005.ASTM D 86, Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure, 2010 2009 e1.ASTM D 93, Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester, 2010 2008.ASTM D 3278, Standard Test Methods for Flash Point of Liquids by Small Scale Closed-Cup Apparatus, 1996 (2004e1).ASTM D 3828, Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by Small Scale Closed Tester, 2009 2007a.ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, 2010 2009a.ASTM E 96/E 96 M, Standard Test Methods for Water Vapor Transmission of Materials, 2005.ASTM E 119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, 2009c 2008a.ASTM E 648, Standard Test Method for Critical Radiant Flux of Floor-Covering Systems Using a Radiant Heat EnergySource, 2010 2009a.ASTM E 736, Standard Test Method for Cohesion/Adhesion of Sprayed Fire-Resistive Materials Applied to StructuralMembers, 2000 (2006) .ASTM E 814, Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Through-Penetration Fire Stops, 2010 2008b.ASTM E 1472, Standard Guide for Documenting Computer Software for Fire Models, 2007.ASTM E 1592, Standard Test Method for Structural Performance of Sheet Metal Roof and Siding Systems by UniformStatic Air Pressure Difference, 2005.ASTM E 1966, Standard Test Method for Fire-Resistive Joint Systems, 2007.ASTM E 2030, Guide for Recommended Uses of Photoluminescent (Phosphorescent) Safety Markings, 2009a 2008.ASTM E 2280, Standard Guide for Fire Hazard Assessment of the Effect of Upholstered Seating Furniture within PatientRooms of Health Care Facilities, 2009 .ASTM E 2307, Standard Test Method for Determining Fire Resistance of Perimeter Fire Barrier Systems UsingIntermediate-Scale, Multi-Story Test Apparatus, 2010 2004 e1 .ASTM E 2484, Standard Specification for High-Rise Building External Evacuation Controlled Descent Devices, 2008.ASTM E 2513, Standard Specification for Multi-Story Building External Evacuation Platform Rescue Systems, 2007.ASTM F 1677, Standard Test Method for Using a Portable Inclinable Articulated Strut Tester (PIAST), withdrawn, lastedition1996.ASTM F 1679, Standard Test Method for Using a Variable Incidence Tribometer (VIT), withdrawn, last edition 20042000.A.11.1.6.4 The foreseeable conditions are the conditions that are likely to be present at the location of the walkingsurface during the use of the building or area. A foreseeable condition of a swimming pool deck is that it is likely to bewet.Regarding the slip resistance of treads, it should be recognized that, when walking up or down stairs, a person's footexerts a smaller horizontal force against treads than is exerted when walking on level floors. Therefore, materials usedfor floors that are acceptable as slip resistant (as described by withdrawn test method ASTM F 1679, Standard TestMethod for the Variable Incidence Tribometer, or withdrawn test method ASTM F 1677, Standard Test Method for Usinga Portable Inclineable Articulate Strut Tester) provide adequate slip resistance where used for stair treads. Adequateslip resistance includes the important leading edge of a tread, that is, the part of the tread that the foot first contactsduring descent, which is the most critical direction of travel. If stair treads are wet, there is an increased danger ofslipping, just as there is an increased danger of slipping on wet floors of similar materials. A small wash or drainageslope on exterior stair treads is, therefore, recommended to shed water. (See Templer, J. A., The Staircase: Studies ofHazards, Falls, and Safer Design, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.)

This proposal consisted of two portions: update of standards and correction to section A.11.1.6.4. Thiswas explained in the substantiation and can be seen in the second sentence of the substantiation of proposal 5000-264.The proposal was somehow logged in as two proposals, one of which was logged in as 5000-264 and accepted. The


of 73

Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 5000remainder of the action for the proposal was split by staff into an action and a substantiation which made no sense, witha portion of code text being shown as action (without any recommendation from me) and one portion of code text beingshown as substantiation. This became meaningless.This comment updates the standards as done also in proposal 5000-264 and updates further to today’s dates for

standards. the action proposed for A.11.1.6.4 is simply to clarify in Annex A that standards ASTM F 1679 and ASTM F1677 have been withdrawn.The original proposal submitted follows this comment.The commenter requests that NFPA staff checks the most recent editions at the time of the code going to print.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-180 Log #119 BLD-MEA



A.11.2.2.3.6 A relatively common error in much home stair construction and, more rarely, in other stair construction is afailure to make the landing nosing projection consistent with the projection of all other nosings in the stair flight. (Such anerror can easily occur if the stair flight is installed as a prefabricated unit and the unit includes nosing projections.) Thisheightens the risk of an overstepping misstep, at the second or third step down, by a descending person. The followingcheck is appropriate to check dimensional and nosing alignment.A fairly reliable test of each step dimension uniformity is the crouch and sight test in which the inspector crouches on

the landing above a flight to confirm that all of the nosings, including the landing nosing, line up. Unless there is a rarematched variation in the height of a step riser and in the tread depth, both proportionally larger or smaller than othersteps in the flight - such that the inter-nosing slope or pitch is maintained consistent in the flight, the visual alignment ofthe nosings in the crouch and sight test will indicate dimensional uniformity. Thus, as a first task in any stair inspection,the crouch and sight test should be routinely performed. If the stair does not pass this visual test, careful measurementsperformed in accordance with 711.2.2.3.5 are essential. If the stair appears to pass this test - indicating the inter-nosingslope or pitch is consistent, a prudent second, quick test is to measure the inter-nosing distances for each step toconfirm their consistency.Step dimensions or their uniformity should not be made by simply laying a measuring tape or stick on the tread or

against the riser. Such measurements may be misleading and erroneous relative to the criteria set out in 7.2.2.3.5,particularly if nosing projections are not uniform (as addressed in 11.2.2.3.6.5), if treads slope, or if the slopes varywithin a stair flight.

While my original proposal was accused (without justification) as "severe" or "extreme," this can hardlybe claimed for the wording that Committee member Peacock suggested in his Affirmative Ballot comment. Thus,stressing again the importance of guidance on this centrally important stair safety issue, I now propose the formaladoption of Mr. Peacock's suggested language for the Annex and the only changes I have made, in two places, areeditorial corrections to refer to chapter 11 rather than chapter 7.


of 73



5000-148Reject proposal 5000-148.


HRB-SAC is an advisory committee established by the NFPA Standards Council to advise the association, andespecially the association’s technical committees, on all safety issues related to high-rise buildings. This public commentis in reaction to the action taken in the ROP.The HRB-SAC committee recommends rejecting the proposal to include requirements for occupant controlled

elevators for evacuation prior to Phase I Recall in the body of the Code, but does support the language remaining in theAnnex of the Code. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) currently has an expert committee formedthat is tasked with the research and development of requirements for occupant controlled elevators for evacuation andthis committee has not yet completed its work. Including these requirements would be premature and rushed. Occupantsafety could be at risk if we are placing requirements into the Code that have not yet been fully developed or tested. TheASME Task Group Hazard Analysis on Elevator Evacuation in an Emergency, Note 3 Section 3 from the May 2010meeting agenda states that “corrective actions involving occupant behavior should be evaluated with representativepopulation before codifying”.Elevators for occupant evacuation have not been tested under actual emergency conditions so we cannot yet predict

the behavior of occupants when offered elevators for evacuation in various emergency conditions. There has not yetbeen enough work completed with regards to the elevators prioritizing floors to pick up occupants, handing the demandof occupants trying to evacuate during emergency conditions, training occupants to use the elevators, capacity ofelevators, or the mechanical and computer systems needed to support the operation and efficiency of these elevatorsduring evacuation. At this time the language is not appropriate for the body of the code and should be retained in AnnexE. The committee is very much in support of the concept of elevators for occupant evacuation but the material is notready for inclusion in the body of the Code at this time. The committee looks forward to the future development of thistopic.Following the meeting at which HRB-SAC prepared this public comment, it was letter balloted by HRB-SAC. The ballot



of 73



5000-258Deleted Text

Reconsider to Reject.The automatic sprinkler system shall be provided with a sprinkler control valve and waterflow device on each floor that

is monitored by building fire alarm system.This is a new requirement originally intended for health care occupancies. If this annex is brought into

the code, this change would apply to all occupancies. This requirement is not relevant to the objectives of the section. Itwould restrict sprinkler design options in residential occupancies using NFPA 13R.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-186 Log #142 BLD-MEA



E.8.2.2 The size of lobbies serving multiple banks of elevators shall be exempt from the requirement of E.8.2.1(1)provided the area of such lobbies is approved on an individual basis and is consistent with the building’s emergencyplan.


HRB-SAC is an advisory committee established by the NFPA Standards Council to advise the association, andespecially the association’s technical committees, on all safety issues related to high-rise buildings. This public commentis in reaction to the action taken in the ROP.The term “fire safety and evacuation plan” is not used throughout the Code. To be consistent with terminology in other

NFPA Codes and Standards the text should be corrected to reference the building’s “emergency plan”. A companioncomment was submitted for NFPA 101.Following the meeting at which HRB-SAC prepared this public comment, it was letter balloted by HRB-SAC. The ballot



of 73