First Revision No. 6537-NFPA 101-2018 [ Global Input ]€¦ · When the provisions of 7.2.1.5.8.2...

First Revision No. 6537-NFPA 101-2018 [ Global Input ]

Replace the term 'releasing operation' with 'releasing motion' wherever it appears in the sectionsmentioned in the CS.

Submitter Information Verification

Committee: SAF-MEA

Submittal Date: Tue Jul 24 19:14:58 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The global replacement of 'releasing operation(s)' with 'releasing motion(s)' is in response toPI-462. The term 'releasing operation(s)' appears in the following locations: 7.2.1.5.10.3;7.2.1.5.10.4; 7.2.1.5.10.6; 7.2.1.5.10.7; 14.2.2.2.4; 16.2.2.2.6; 38.2.2.2.2; 39.2.2.2.2;A.7.2.1.5.10.3.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6537-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results

This item has passed ballot

32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All

0 Affirmative with Comments

0 Negative with Comments

0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

1 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 1 of 718

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.

Hoskins, Bryan Lawrence

Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.

Marcyjanik, Brian A.

Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


2 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 2 of 718

First Revision No. 6600-NFPA 101-2018 [ Global Input ]

Reorganize 7.2.1.5 as shown in the attachments.

Supplemental Information

File Name Description Approved

101--7.2.1.5_Reorg_map.docx

101-2018_Chapter_7.docx from current edition text


Committee: SAF-MEA

Submittal Date: Thu Aug 02 11:09:47 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The reorganization is in response to PI-426.

Response Message: FR-6600-NFPA 101-2018

Public Input No. 426-NFPA 101-2018 [Section No. 7.2.1.5]

Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher


3 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 3 of 718

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


4 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 4 of 718

7.2.1.5 Locks, Latches, and Alarm Devices. 7.2.1.5.1 Door leaves shall be arranged to be opened readily from the egress side whenever the building is occupied. 7.2.1.5.3 [renumbered to 7.2.1.5.2] Locks, if provided, shall not require the use of a key, a tool, or special knowledge or effort for operation from the egress side. 7.2.1.5.10* [move to 7.2.1.5.3] A latch or other fastening device on a door leaf shall be provided with a releasing device that has an obvious method of operation and that is readily operated under all lighting conditions. 7.2.1.5.10.1 [7.2.1.5.3.1] The releasing mechanism for any latch shall be located as follows:

(1) Not less than 34 in. (865 mm) above the finished floor for other than existing installations

(2) Not more than 48 in. (1220 mm) above the finished floor

7.2.1.5.10.2 [7.2.1.5.3.2] The releasing mechanism shall open the door leaf with not more than one releasing operation, unless otherwise specified in 7.2.1.5.10.3, 7.2.1.5.10.4, 7.2.1.5.10.6, or 7.2.1.5.10.7. 7.2.1.5.3.3—NEW 7.2.1.5.10.3* [7.2.1.5.3.4] Egress door assemblies from individual living units and guest rooms of residential occupancies shall be permitted to be provided with devices, including automatic latching devices, that require not more than one additional releasing operation, provided that such device is operable from the inside without the use of a key or tool and is mounted at a height not exceeding 48 in. (1220 mm) above the finished floor. 7.2.1.5.10.4 [7.2.1.5.3.5] Existing security devices permitted by 7.2.1.5.10.3 shall be permitted to have two additional releasing operations. 7.2.1.5.10.5 [7.2.1.5.3.6] Existing security devices permitted by 7.2.1.5.10.3, other than automatic latching devices, shall be located not more than 60 in. (1525 mm) above the finished floor. 7.2.1.5.10.6 [7.2.1.5.3.7] Two releasing operations shall be permitted for existing hardware on a door leaf serving an area having an occupant load not exceeding three, provided that releasing does not require simultaneous operations. 7.2.1.5.4 The requirements of 7.2.1.5.1 and 7.2.1.5.3 shall not apply where otherwise provided in Chapters 18 through 23. 7.2.1.5.2* [move to 7.2.1.5.5] The requirement of 7.2.1.5.1 shall not apply to door leaves of listed fire door assemblies after exposure to elevated temperature in accordance with the listing, based on laboratory fire test procedures. 7.2.1.5.5 Key-Operated Locks. [renumbered to 7.2.1.5.6] 7.2.1.5.7 [move to 7.2.1.5.6.1] Where permitted in Chapters 11 through 43, key operation shall be permitted, provided that the key cannot be removed when the door leaf is locked from the side from which egress is to be made. 7.2.1.5.6.2* 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) This alternative is permitted in Chapters 11 through 43 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 as follows is located on or adjacent to the door leaf: THIS DOOR TO REMAIN UNLOCKED WHEN THE BUILDING IS OCCUPIED.

(3) The locking device is of a type that is readily distinguishable as locked.

Page 5 of 718

(4) A key is immediately available to any occupant inside the building when it is locked.

7.2.1.5.6.3 The alternative provisions of 7.2.1.5.5.1 shall be permitted to be revoked by the authority having jurisdiction for cause. 7.2.1.5.8* [move to 7.2.1.5.7] Every door assembly in a stair enclosure serving more than four stories, unless permitted by 7.2.1.5.8.2, shall meet one of the following conditions:

(1) Re-entry from the stair enclosure to the interior of the building shall be provided.

(2) An automatic release that is actuated with the initiation of the building fire alarm system shall be provided to unlock all stair enclosure door assemblies to allow re-entry.

(3) Selected re-entry shall be provided in accordance with 7.2.1.5.8.1.

7.2.1.5.8.1 [7.2.1.5.7.1] Door assemblies on stair enclosures shall be permitted to be equipped with hardware that prevents re-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 enclosure to access another exit.

(3) Re-entry shall be possible on the top story or next-to-top story served by the stair enclosure, and such story shall allow access to another exit.

(4) Door assemblies allowing re-entry shall be identified as such on the stair side of the door leaf.

(5) Door assemblies not allowing re-entry shall be provided with a sign on the stair side indicating the location of the nearest door opening, in each direction of travel, that allows re-entry or exit.

7.2.1.5.8.2 [7.2.1.5.7.2] The requirements of 7.2.1.5.8, except as provided in 7.2.1.5.8.3, shall not apply to the following:

(1) Existing installations in buildings that are not high-rise buildings as permitted in Chapters 11 through 43

(2) Existing installations in high-rise buildings as permitted in Chapters 11 through 43 where the occupancy is within a building protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7

(3) Existing approved stairwell re-entry installations as permitted by Chapters 11 through 43

(4) Stair enclosures serving a building permitted to have a single exit in accordance with Chapters 11 through 43

(5) Stair enclosures in health care occupancies where otherwise provided in Chapter 18

(6) Stair enclosures in detention and correctional occupancies where otherwise provided in Chapter 22

7.2.1.5.8.3 [7.2.1.5.7.3] When the provisions of 7.2.1.5.8.2 are used, signage on the stair door leaves shall be required as follows;



7.2.1.5.9 [7.2.1.5.8] If a stair enclosure allows access to the roof of the building, the door assembly to the roof either shall be kept locked or shall allow re-entry from the roof. 7.2.1.5.11 [move to 7.2.1.5.9] 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 leaf before the other.

Page 6 of 718

(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 on the egress side of the door. (b) Unlatching of any leaf shall not require more than one operation.

7.2.1.5.12* [move to 7.2.1.5.10] Devices shall not be installed in connection with any door assembly on which panic hardware or fire exit hardware is required where such devices prevent or are intended to prevent the free use of the leaf for purposes of egress, unless otherwise provided in 7.2.1.6. 7.2.1.5.6 Door Hardware Release of Electrically Locked Egress Door Assemblies. [move to 7.2.1.6.3] Door assemblies in the means of egress shall be permitted to be equipped with approved electrical locking systems released by the operation of door hardware provided that all of the following conditions are met:

(1) The hardware for egress-side occupant release of the electrical 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 under all lighting conditions.

(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 in the direction of egress.

(5) *Loss of power to the listed releasing hardware automatically electrically unlocks the door assembly in the direction of egress.

(6) Hardware for new installations is listed in accordance with ANSI/UL 294, Standard for Access Control System Units.

Page 7 of 718

7.2.1.5 Locks, Latches, and Alarm Devices. 7.2.1.5.1

Door leaves shall be arranged to be opened readily from the egress side whenever the building is occupied.

7.2.1.5.2* [move to 7.2.1.5.5]

The requirement of 7.2.1.5.1 shall not apply to door leaves of listed fire door assemblies after exposure to elevated temperature in accordance with the listing, based on laboratory fire test procedures.

7.2.1.5.3 [renumbered to 7.2.1.5.2]

Locks, if provided, shall not require the use of a key, a tool, or special knowledge or effort for operation from the egress side.

7.2.1.5.4

The requirements of 7.2.1.5.1 and 7.2.1.5.3 shall not apply where otherwise provided in Chapters 18 through 23.

7.2.1.5.5 Key-Operated Locks. [renumbered to 7.2.1.5.6] 7.2.1.5.5.16.2*

Exterior door assemblies shall be permitted to have key-operated locks from the egress side, provided that all of the following criteria are met:


(2) A readily visible, durable sign in letters not less than 1 in. (25 mm) high on a contrasting background that reads as follows is located on or adjacent to the door leaf: THIS DOOR TO REMAIN UNLOCKED WHEN THE BUILDING IS OCCUPIED.



7.2.1.5.5.26.3

The alternative provisions of 7.2.1.5.5.1 shall be permitted to be revoked by the authority having jurisdiction for cause.

7.2.1.5.6 Door Hardware Release of Electrically Locked Egress Door Assemblies. [move to 7.2.1.6.3]

Door assemblies in the means of egress shall be permitted to be equipped with approved electrical locking systems released by the operation of door hardware provided that all of the following conditions are met:


(2) The hardware has an obvious method of operation that is readily operated in the direction of egress under all lighting conditions.


(4) Operation of the hardware directly interrupts the power supply to the electric lock and unlocks the door assembly in the direction of egress.

(5) *Loss of power to the listed releasing hardware automatically electrically unlocks the door assembly in the direction of egress.

(6) Hardware for new installations is listed in accordance with ANSI/UL 294, Standard for Access Control System Units.

7.2.1.5.7 [move to 7.2.1.5.6.1]

Where permitted in Chapters 11 through 43, key operation shall be permitted, provided that the key cannot be removed when the door leaf is locked from the side from which egress is to be made.

Page 8 of 718

7.2.1.5.8* [move to 7.2.1.5.7]

Every door assembly in a stair enclosure serving more than four stories, unless permitted by 7.2.1.5.8.2, shall meet one of the following conditions:


(2) An automatic release that is actuated with the initiation of the building fire alarm system shall be provided to unlock all stair enclosure door assemblies to allow re-entry.

(3) Selected re-entry shall be provided in accordance with 7.2.1.5.8.1.

7.2.1.5.8.1 [7.2.1.5.7.1]

Door assemblies on stair enclosures shall be permitted to be equipped with hardware that prevents re-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 enclosure to access another exit.

(3) Re-entry shall be possible on the top story or next-to-top story served by the stair enclosure, and such story shall allow access to another exit.



7.2.1.5.8.2 [7.2.1.5.7.2]

The requirements of 7.2.1.5.8, except as provided in 7.2.1.5.8.3, shall not apply to the following:

(1) Existing installations in buildings that are not high-rise buildings as permitted in Chapters 11 through 43

(2) Existing installations in high-rise buildings as permitted in Chapters 11 through 43 where the occupancy is within a building protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7


(4) Stair enclosures serving a building permitted to have a single exit in accordance with Chapters 11 through 43



7.2.1.5.8.3 [7.2.1.5.7.3]

When the provisions of 7.2.1.5.8.2 are used, signage on the stair door leaves shall be required as follows;



7.2.1.5.9 [7.2.1.5.8]

If a stair enclosure allows access to the roof of the building, the door assembly to the roof either shall be kept locked or shall allow re-entry from the roof.

7.2.1.5.10* [move to 7.2.1.5.3]

Page 9 of 718

A latch or other fastening device on a door leaf shall be provided with a releasing device that has an obvious method of operation and that is readily operated under all lighting conditions.

7.2.1.5.10.1 [7.2.1.5.3.1]

The releasing mechanism for any latch shall be located as follows:



7.2.1.5.10.2 [7.2.1.5.3.2]

The releasing mechanism shall open the door leaf with not more than one releasing operation, unless otherwise specified in 7.2.1.5.10.3, 7.2.1.5.10.4, 7.2.1.5.10.6, or 7.2.1.5.10.7.

7.2.1.5.10.3* [7.2.1.5.3.4]

Egress door assemblies from individual living units and guest rooms of residential occupancies shall be permitted to be provided with devices, including automatic latching devices, that require not more than one additional releasing operation, provided that such device is operable from the inside without the use of a key or tool and is mounted at a height not exceeding 48 in. (1220 mm) above the finished floor.

7.2.1.5.10.4 [7.2.1.5.3.5]

Existing security devices permitted by 7.2.1.5.10.3 shall be permitted to have two additional releasing operations.

7.2.1.5.10.5 [7.2.1.5.3.6]

Existing security devices permitted by 7.2.1.5.10.3, other than automatic latching devices, shall be located not more than 60 in. (1525 mm) above the finished floor.

7.2.1.5.10.6 [7.2.1.5.3.7]

Two releasing operations shall be permitted for existing hardware on a door leaf serving an area having an occupant load not exceeding three, provided that releasing does not require simultaneous operations.

7.2.1.5.10.

Where permitted by Chapters 11 through 43, two releasing operations shall be permitted for doors secured against unwanted entry.

7.2.1.5.11 [move to 7.2.1.5.9]

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 leaf before 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 on the egress side of the door.

(b) Unlatching of any leaf shall not require more than one operation.

7.2.1.5.12* [move to 7.2.1.5.10]

Devices shall not be installed in connection with any door assembly on which panic hardware or fire exit hardware is required where such devices prevent or are intended to prevent the free use of the leaf for purposes of egress, unless otherwise provided in 7.2.1.6.

Page 10 of 718

First Revision No. 6843-NFPA 101-2018 [ Detail ]

Add a new 19.3.7.1(1)(c) as follows:

(c) Where the building is sprinklered in accordance with 19.3.5.8 , hospital smokecompartments shall not exceed 40,000 ft2 (3720 m2 ) where the smoke compartmentcontains no patient sleeping rooms.


Committee: SAF-HEA

Submittal Date: Tue Sep 04 09:16:55 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision is needed to correlate with the corresponding Chapter 18 provision, which was addedin the 2018 edition. A parallel provision was inadvertently not added to Chapter 19 to account forlarger smoke compartments containing no patient sleeping rooms in existing occupancies.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6843-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Carson, Wayne G. Chip

Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.


5 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 11 of 718

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.

Roberts, Richard Jay

Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.

Widdekind, Michael D.

Affirmative with Comment

Farraher, Martin J.

Agree with technical committee


6 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 12 of 718


15.2.2.2.4.1

(3) Two non-simultaneous releasing operations shall be permitted where approved by theauthority having jurisdiction.


Committee: SAF-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Regarding the application to existing buildings, there are buildings with existing doors and doorassemblies that have been installed for decades. The Technical Committee is in support of providinga safe package of code requirements that is realistic and achievable for facilities that have existingdoors that need a solution to lock them for security purposes. Permitting two releasing operationsaddresses the challenges of retrofit existing doors, which often leads to dangerous, non-compliantbarricade-type products rather than safe locking hardware. The new language provides a safe optionfor doors in existing facilities to lock doors without providing an challenge to the facility and a strainon resources.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6867-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

18 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.

Frangiamore, Keith S.

Gandy, Max L.


7 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 13 of 718

Haidacher, Jeffrey L.

Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.

Longhitano, Alfred J.

Merck, Richard E.

Naber, Michael

Sinsigalli, Michael L.

Stashak, Catherine L.

Szachnowicz, Aleksy L.


Marks, Maria B.

This action may be in conflict with committee actions on 6866 . Suggest reviewing during the second draftmeeting.

Mertens, Matthew J.

The annex material must emphasize that this option must be done in concert with the AHJ and as part of a properEmergency Action Plan that has evaluated the entire safety picture of the building.

Roeper, Kurt A.

The Committee needs to determine if it is a releasing ‘operation’ or ‘motion’ and then ensure consistency of theterm throughout the Chapters


8 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 14 of 718


17.2.2.2.6.1

(3) Two non-simultaneous releasing operations shall be permitted where approved by theauthority having jurisdiction.


Committee: SAF-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Regarding the application to existing buildings, there are buildings with existing doors and doorassemblies that have been installed for decades. The Technical Committee is in support of providinga safe package of code requirements that is realistic and achievable for facilities that have existingdoors that need a solution to lock them for security purposes. Permitting two releasing operationsaddresses the challenges of retrofit existing doors, which often leads to dangerous, non-compliantbarricade-type products rather than safe locking hardware. The new language provides a safe optionfor doors in existing facilities to lock doors without providing an challenge to the facility and a strainon resources.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6872-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

18 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


9 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 15 of 718


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.


Merck, Richard E.

Naber, Michael





Marks, Maria B.

This action may be in conflict with committee actions on 6871. Suggest reviewing during the second draftmeeting.

Mertens, Matthew J.

The annex material must emphasize that this option must be done in concert with the AHJ and as part of a properEmergency Action Plan that has evaluated the entire safety picture of the building.

Roeper, Kurt A.



10 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 16 of 718


Revise 19.1.6 as indicated in the attached file.



101-2021_FR-6874.docx


Committee: SAF-HEA

Submittal Date: Wed Sep 05 08:44:44 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision responds to PI-369, the substantiation for which follows:

1. The changes proposed to Table 19.1.6.1 provide a solution to a concern that many existingoperating nursing homes are no longer considered compliant with the intent of NFPA 101, Life SafetyCode. Table 19.1.6.1 has been changed with the intent to reflect nursing home characteristics thatwere complaint with Fire Safety Evaluation System (FSES) analysis reports that were prepared inaccordance with NFPA 101A-2001 edition. To achieve a passing score on the FSES while having anoncompliant construction type, the features specified were required. Construction type is specificallyaddress since upgrading construction type is so very difficult if even possible.

2. There are approximately 1,000 existing nursing homes throughout the United States that currentlydo not meet the existing minimum construction requirements outlined in 19.1.6 of NFPA 101. Many ofthese nursing home facilities have previously approved Fire Safety Evaluation System (FSES)analysis reports that complied with NFPA 101A-2001 edition, Guide on Alternative Approaches to LifeSafety. However, with the mandatory automatic sprinkler incorporation into NFPA 101-2006 editionand resulting NFPA 101A mandatory safety requirement increases, these nursing homes consideredcode equivalent for many years are now not considered as providing an equivalent level of safety. Thenon-compliance is essentially the result of non-compliant construction types that were compensatedfor by the installation of automatic sprinklers. A push by the nursing home industry to upgrade theminimum safety by mandating automatic sprinklers without other reductions at that time is essentiallypunishing the owners, operators and residents of facilities that have been considered safe.

3. There are no data to support that the existing facilities with automatic sprinklers and other upgradesmandated to be compliant with NFPA 101A-2001 edition FSES are a life safety concern. NursingHome fires caused an average of only one death per year between 2011 and 2015 per the NFPAResearch Structure Fire in Health Care Facilities, dated October 2017 for fire data in Nursing Homesbetween 2011 and 2015 (See Exhibit B attached). 4. Inspection, Testing and Maintenance (ITM) ofautomatic sprinklers systems is mandated. Confirmation of the ITM in the field by governmentalauthorities or accreditation companies facilitates assuring the automatic sprinkler system is operationbeyond most other occupancies. 5. Upgrading the construction type of an existing building is verycostly, if even possible. As a result many residents may be forced from their facility which isimpractical, disturbing and detrimental to residents and in some areas there are no replacementhomes. 6. Nursing Homes are required to have full sprinkler protection per a final rule issued by theCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on August 13, 2008 which provided a 5-yearadvance timeframe for all Nursing Homes to have full sprinkler protection by August 13, 2013. Asoutlined in the CMS Nursing Home Data Compendium, 2015 edition, there are approximately 15,600Nursing Homes throughout the United States. Based on conversations with CMS, Jensen Hughesbelieves there a currently less than 500 nursing homes that have not been provided with full sprinklerprotection (approximately 3% of total).

ResponseMessage:

FR-6874-NFPA 101-2018


11 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 17 of 718

Public Input No. 376-NFPA 101-2018 [New Section after A.19.1.3.5.1]


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



12 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 18 of 718


Farraher, Martin J.


Negative with Comment

Merrill II, James

This is not the place to make changes in the FSES, the FSES 101A is the place to make this change. Changingthe table here will most likely have unintended consequences when applied.


13 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 19 of 718

19.1.6 Minimum Construction Requirements. 19.1.6.1*

Health care occupancies shall be limited to the building construction types specified in Table 19.1.6.1, unless otherwise permitted by 19.1.6.2 through 19.1.6.7. (See 8.2.1.)

A.19.1.6.1 Footnotes C and D to Table 19.1.6.1 relating to permitted construction types for existing nursing homes reflect nursing home characteristics that are complaint with a fire safety evaluation system (FSES) for health care occupancies analysis that was prepared in accordance with the 2001 edition of NFPA 101A. The features specify potential options to achieve a passing score on the FSES while having a noncompliant construction type. Other options complying with the 2001 edition of NFPA 101A edition should be considered. Construction type is specifically addressed since upgrading construction type is difficult if even possible.

Table 19.1.6.1 Construction Type Limitations

Construction Type Total Number of Stories of Building‡B

Sprinklered†A 1 2 3 ≥4 I (442) Yes X X X X

No X X X X

I (332) Yes X X X X

No X X X X

II (222) Yes X X X X

No X X X X

II (111) Yes X X X NPC

No X NP NP NP

II (000) Yes X X NPC NPD

No NP NP NP NP

III (211) Yes X X NPC NPC

No NP NP NP NP

III (200) Yes X NPC NPD NP

No NP NP NP NP

IV (2HH) Yes X X NPC NPC

No NP NP NP NP

V (111) Yes X X NPC NPC

No NP NP NP NP

V (000) Yes X NPC NPD NP

No NP NP NP NP

X: Permitted. NP: Not permitted.

The total number of stories of the building is to be determined as follows:

(1) The total number of stories is to be counted starting with the level of exit discharge and ending with the highest occupiable story of the building.

(2) Stories below the level of exit discharge are not counted as stories.

(3) Interstitial spaces used solely for building or process systems directly related to the level above or below are not considered a separate story.

Formatted: Font: Not Bold









Formatted: Superscript

Formatted: Superscript

Page 20 of 718

(4) A mezzanine in accordance with 8.6.9 is not counted as a story.

†A Sprinklered throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7. (See 19.3.5.)

‡B Basements are not counted as stories. C Permitted for nursing homes where the requirements of 19.1.6.8 are met. D Permitted for nursing homes where the requirements of 19.1.6.9 are met.

19.1.6.2*

Any building of Type I(442), Type I(332), Type II(222), or Type II(111) construction shall be permitted to include roofing systems involving combustible or non-fire-rated steel supports, decking, or roofing, provided that all of the following criteria are met:

(1) The roof covering shall meet Class C requirements in accordance with ASTM E108, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Roof Coverings, or ANSI/UL 790, Test Methods for

Fire Tests of Roof Coverings.

(2) The roof shall be separated from all occupied portions of the building by a noncombustible floor assembly that includes not less than 21⁄2 in. (63 mm) of concrete or gypsum fill.

(3) The attic or other space shall be either unoccupied or protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system.

19.1.6.3

Any building of Type I(442), Type I(332), Type II(222), or Type II(111) construction shall be permitted to include roofing systems involving combustible supports, decking, or roofing, provided that all of the following criteria are met:

(1) The roof covering shall meet Class A requirements in accordance with ASTM E108, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Roof Coverings, or ANSI/UL 790, Test Methods for

Fire Tests of Roof Coverings.

(2) The roof/ceiling assembly shall be constructed with fire-retardant-treated wood meeting the requirements of NFPA 220.

(3) The roof/ceiling assembly shall have the required fire resistance rating for the type of construction.

19.1.6.4

Interior nonbearing walls in buildings of Type I or Type II construction shall be constructed of noncombustible or limited-combustible materials, unless otherwise permitted by 19.1.6.5.

19.1.6.5

Interior nonbearing walls required to have a fire resistance rating of 2 hours or less shall be permitted to be fire-retardant-treated wood enclosed within noncombustible or limited-combustible materials, provided that such walls are not used as shaft enclosures.

19.1.6.6*

Fire-retardant-treated wood that serves as supports for the installation of fixtures and equipment shall be permitted to be installed behind noncombustible or limited-combustible sheathing.

19.1.6.7

Each exterior wall of frame construction and all interior stud partitions shall be firestopped to cut off all concealed draft openings, both horizontal and vertical, between any cellar or basement and the first floor, and such firestopping shall consist of wood not less than 2 in. (51 mm) (nominal) thick or shall be of noncombustible material.

19.1.6.8

Where required by footnote C in Table 19.1.6.1, nursing homes shall meet all of the following:

Page 21 of 718

(1) The building shall be protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 9.7.1.1(1) using listed, quick-response automatic sprinklers throughout the building or listed, standard-response automatic sprinklers where approved, electrically-supervised smoke detection in accordance with 19.3.4 is installed in each room occupied or used by patients.

(2) All patients shall have a mobility status classified as mobile, limited mobility, or not mobile in accordance with 19.1.6.10.

(3) *Not less than one attendant per smoke compartment shall be provided. (4) All interior wall and ceiling finishes shall have a Class A flame spread classification. (5) The building shall be provided with an approved fire alarm system in accordance

with Section 9.6. (6) Emergency forces notification shall be accomplished in accordance with 9.6.4.2. (7) The number of stories shall not exceed 6.

A.19.1.6.8(3)

Number of attendants is discussed in Section 4.5 of NFPA 101A. The number of attendants is based on attendant staff available to respond to an emergency at minimum staffing levels. Where nursing stations or other positions of attendants are located at the junction of two or more smoke compartments and the location of the station is such that each of the smoke compartments has immediate access and is in view of the nursing station, the total staffing assignment can be credited to each of the smoke compartments.

19.1.6.9

Where required by footnote D in Table 19.1.6.1, nursing homes shall meet all of the following:

(1) The building shall be protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 9.7.1.1(1) using listed, quick-response automatic sprinklers throughout the building or listed, standard-response automatic sprinklers where approved, electrically-supervised smoke detection in accordance with 19.3.4 is installed in each room occupied or used by patients.

(2) All patients shall have a mobility status classified as mobile, limited mobility, or not mobile in accordance with 19.1.6.10.

(3) *Not less than one attendant per smoke compartment shall be provided. (4) All interior wall and ceiling finishes shall have a Class A flame spread classification. (5) The building shall be provided with an approved fire alarm system in accordance

with Section 9.6. (6) Emergency forces notification shall be accomplished in accordance with 9.6.4.2. (7) Corridors shall be separated from all other areas by partitions having a fire resistance rating of

not less than ½ hour. (8) Corridor doors shall be constructed of at least 1-3/4-inch thick, solid-bonded core wood or other

approved material that resists fire for a minimum of 20 minutes. (9) The number of stories shall not exceed 6.

A.19.1.6.9(3)

See A.19.1.6.8(3).

19.1.6.10*

A.19.1.6.10

Page 22 of 718

The single most important factor controlling risk in a health care facility is the degree to which patients need assistance in taking the actions necessary for their safety. The level of capability in health care facilities varies from patients who, if informed or directed, are able to take positive, self-protecting actions to those patients who have no ability to move or even to take the simplest actions to safeguard themselves. In some cases, patients are directly connected to a fixed life-support system and are so dependent on it that, regardless of their physical condition or the availability of assistance, they cannot be moved without jeopardy of death or serious harm. In the measurement of occupancy risk factors, the least mobile category of patient expected in the zone determines the risk factor for that zone. The rationale for this approach is that, if a zone accepts any patient with a reduced mobility status, it might accept other such patients at any time. The impact of this approach is that most health care facilities should be rated in the “not mobile”

risk category. Mobility status should be based on the minimum level of mobility in an average 24-hour period. [101A:4.5.1.1]

19.1.6.10.1

Patients classified as mobile shall meet all of the following:

(1) Capable of readily rising from bed and taking self-protecting actions at approximately the same rate as a healthy adult

(2) Capable of getting out of bed without assistance (3) Capable of opening a closed or locked door (4) Not restrained or in any other way limited in response

capabilities so that the type of arousal mechanism that normally would awaken an adult is not effective

19.1.6.10.2

Patients classified as having limited mobility shall meet the requirements of 19.1.6.10.1 except that their rate of travel shall be significantly slower than a patient classified as mobile.

19.1.6.10.3* Patients classified as not mobile shall be incapable of removing themselves from danger exclusively by their own efforts. A.19.1.6.10.3 Examples of patients classified as not mobile include persons who are totally bedridden; who need assistance getting out of bed or moving; and who are restrained, locked in their rooms, or otherwise prevented from taking complete emergency self-protection evacuation actions without assistance.

Page 23 of 718


Add new Annex A.31.3.5.12

In previous editions, an engineered life safety system was an alternative to providing a full sprinklersystem. This concept was removed in the 2021 edition. This removal does not prohibit the use of theperformance-based design option in Chapter 5. The analysis required by Chapter 5 is more rigorous thanthe engineered life safety system analysis.


Committee: SAF-RES

Submittal Date: Mon Sep 10 07:21:47 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This provides information about the options for providing anything other than a full sprinklersystem, as was described in previous editions.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6925-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.


14 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 24 of 718

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.

Noble, Thomas William

Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake

Pullen, William Davison


Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zubair Sarwar, Muhammad Ahmad

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


15 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 25 of 718


15.2.2.2.4.2 Where existing classroom doors and doors to instructional spaces are replaced, they shall complywith the provisions of 14.2.2.2.4 .


Committee: SAF-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision ensures that when buildings that are replacing doors, either to classrooms or toinstructional spaces, that they comply with the provisions in Chapter 14 for new educationaloccupancies. Consideration for safe and compliant locking solutions should be made whenplanning for replacing doors.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6936-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard


16 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 26 of 718

Julka, Terrence J.


Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.





17 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 27 of 718


17.2.2.2.6.2 Where existing classroom doors and doors to client care spaces are replaced, they shall complywith the provisions of 16.2.2.2.6 .


Committee: SAF-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision ensures that when buildings that are replacing doors, either to classrooms or to otherclient care spaces, that they comply with the provisions in Chapter 16 for new day-careoccupancies. Consideration for safe and compliant locking solutions should be made whenplanning for replacing doors.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6937-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard


18 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 28 of 718

Julka, Terrence J.


Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.





19 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 29 of 718

First Revision No. 6529-NFPA 101-2018 [ Section No. 3.3.22.2.1 ]

3.3.22.2.1* Gross Floor Area.

The floor area within the inside perimeter of the outside walls of the building under consideration , or theoutside walls and fire walls of a building, or outside and/or inside walls that bound an occupancy orincidental use area with no deductions for hallways, stairs, closets, thickness of interior walls, columns,elevator and building services shafts, or other features, but excluding floor openings associated withatriums and communicating spaces. (SAF-MEA)


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision clarifies the intent of the application of the term 'gross floor area' and bettercorrelates with the definition of the term 'net floor area'. The revision is one of several inresponse to PI-516.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6529-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.


20 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 30 of 718

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


21 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 31 of 718

First Revision No. 6601-NFPA 101-2018 [ Section No. 3.3.24.1.1 [Excluding any Sub-

Sections] ]

Any combination of a fire door, a frame, hardware, and other accessories that together provide a specificdegree of fire protection to the opening. [80,2016 2019 ] (SAF-FIR)


Committee: SAF-FIR


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Extract update. Text reflects the most current edition of the source document, NFPA 80,2019 edition.


Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All

Alday, Eddie Dewayne

Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.

Goldhammer, Edward S.

Graupmann, Joseph

Gump, Jack A.

Hall, William J.

Higgins, Joseph Patrick

Hopper, Howard


22 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 32 of 718

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon

Koffel, William E.

McHugh, Jr., William J.

Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.

Zivnuska, Alexander Frederick


23 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 33 of 718

First Revision No. 6602-NFPA 101-2018 [ Section No. 3.3.24.2 ]

3.3.24.2 Fire Window Assembly.

A window or glass block assembly having a fire protection rating. [80,2016 2019 ] (SAF-FIR)


Committee: SAF-FIR


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Extract update. Text reflects the most current edition of the source document, NFPA 80,2019 edition.


Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All


Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.


Graupmann, Joseph

Gump, Jack A.

Hall, William J.


Hopper, Howard


24 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 34 of 718

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon

Koffel, William E.


Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.



25 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 35 of 718


3.3.37.9 Special Amusement Building.

A building or portion thereof that is temporary, permanent, or mobile and contains a device or system thatconveys passengers or provides a walkway along, around, or over a course in any direction as a form ofamusement, entertainment, or education arranged so that the egress path is not readily apparent due tovisual or audio distractions or an intentionally confounded egress path, or is not readily available due tothe mode of conveyance through the building or structure. (SAF-AXM)


Committee: SAF-AXM

Submittal Date: Tue Aug 21 10:08:09 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision addresses the use of portions of a building not being used a special amusementoccupancy. This is typical when an attraction exits through a gift shop (mercantile). This wouldclarify that the mercantile area would not be required to meet the requirements of 12.4.8. This isalso supported by the existing code language contained in A.12.4.8 for special amusementscontained in an exhibit hall.

The revision includes industry standard verbiage of "ride systems" and extends the use of specialamusement to include entertainment or educational purposes.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6696-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William


26 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 36 of 718

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.

Scandaliato, Steven J.

Schweitzer, Charles J.

Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Washburn, Janet A.


Little, Julie A.

This requirement will be a hardship for small restaurants.


27 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 37 of 718

First Revision No. 6516-NFPA 101-2018 [ Section No. 3.3.50 ]

3.3.50 Contents and Furnishings.

Any movable objects in a building or adjacent to a building that normally are secured or otherwise put inplace for functional reasons, excluding (1) parts of the internal structure of the building, and (2) any itemsmeeting the definition of interior finish. (SAF-INT)


Committee: SAF-INT


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Outdoor furnishings were added to Chapter 10. The definition of contents and furnishingsshould address furnishings that are outside of the building as well.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6516-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Carrigan, Matthew

Affirmative All

Babrauskas, Vytenis

Chen, Tiffney Arlene-Cates

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Evans, Michael W.

Fitch, William E.

Hirschler, Marcelo M.

Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry

Puchovsky, Milosh T.

Richardson, James R.

Richardson, Dennis A.

Siegel, Shelley


28 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 38 of 718

Sloan, Dwayne E.


Newman, Kathleen A.

ok


29 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 39 of 718


3.3.68.1* One- and Two-Family Dwelling Unit.

A building that contains not more than two dwelling units with independent cooking and bathroomfacilities , each dwelling unit occupied by members of a single family with not more than three outsiders, ifany, accommodated in rented rooms . (SAF-RES)


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Revision to correlate with the definition in Chapter 6.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.


30 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 40 of 718

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.



Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


Buuck, Daniel

I approve of this definition since the annex material gives examples of what can constitute a family. (SeeFR-6744)


Mayl, Eric N.

"Family" is not a clearly defined term. The new definition will result in inconsistent enforcement and uncertainty bythe design community.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Fails to recognize not traditional living arrangements by retaining the reference to a family versus a family orgroup.


31 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 41 of 718

First Revision No. 6505-NFPA 101-2018 [ New Section after 3.3.111 ]

3.3.112 Fire-Retardant Coating.

A coating that reduces the flame spread index of Douglas fir, or of any other tested combustible surfaceto which it is applied, when tested in accordance with a test for assessing surface burningcharacteristics. [ 703, 2018] (SAF-INT)


Committee: SAF-INT


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The term Fire-Retardant Coatings is used within NFPA 101. The definition from NFPA 703should be used. During the second draft, the 2021 edition can be referenced.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6505-NFPA 101-2018

Public Input No. 401-NFPA 101-2018 [New Section after 3.3.111]

Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Carrigan, Matthew

Affirmative All

Babrauskas, Vytenis


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Evans, Michael W.

Fitch, William E.


Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry





32 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 42 of 718

Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.


Newman, Kathleen A.

Why is there only an option to vote all affirmative or affirmative with exceptions where a comment is required? Willthis be fixed?


33 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 43 of 718


3.3.117 Flaming Droplets.

Liquefied material that separates and drips from the test specimen during the fire test and continues toburn with flame. (SAF-INT)


Committee: SAF-INT


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The issue of whether flaming droplets are formed can be an important phenomenon to determinethe likelihood of formation of pool fires and fire propagation on the floor. This concept is proposedto be used in conjunction with fire testing of upholstered furniture and mattresses.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6504-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Carrigan, Matthew

Affirmative All

Babrauskas, Vytenis


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Evans, Michael W.

Fitch, William E.


Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry





34 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 44 of 718

Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.


Newman, Kathleen A.

ok


35 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 45 of 718


3.3.198.5* Detention and Correctional Occupancy.

An occupancy used to house lawfully incarcerate or lawfully detain one or more persons under varieddegrees of restraint or security where such occupants are mostly incapable of self-preservation becauseof security measures not under the occupants’ control. (SAF-DET)


Committee: SAF-DET

Submittal Date: Mon Aug 20 14:40:56 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The replacement of “house” with “lawfully incarcerate or lawfully detain” in the definition ofdetention and correctional occupancy clarifies that the primary purpose of such occupancies are forlegal detention of individuals in an attempt to address concerns between this definition and thehealthcare occupancy definition.

Correlating Committee Note: Direct SAF-FUN to update Chapter 6 to reflect this definition change.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6694-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


16 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Kelly, John

Patterson, Van Hoover

Stapleton, Jr., James A.

Affirmative All

Aler, Clay P.

Bollig, Tracy

Collins, Peter J.

DiMascio, Michael

Gaw, Randy

Heffernan, Rick

Kruszelnicki, Michael


36 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 46 of 718

Lumley, Troy A.

Perry, Robert R.

Poole, Jack

Schultz, Terry

Young, Sichel

Youngberg, Garrick


37 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 47 of 718


3.3.216* Personal Care.

The care of residents who do not require chronic, or convalescent medical or continuous skilled nursingcare. (SAF-BCF)

A.3.3.216 Personal Care.

Personal care involves responsibility for the safety of the resident while inside the building. Personalcare might include daily awareness by management of the resident’s functioning and whereabouts,making and reminding a resident of appointments, the ability and readiness for intervention in the eventof a resident experiencing a crisis, supervision in the areas of nutrition and medication, and actualprovision of transient medical care, including limited periodic skilled nursing care .


Committee: SAF-BCF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

A task group was assigned to review the Aging in Place concept for board and care facilities. It wasrecognized that some board and care facilities have limited nursing services. If long term nursing isnot provided, then board and care is the appropriate occupancy classification. The definition ofpersonal care was updated to reflect this concept and an annex note explaining the acceptable levelof nursing care was added.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6716-NFPA 101-2018

Public Input No. 162-NFPA 101-2018 [Section No. 3.3.214]

Ballot Results


23 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

18 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Gabriele, Nicholas E.

Jones, Adam C.

McDermott, Randy S.

Mills, David E.

Pacholzuk, Gayanne Coral


38 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 48 of 718

Affirmative All

Allen, Scott D.

Asp, Roland A.

Beebe, Chad E.

Bellamy, Tracey D.

Bradley, Harry L.

Day, Richard L.

Eaddy, Rebekah L.

Farraher, Martin J.

Heaney, Steven

Larrimer, Peter A.

Larson, Mark

Rickard, John A.

Rierson, Carter J.

Roth, Heather

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Talley, Joshua

Utiskul, Yunyong Pock


39 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 49 of 718


3.3.284.8* Parking Structure.

A building, structure, or portion thereof used for the parking, storage, or both, of motor vehicles.[88A,2015 2019 ] (SAF-IND)

3.3.284.8.1 Parking Structure, Assisted Mechanical Type Parking Structure .

A parking structure that uses lifts or other mechanical devices to transport vehicles to the floors of aparking structure, where the vehicles are then parked by a person. [88A,2015 2019 ] (SAF-IND)

3.3.284.8.2 Parking Structure, Automated Type Parking Structure .

A parking structure that uses computer controlled machines to store and retrieve vehicles, without drivers,in multi-level storage racks with no floors. [88A,2015 2019 ] (SAF-IND)

3.3.284.8.3 Enclosed Parking Structure, Enclosed .

Any parking structure that is not an open parking structure. [88A,2015 2019 ] (SAF-IND)

3.3.284.8.4 Open Parking Structure, Open .

A parking structure that meets the requirements of 42.8.1.3. (SAF-IND)

3.3.284.8.5 Parking Structure, Ramp Type Parking Structure .

A parking structure that utilizes sloped floors for vertical vehicle circulation. [88A,2015 2019 ] (SAF-IND)


Committee: SAF-IND


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Extract update (SAF-IND)


Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All


40 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 50 of 718

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.

Krantz, Sr., Neal W.

Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd

Lozano-Rosales, Roberto

McLaughlin, Patrick A.

Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.

Skinker, Cleveland B.

Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


41 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 51 of 718


3.3.285.3 Non-Patient-Care Suite (Heath Care Occupancies).

A suite within a health care occupancy suite that is not intended for patient sleeping or treatingpatients care . (SAF-HEA)


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision responds to PI-173. The suggested language was modified by a task group withrepresentation from the submitter's organization to further clarify the intent.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6765-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.


42 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 52 of 718

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



43 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 53 of 718


3.3.285.4 Patient Care Non-Sleeping Suite (Health Care Occupancies).

A health care suite providing care for treating patients with or without patient beds one or more patientsnot intended for overnight patient sleeping. (SAF-HEA)


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-6766-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.


44 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 54 of 718

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



45 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 55 of 718


3.3.285.5 Patient Care Sleeping Suite (Health Care Occupancies).

A health care suite containing one or more patient beds intended for overnight patient sleeping. (SAF-HEA)


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-6767-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.


46 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 56 of 718

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



47 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 57 of 718


3.3.285.2 Patient Health Care Suite (Health Care Occupancies).

A series of rooms or spaces or a subdivided room room or rooms sharing a means of egress separatedfrom the remainder of the building by walls, doors, floors, and doors ceilings . (SAF-HEA)


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-6768-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.


48 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 58 of 718

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.

Revision needed


49 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 59 of 718


3.3.300 Vision Panel.

A glazing material installed in a fire door assembly to allow for viewing through the fire door assembly.[ 252, 2017] (SAF-FIR)


Committee: SAF-FIR


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Definition supports the application of requirements for opening protectives in Chapter 8.


Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All


Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.


Graupmann, Joseph

Gump, Jack A.

Hall, William J.


Hopper, Howard


50 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 60 of 718

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon

Koffel, William E.


Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.



51 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 61 of 718


4.1.3* Hazardous Materials Emergencies.

An additional goal is to provide reasonable life safety during emergency events involving hazardousmaterials regulated by NFPA 30, NFPA 45, NFPA 54, NFPA 55, NFPA 58, NFPA 72 , NFPA 400, andNFPA 495.

A.4.1.3

See Annex C for referenced documents on hazardous materials. The reference to NFPA 72 in 4.1.3relates to requirements for carbon monoxide detection.



101_FUN_FR-6641_A.4.1.3.docx For staff use--FINAL


Committee: SAF-FUN


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Carbon monoxide exposure is certainly a recurring problem costing many lives every year andhas just as much right to be included as the other hazardous materials included in this section.

It is noted that NFPA 720 is being withdrawn and the requirements for CO detection are beingincorporated into NFPA 72. Corresponding revision to A.4.1.3 to clarify the reference to NFPA 72in 4.1.3.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6641-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


20 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Laramee, Scott T.

Affirmative All


52 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 62 of 718

Al Zeyara, Nasser Ahmed

Alfawakhiri, Farid


Cheng, Amy Y.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Frable, David W.

Groner, Norman E.

Hopkins, Mark

Jacoby, David J.

Jelenewicz, Chris

Klein, David P.

Lathrop, James K.

Murga, Ricardo

Pauls, Jake


Reiswig, Rodger

Roberts, Jon G.

Tyree, David P.

Vann, Joshua


53 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 63 of 718


4.2.4 Physical Violence Mitigation Security Features .

Where buildings are designed to mitigate physical violence against occupants, such measures andconstructed to include security features to protect occupants or contents, such features shall notcompromise compliance with other requirements of this Code.


Committee: SAF-FUN


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The current section states that “where buildings are designed to mitigate physical violence againstoccupants”. However, the supporting statement in 2017 for this new section on Physical ViolenceMitigation focused only on lock-downs and other security measures that lead to disabling orcompromising free means of egress and not designs to mitigate physical violence against theoccupant. In addition, the term "physical violence mitigation" is undefined. The revision clarifies thecode's intent.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6643-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


20 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Laramee, Scott T.

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid


Cheng, Amy Y.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Frable, David W.

Groner, Norman E.

Hopkins, Mark


54 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 64 of 718

Jacoby, David J.

Jelenewicz, Chris

Klein, David P.

Lathrop, James K.

Murga, Ricardo

Pauls, Jake


Reiswig, Rodger

Roberts, Jon G.

Tyree, David P.

Vann, Joshua


55 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 65 of 718

First Revision No. 6644-NFPA 101-2018 [ New Section after 4.6.12.3 ]

4.6.12.4*

Where a door or door frame is not required to be fire protection rated and is equipped with a fireprotection listing label, the door and the door frame shall not be required to comply with NFPA 80 .

A.4.6.12.4

See A.4.6.12.3 .


Committee: SAF-FUN


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Though an annex note was created in the 2015 edition to clarify that the requirements of 4.6.12.3were not meant to pertain to fire doors, AHJs are still citing facilities for non-compliant fire doors(e.g., no self-closer, no positive latching, excessive gaps, etc.) and frames where installed where notrequired by any code because they interpret fire doors and frames as being obvious to the public. Byadding a new paragraph 4.6.12.4 pertaining specifically to fire doors and frames, it makes it clearthat non-required fire doors and frames are not required to be maintained in full proper order.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6644-NFPA 101-2018

Public Input No. 366-NFPA 101-2018 [New Section after 4.6.12.3]


Ballot Results


20 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Laramee, Scott T.

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid


Cheng, Amy Y.


56 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 66 of 718

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Frable, David W.

Groner, Norman E.

Hopkins, Mark

Jacoby, David J.

Jelenewicz, Chris

Klein, David P.

Lathrop, James K.

Murga, Ricardo

Pauls, Jake


Reiswig, Rodger

Roberts, Jon G.

Tyree, David P.

Vann, Joshua


57 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 67 of 718


4.6.12.7

Maintenance, inspection, and testing records shall be documented using approved reports or forms andshall be permitted to be submitted, stored, accessed, and shared electronically in an approved format.


Committee: SAF-FUN


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

ITM reporting for existing fire protection systems is an effective tool for some AHJs to track themaintenance and status of systems in their jurisdictions. The records and reports generated bycontractors for building owners that are stored on site, or in a cloud should be secure and access tothe documents remain open to meet open records laws, but the information contained within shouldbe limited. Personal and other confidential information should be addressed. This revision uses somematerial from NFPA 25, NFPA 950 and NFPA 951, but none of these standards or guidelines havethe exact language or are developed to extract at this time. NFPA 101 needs to provide some limitedguidance on how to handle electronic data, reports and other materials coming from electronic datasubmissions.

It is unclear what was meant by 'unconditional public access' in the related public input.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6645-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


20 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Laramee, Scott T.

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid


Cheng, Amy Y.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Frable, David W.


58 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 68 of 718

Groner, Norman E.

Hopkins, Mark

Jacoby, David J.

Jelenewicz, Chris

Klein, David P.

Lathrop, James K.

Murga, Ricardo

Pauls, Jake


Reiswig, Rodger

Roberts, Jon G.

Tyree, David P.

Vann, Joshua


59 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 69 of 718


4.6.15.5

For wood products manufactured using a means other than a pressure process, all sides of the woodproduct shall be tested. [ 5000: 45.5.16.1.5]


Committee: SAF-FUN


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This should not be there - it is an errata, but staff was unable to delete it since it had been(incorrectly) balloted that way.

The reason this is an errata is shown below:

Section 4.6.15.5 of NFPA 101 says it is an extract from NFPA 5000 and reads:

4.6.15.5 For wood products manufactured using a means other than a pressure process, all sidesof the wood product shall be tested. [5000:45.5.16.1.5]

However, that language should not be present in the NFPA 101 code because that language is notpresent in NFPA 5000.

Note that section in NFPA 5000 reads:

45.5.16.1.5 Wood structural panels shall be permitted to test only the front and back faces.[703:4.1.1.6]

The language above (in NFPA 5000) is the language contained in section 4.6.15.6 of NFPA 101and the language presently in 4.6.15.5 of NFPA 101 is not present in NFPA 5000 or in NFPA 703.

Sections 4.1.1.5 and 4.1.1.6 of NFPA 703 read:

4.1.1.5 The flame front shall not progress more than 10.5 ft (3.2 m) beyond the centerline of theburners at any time during the test.

4.1.1.6 Wood structural panels shall be permitted to tested only on the front and back faces.

The language that is contained in the incorrect section of NFPA 101 (and is not contained in eitherNFPA 5000 or NFPA 703) was deleted from NFPA 703 by first revision 4 (NFPA 703-2015) and notreinstated in any second revision. Furthermore, NFPA 703 was a consent standard and, thus, noaction occurred during the June 2017 meeting.

This was changed by the technical committee responsible for NFPA 703 in the First Draft Report viaFR 4 with the following rationale: "This eliminates all differentiation in testing methods betweenproducts impregnated with chemicals during manufacture regardless of the method being used." Nopublic comments, NITMAMs or TIAs were submitted.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6646-NFPA 101-2018



Ballot Results


60 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 70 of 718


20 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Laramee, Scott T.

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid


Cheng, Amy Y.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Frable, David W.

Groner, Norman E.

Hopkins, Mark

Jacoby, David J.

Jelenewicz, Chris

Klein, David P.

Lathrop, James K.

Murga, Ricardo

Pauls, Jake


Reiswig, Rodger

Roberts, Jon G.

Tyree, David P.

Vann, Joshua


61 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 71 of 718


6.1.14.1.1*

Multiple occupancies shall comply with the requirements of 6.1.14.1 and one of the following:

(1) Mixed occupancies — 6.1.14.3

(2) Separated occupancies — 6.1.14.4

A.6.1.14.1.1

Where a building is subdivided for occupancy by multiple tenants, the presence of rated fire barriersbetween occupancies and independent exit access for each occupancy does not mandate the use ofthe separated occupancy provisions of 6.1.14.4 .


Committee: SAF-FUN

Submittal Date: Fri Aug 03 09:43:17 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The proposed Annex A language is in response to a Formal Interpretation request regarding theapplication of mixed and separated occupancy provisions that did not achieve the requiredagreement in accordance with the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards. Theproposed revision provides the needed clarification that the building owner has the option of applyingthe mixed occupancy provisions, even though the occupancies appear to be separated, and thus notbe required to meet the occupancy separation fire barrier rating required by Table 6.1.14.4.1(a) and(b).

ResponseMessage:

FR-6654-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


20 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Laramee, Scott T.

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid



62 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 72 of 718

Cheng, Amy Y.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Frable, David W.

Groner, Norman E.

Hopkins, Mark

Jacoby, David J.

Jelenewicz, Chris

Klein, David P.

Lathrop, James K.

Murga, Ricardo

Pauls, Jake


Reiswig, Rodger

Roberts, Jon G.

Tyree, David P.

Vann, Joshua


63 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 73 of 718


7.2.1.4.5 Door Unlatching and Leaf Operating Forces.

7.2.1.4.5.1

The forces required to fully unlock and unlatch any door leaf manually in a means of egress shall notexceed 15 lbf (67 N) where the door hardware operates by push, pull, or slide, or 28 in.-lbf (3.16 N-m)where the door hardware operates by rotation.

7.2.1.4.5.2

The forces required to fully open any door leaf manually in a means of egress shall not exceed 15 lbf(67 N) to release the latch, 30 lbf (133 N) to set the leaf in motion, and 15 lbf (67 N) to open the leaf to theminimum required width, unless otherwise specified as follows:

(1) The door opening forces for interior side-hinged or pivoted-swinging door leaves without closers shallnot exceed 5 lbf (22 N).

(2) The door opening forces for existing door leaves in existing buildings shall not exceed 50 lbf (222 N)applied to the latch stile.

(3) The door opening forces for horizontal-sliding door leaves in detention and correctional occupanciesshall be as provided in Chapters 22 and 23.

(4) The opening forces for power-operated door leaves shall be as provided in 7.2.1.9.

7.2.1.4.5.3

The forces specified in 7.2.1.4.5 shall be applied to the latch stile.


Committee: SAF-MEA

Submittal Date: Mon Jul 23 11:59:53 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Separating unlocking and unlatching forces from door opening forces. Modifying unlocking andunlatching force requirements to be consistent with latest edition of ANSI A117.1 and consistentwith numerous ANSI/BHMA standards for door hardware operational forces.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6503-NFPA 101-2018

Public Input No. 425-NFPA 101-2018 [Section No. 7.2.1.4.5]

Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark


64 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 74 of 718

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


65 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 75 of 718


7.2.1.5.2

Locks, if provided, and latches shall not require the use of a key, a tool, or special knowledge or effort foroperation from the egress side.


Committee: SAF-MEA

Submittal Date: Wed Jul 25 18:41:09 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The revisions incorporates the changes to 7.2.1.5.3 in PI-428.


Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


66 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 76 of 718


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


67 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 77 of 718

First Revision No. 6574-NFPA 101-2018 [ Section No. 7.2.1.5.5.1 ]

7.2.1.5.6.2*

Exterior door assemblies and interior door assemblies to an individual tenant space or to a single tenantspace shall be permitted to have key-operated locks from the egress side, provided that all of thefollowing criteria are met:


(2) A Doors remain unlocked when the building is occupied and indicated as such by a readily visible,durable sign in letters not less than 1 in. (25 mm) high on a contrasting background that reads asfollows and is located on or adjacent to the door leaf: THIS DOOR TO REMAIN UNLOCKED WHENTHE BUILDING THIS SPACE IS OCCUPIED.




Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The revision incorporates the changes in PI-258 and PI-434.


Public Input No. 258-NFPA 101-2018 [Section No. 7.2.1.5.5.1]


Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.


68 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 78 of 718

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


69 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 79 of 718


7.2.1.6.3 Door Hardware Release of Electrically Locked Egress Door Assemblies.

7.2.1.6.3.1

Door assemblies in the means of egress shall be permitted to be equipped with approved electricallocking systems released by the operation of door hardware provided that all of the following conditionsare met:


(2) The hardware has an obvious method of operation that is readily operated in the direction of egressunder all lighting conditions.


(4) Operation of the hardware directly and immediately interrupts the power supply to the electric lockand unlocks to unlock the door assembly in the direction of egress.

(5)

(6) Hardware for new installations is listed in accordance with ANSI/UL 294, Standard for Access ControlSystem Units.

7.2.1.6.3.2

The provisions of 7.2.1.6.1 for delayed-egress electrical locking systems and the provisions of7.2.1.6.2 for sensor-release of electrical locking systems shall not apply to door assemblies with doorhardware release of electrically locked egress doors.



101_MEA_FR-6588_A.7.2.1.5.6_5_.docx For staff use--FINAL


Committee: SAF-MEA

Submittal Date: Fri Jul 27 10:54:06 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revisions incorporates modified versions of PIs-185, 435, and 439. Re. PI-185, the "unlessprohibited" criterion fire alarm system connection requirement are not warranted for these systems.Re. PI-185 and PI-439, the submitters are encouraged to submit public comments with furtherrefined Annex A text to reflect the revised text. The revision moves the section to a new 7.2.1.6.3under special locking arrangements as proposed in PI-435.

Current A.7.2.1.5.6(5): The revision deletes the first part of the power supplies sentence as itconflicts with Item (4), which requires the operation of releasing door hardware to directly interruptthe power supply to the electric lock.

* Loss of power to the listed releasing hardware automatically electrically unlocks the door assemblyin the direction of egress.

A.7.2.1.6.3.1(5)

Separate power supplies might be provided to the electronic lock and the releasing hardware. Inthis case, it It is critical that the electrical lock be arranged to release upon loss of power to thereleasing hardware to ensure occupants can egress in the event of a power failure.


70 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 80 of 718

ResponseMessage:

FR-6588-NFPA 101-2018


Public Input No. 443-NFPA 101-2018 [Section No. A.7.2.1.5.6(5)]



Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent


71 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 81 of 718

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


72 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 82 of 718


7.2.1.5.7* Stair Enclosure Re-entry.

Every door assembly in a stair enclosure serving more than four stories, unless permitted by7.2.1.5.8.2 7.2.1.5.7.2 , shall meet one of the following conditions:


(2) An automatic release that is actuated with the initiation of the building fire alarm system shall beprovided to unlock all stair enclosure door assemblies to allow re-entry. shall be provided that meetsall of the following:

(a) The automatic release shall unlock all stair enclosure door assemblies to allow re-entry.

(b) The automatic release shall be actuated with the initiation of the building fire alarm system.

(c) Door hardware for new installations shall be listed in accordance with UL 294, Standard forAccess Control System Units .

(3) Selected re-entry shall be provided in accordance with 7.2.1.5.8.1 7.2.1.5.7.1 .

7.2.1.5.7.1

Door assemblies on stair enclosures shall be permitted to be equipped with hardware that prevents re-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 accessanother exit.

(2) There shall be not more than four stories intervening between stories where it is possible to leave thestair enclosure to access another exit.

(3) Re-entry shall be possible on the top story or next-to-top story served by the stair enclosure, andsuch story shall allow access to another exit.


(5) Door assemblies not allowing re-entry shall be provided with a sign on the stair side indicating thelocation of the nearest door opening, in each direction of travel, that allows re-entry or exit.

7.2.1.5.7.2

The requirements of 7.2.1.5.8 7.2.1.5.7 , except as provided in 7.2.1.5.8.3 7.2.1.5.7.3 , shall not apply tothe following:

(1) Existing installations in buildings that are not high-rise buildings as permitted in Chapters 11 through43

(2) Existing installations in high-rise buildings as permitted in Chapters 11 through 43 where theoccupancy is within a building protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinklersystem in accordance with Section 9.7


(4) Stair enclosures serving a building permitted to have a single exit in accordance with Chapters 11through 43



7.2.1.5.7.3

When the provisions of 7.2.1.5.8.2 7.2.1.5.7.2 are used, signage on the stair door leaves shall be requiredas follows; :


(2) Door assemblies not allowing re-entry shall be provided with a sign on the stair side indicating thelocation of the nearest door opening, in each direction of travel, that allows re-entry or exit.


73 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 83 of 718


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

In Item 2, the automatic release initiated by the building fire alarm system is an electrical doorlocking system. This code requires all other electrical door locking systems in the means of egressto be listed in accordance with UL 294. This application of electrical locks should also be listed toUL 294.

The revision also adds a title to 7.2.1.5.8 as proposed in PI-160.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6599-NFPA 101-2018


Public Input No. 447-NFPA 101-2018 [Section No. 7.2.1.5.8 [Excluding any Sub-Sections]]

Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)


74 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 84 of 718

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


75 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 85 of 718


7.2.1.5.8

If a stair enclosure allows access to the roof of the building, the door assembly to the roof either shall bekept locked preventing access to the roof or shall allow re-entry from the roof.


Committee: SAF-MEA

Submittal Date: Fri Jul 27 11:33:24 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The revision clarifies the intent.



Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.


76 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 86 of 718

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


77 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 87 of 718


7.2.1.5.3* Latch-Release Devices.

A latch All locks, latches, and all or other fastening device devices on a door leaf shall be provided with areleasing device that has an obvious method of operation and that is readily operated under all lightingconditions.

A.7.2.1.5.3

Examples of devices that might be arranged to release locks and latches include knobs, levers, andbars. This requirement is permitted to be satisfied by the use of conventional types of hardware,whereby the door is released by turning a lever, knob, or handle or by pushing against a bar, but not byunfamiliar methods of operation, such as a blow to break glass. It is also within the intent of thisrequirement that switches integral to traditional doorknobs, lever handles, or bars, and that interrupt thepower supply to an electromagnetic electrical lock, be permitted, provided that they are affixed to thedoor leaf. The operating devices should be capable of being operated with one hand and should notrequire tight grasping, tight pinching, or twisting of the wrist to operate.

7.2.1.5.3.1

The releasing mechanism for any locks and latch latches shall be located as follows:



7.2.1.5.3.2*

The operation of the releasing mechanism shall open release all latching and all locking devices of thedoor leaf with not more than one releasing operation motion in a single linear or rotational direction ,unless otherwise specified in 7.2.1.5.3.4 7.2.1.5.10.3 , 7.2.1.5.3.5 7.2.1.5.10.4 , or 7.2.1.5.3.7 7.2.1.5.10.6 .

A.7.2.1.5.3.2

An example of a releasing motion in a single linear direction, as described in ANSI/BHMA A156.41,Standard for Door Hardware Single Motion for Egress, is pushing on a panic bar to release thelocking/latching hardware to allow a door to be opened. An example of a releasing motion in a singlerotational direction is turning a lever-operated handle of a door lockset in either a clockwise direction ora counterclockwise direction, but not both directions, to unlock/unlatch the door.

7.2.1.5.3.3

The releasing mechanism for new installations shall be capable of being operated with one hand andshall not require tight grasping, tight pinching, or twisting of the wrist to operate.

Global FR-6537

7.2.1.5.3.4*

Egress door assemblies from individual living units and guest rooms of residential occupancies shall bepermitted to be provided with devices, including automatic latching devices, that require not more thanone additional releasing operationmotion, provided that such device is operable from the inside withoutthe use of a key or tool and is mounted at a height not exceeding 48 in. (1220 mm) above the finishedfloor.

7.2.1.5.3.5

Existing security devices permitted by 7.2.1.5.3.4 7.2.1.5.10.3 shall be permitted to have two additionalreleasing operations motions .

7.2.1.5.3.6

Existing security devices permitted by 7.2.1.5.3.4 7.2.1.5.10.3 , other than automatic latching devices,shall be located not more than 60 in. (1525 mm) above the finished floor.


78 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 88 of 718

Global FR-6537

7.2.1.5.3.7

Two releasing operationsmotions shall be permitted for existing hardware on a door leaf serving an areahaving an occupant load not exceeding three, provided that releasing does not require simultaneousoperations.

7.2.1.5.3.7

Where permitted by Chapters 11 through 43 , two releasing operations shall be permitted for doorssecured against unwanted entry.



101_MEA_FR-6571_A.7.2.1.5.10.docx For staff use


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision incorporates the changes to 7.2.1.5.10 in PIs-161, 428, 462, as revised, by movingthe proposed reference to ANSI/BHMA A.156.41 to Annex A for guidance rather than mandatingcompliance, and 479.

Current A.7.2.1.5.10: The provision adds “locks” to Annex for consistency with proposed textrevisions in PI 428 . Revising “electromagnetic” to “electrical” to not prescriptively suggest devicesother than electromagnetic locks are prohibited.

Moving / deleting last sentence of Annex to 7.2.1.5.10.3 to become mandatory requirementsconsistent with ANSI A117.1, as proposed in PI 428.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6571-NFPA 101-2018




Public Input No. 430-NFPA 101-2018 [Section No. A.7.2.1.5.10]

Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin


79 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 89 of 718

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


80 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 90 of 718


Global FR-6537

7.2.1.5.10*

DevicesOn doors required to release all latching and all locking devices of the door leaf with not morethan one releasing motion in accordance with 7.2.1.5.3.2 , devices shall not be installed in connectionwith any door assembly on which panic hardware or fire exit hardware is required where such devicesprevent or are intended to prevent the free use of the leaf for purposes of egress, unless otherwiseprovided in 7.2.1.6.


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The revision incorporates the changes to 7.2.1.5.12 in PI-428.


Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.


81 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 91 of 718

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


82 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 92 of 718


7.2.1.6.1* Delayed-Egress Electrical Locking Systems.

A.7.2.1.6.1

Delayed-egress electrical locking systems function as the name suggests: these electrical lockingsystems delay egress through the door. However, 7.2.1.6.1 (1) and 7.2.1.6.1 (2) identify situationswhere the delay of these locking systems must be deactivated, facilitating immediate and unobstructedegress. Delayed-egress electrical locking systems are most commonly installed where there areconcerns for internal security, such as theft from a store through required perimeter exits. Delayed-egress electrical locking systems might also be installed where occupants might benefit by beingprotected from their actions.


83 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 93 of 718

7.2.1.6.1.1

Approved, delayed-egress electrical locking systems shall be permitted to be installed on door assembliesserving low- and ordinary-hazard contents in buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervisedautomatic fire detection system in accordance with Section 9.6 or an approved, supervised automaticsprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7, and where permitted in Chapters 11 through 43, providedthat all of the following criteria are met:

(1) The delay of the delayed-egress electrical locking system shall deactivate allowing unobstructedegress upon actuation of one of the following:

(a) Approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7

(b) Not more than one heat detector of an approved, supervised automatic fire detection system inaccordance with Section 9.6

(c) Not more than two smoke detectors of an approved, supervised automatic fire detection systemin accordance with Section 9.6

(2) The delay of the delayed-egress electrical locking system shall deactivate allowing unobstructedegress upon loss of power controlling the lock or locking mechanism.

(3)

(4)

(5) The egress side of doors equipped with delayed-egress electrical locking system systems shall beprovided with emergency lighting in accordance with Section 7.9.

(6) Hardware for new installations shall be listed in accordance with ANSI/ UL 294, Standard for AccessControl System Units.

* An irreversible process shall release the electrical lock in the direction of egress within 15 seconds,or 30 seconds where approved by the authority having jurisdiction, upon application of a force to therelease device required in 7.2.1.5.10 7.2.1.5.3 under all of the following conditions:

(a) The force shall not be required to exceed 15 lbf (67 N).

(b) The force shall not be required to be continuously applied for more than 3 seconds.

(c) The initiation of the release process shall activate an audible signal in the vicinity of the dooropening.

(d) Once the electrical lock has been released by the application of force to the releasing device,rearming the delay electronics shall be by manual means only.

A.7.2.1.6.1.1(3)

It is not the intent to require a direct physical or electrical connection between the door releasedevice and the lock. It is the intent to allow door movement initiated by operating the door releasedevice required in 7.2.1.5.10 7.2.1.5.3 as one the primary option to initiate the irreversibleprocess.

Delayed-egress electrical locking systems commonly employ a mechanical latch and/or lock inaddition to an electrical lock. The use of a mechanical latch/lock in addition to an electrical locksuch as a magnetic lock allows a door to be mechanically locked preventing uncontrolled ingressshould the electrical lock be de-energized as in a power failure.

Several factors need to be considered in approving an increase in delay time from 15 seconds to30 seconds. Some of the factors include occupancy, occupant density, ceiling height, fire hazardspresent, fire protection features provided, and the location of the delayed-egress locks. Anexample of a location where the increase in delay time might not be approved is at an exit stairdischarge door.

* A readily visible, durable sign that conforms to the visual characters requirements of ICC/ANSIA117.1, Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities, shall be located on the door leaf adjacent tothe release device in the direction of egress, and shall read as follows:

(a) PUSH UNTIL ALARM SOUNDS, DOOR CAN BE OPENED IN 15 SECONDS, for doors thatswing in the direction of egress travel

(b) PULL UNTIL ALARM SOUNDS, DOOR CAN BE OPENED IN 15 SECONDS, for doors thatswing against the direction of egress travel


84 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 94 of 718

7.2.1.6.1.2

The provisions of 7.2.1.6.2 for sensor-release of electrical locking systems and 7.2.1.6.3 for doorhardware release of electrically locked egress door assemblies shall not apply to door assemblies withdelayed-egress electrical locking systems.



101_MEA_FR-6544_A.7.2.1.6.1.1_3_.docx For staff use


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision incorporates the changes to 7.2.1.6.1 proposed in PI-437.

A.7.2.1.6.1.1(3): Additional explanatory information of delayed-egress electrical lockingsystems.


Public Input No. 442-NFPA 101-2018 [Section No. A.7.2.1.6.1.1(3)]

Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.


85 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 95 of 718

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


86 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 96 of 718


7.2.1.6.2* Sensor-Release of Electrical Locking Systems.

A.7.2.1.6.2

Doors with a sensor-release electrical locking system are equipped with an electrical locking systemthat is released by a sensor activated by the normal motions of an occupant egressing through thatdoor. The activation of the sensor to cause the electrical lock to release is usually by passive action bythe occupant, such as walking to the door. A manual release device, such as a push-button switch thatdirectly interrupts the power to the electrical lock, is required by item (3) as a backup. With mostsensor-release electrical locking systems, the occupant might not notice the door is electrically lockedin the direction of egress. Doors equipped with these locking systems provide unobstructed, immediateegress.

These provisions were previously titled “Access-Controlled Egress Door Assemblies” as these doorstypically have some type of access control system, such as a key pad, card scanner, or fob scannercontrolling access (ingress) into the building or space. Because access control systems can beinstalled on essentially any door, the previous title resulted in differing interpretations, applications, andenforcement of permitted locking systems, and they were retitled in the 2018 edition of the Code .


87 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 97 of 718

7.2.1.6.2.1

Where permitted in Chapters 11 through 43, door assemblies in the means of egress shall be permitted tobe equipped with sensor-release electrical locking system hardware provided that all of the followingcriteria are met:

(1) A sensor shall be provided on the egress side, arranged to electrically unlock the door leaf in thedirection of egress upon detection of an approaching occupant.

(2) Door leaves shall automatically electrically unlock in the direction of egress upon loss of power to thesensor or to the part of the locking system that electrically locks the door leaves.

(3) Door locks shall be arranged to electrically unlock in the direction of egress from a manual releasedevice complying with all of the following criteria:

(a) The manual release device shall be located on the egress side, 40 in. to 48 in. (1015 mm to1220 mm) vertically above the floor, and within 60 in. (1525 mm) of the secured door openings,except as otherwise permitted by 7.2.1.6.2(3)(c).

(b) The requirement of 7.2.1.6.2(3)(a) to locate the manual release device within 60 in. (1525 mm) ofthe secured door opening shall not apply to previously approved existing installations.

(c) The manual release device shall be readily accessible and clearly identified by a sign that readsas follows: PUSH TO EXIT.

(d) When operated, the manual release device shall result in direct interruption of power to theelectrical lock — independent of the locking system electronics — and the lock shall remainunlocked for not less than 30 seconds.

(4) Activation of the building fire-protective signaling system, if provided, shall automatically electricallyunlock the door leaves in the direction of egress, and the door leaves shall remain electricallyunlocked until the fire-protective signaling system has been manually reset.

(5) The activation of manual fire alarm boxes that activate the building fire-protective signaling systemspecified in 7.2.1.6.2(4) shall not be required to unlock the door leaves.

(6) Activation of the building automatic sprinkler or fire detection system, if provided, shall automaticallyelectrically unlock the door leaves in the direction of egress, and the door leaves shall remainelectrically unlocked until the fire-protective signaling system has been manually reset.

(7) The egress side of sensor-release electrically locked egress doors, other than existing sensor-releaseelectrically locked egress doors, shall be provided with emergency lighting in accordance withSection 7.9.

(8) Hardware for new installations shall be listed in accordance with ANSI/ UL 294, Standard for AccessControl System Units.

7.2.1.6.2.2

The provisions of 7.2.1.6.1 for delayed-egress electrical locking systems and 7.2.1.6.3 for doorhardware release of electrically locked egress door assemblies shall not apply to door assemblies withsensor-release of electrical locking systems.


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The revision incorporates the changes to 7.2.1.67.2 proposed by PI-437.


Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned


88 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 98 of 718

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


89 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 99 of 718


7.2.1.6.4* Elevator Lobby Exit Access Door Assemblies Locking.

A.7.2.1.6.4

The electrical locking provisions of 7.2.1.6.4 for elevator lobby exit access door assemblies aresimilar to, but different from, the electrical locking systems of 7.2.1.6.1 , 7.2.1.6.2 , and 7.2.1.6.3 .

On doors to tenant spaces from the elevator lobby, it is not the intent to prohibit these doors from beingequipped with access control systems, such as card readers controlling access to the tenant spaces,provided that the door leading from the elevator lobby is not in the path to the exit access required by7.4.1.6.1 .

It is acceptable to use a sensor-release electrical locking system from a tenant space into the elevatorlobby with the sensor on the tenant (egress) side of the door to allow free access to the elevator lobby.


90 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 100 of 718

7.2.1.6.4.1

Where permitted in Chapters 11 through 43, door assemblies separating the elevator lobby from the exitaccess required by 7.4.1.6.1 shall be permitted to be electrically locked, provided that all the followingcriteria are met:

(1) The electrical locking hardware is listed in accordance with ANSI/ UL 294, Standard for AccessControl System Units.

(2) The building is protected throughout by a fire alarm system in accordance with Section 9.6.

(3) The building is protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system inaccordance with Section 9.7.

(4) Waterflow in the sprinkler system required by 7.2.1.6.4.17.2.1.6.4(3) is arranged to initiate thebuilding fire alarm system.

(5) The elevator lobby is protected by an approved, supervised smoke detection system in accordancewith Section 9.6.

(6) Detection of smoke by the detection system required by 7.2.1.6.4.17.2.1.6.4(5) is arranged to initiatethe building fire alarm system and notify building occupants.

(7) Initiation of the building fire alarm system by other than manual fire alarm boxes unlocks the electricallocks on the elevator lobby door assembly.

(8) Loss of power to the elevator lobby electrical lock system unlocks the electrical locks on the elevatorlobby door assemblies.

(9) Once unlocked, the elevator lobby door assemblies remain electrically unlocked until the building firealarm system has been manually reset.

(10) Where the elevator lobby door assemblies remain mechanically latched after being electricallyunlocked, latch-releasing hardware in accordance with 7.2.1.5.3 is affixed to the door leaves.

(11) A two-way communication system is provided for communication between the elevator lobby and acentral control point that is constantly staffed.

(12) The central control point staff required by 7.2.1.6.4 is capable, trained, and authorized to provideemergency assistance.

The provisions of 7.2.1.6.1 for delayed-egress electrical locking systems are not applied to theelevator lobby door assemblies.

7.2.1.6.4.2

Elevator lobby exit access doors equipped with electrical locking systems shall not be required tocomply with 7.2.1.6.1 , 7.2.1.6.2 , or 7.2.1.6.3 .


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revisions incorporate the changes proposed by PI-448 and PI-449. Current annex text forA.7.2.1.6.3(14) will be deleted. See proposed new section 7.2.1.6.3.1 and Annex text from PI448.

* The provisions of 7.2.1.6.2 for sensor-release of electrical locking systems are not applied to theelevator lobby door assemblies.

A.7.2.1.6.3(14)

It is not the intent to prohibit elevator lobby doors from being equipped with card accesssystems for gaining access, for example, to tenant spaces. It is the sensor-release of electricallocking systems described in 7.2.1.6.2 that is prohibited from being installed on the same dooras the lock addressed by 7.2.1.6.3 .


91 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 101 of 718

ResponseMessage:

FR-6546-NFPA 101-2018

Public Input No. 451-NFPA 101-2018 [Section No. A.7.2.1.6.3(14)]

Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois


92 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 102 of 718

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


93 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 103 of 718

First Revision No. 6552-NFPA 101-2018 [ New Section after 7.2.1.7.1 ]

7.2.1.7.2

Where panic or fire exit hardware is installed on a balanced door assembly, the panic or fire exithardware shall be of the push-pad type, and the pad shall extend approximately one-half the width ofthe door leaf, measured from the latch stile.


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision clarifies the requirement of the current 7.2.1.13 and relocates it to the panic/fireexit hardware provisions.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6552-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.


94 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 104 of 718

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


Saks, Kenneth

This section should include pivot doors. See FR-6536, which equates them. The main section in 7.2.1.7 shouldthen just include side-hinged doors. I would also clean up the last phrase to more positively indicate that the pushpad can't extend past the mid-point from the latch stile. The current wording is clunky and unclear.


95 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 105 of 718


7.2.1.7.1

Where a side-hinged or door assembly, a pivoted-swinging door assembly, or a balanced door assemblyis required to be equipped with panic or fire exit hardware, such hardware shall meet all of the followingcriteria:

(1) It shall consist of a cross bar or a push pad, with the length of the actuating portion of the cross bar orpush pad extending not less than one-half of the width of the door leaf measured from the latch stile .

(2) It shall be mounted as follows:

(a) New installations shall be not less than 34 in. (865 mm), and not more than 48 in. (1220 mm),above the floor.

(b) Existing installations shall be not less than 30 in. (760 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 (66 N) actuates the cross bar orpush pad and latches.


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision adds balanced doors to the requirements for panic/fire exit hardware and clarifiesthat the push-bar or pad needs to be located on the "latch-half" of the door leaf.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6547-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan


96 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 106 of 718

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


Saks, Kenneth

During next revision, this should be cleaned up to reflect that sub-section 1 only applies to side-hinged doors.


97 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 107 of 718

First Revision No. 6548-NFPA 101-2018 [ Section No. 7.2.1.9.1 [Excluding any Sub-

Sections] ]

Where means of egress door leaves are operated by power upon the approach of a person or power byany automatic mechanism or are provided with power-assisted manual operation, the design shall be suchthat, in the event of power failure, the leaves open manually to allow egress travel or close whennecessary to safeguard the means of egress.


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Currently the Code limits the applicability to doors with power-assisted manual operation or todoors which open upon approach of a person. The intent of the proposed language is to addressconfusion if the requirement applies to doors provided with a “wave to open” feature or doorsprovided a sensor which stops the doors from closing upon sensing an object in the path of the doorswing.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6548-NFPA 101-2018

Public Input No. 254-NFPA 101-2018 [Section No. 7.2.1.9.1 [Excluding any Sub-Sections]]

Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher


98 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 108 of 718

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


99 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 109 of 718


7.2.1.9.1.5

The door assembly shall be designed and installed so that, when a force is applied to the door leaf on theegress side from which egress is made, it shall , the door leaf shall be capable of swinging from anyposition to provide full use of the required width of the opening in which it is installed. (See 7.2.1.4.)


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The phrase “on the side from which egress is made” is used only here in NFPA 101. Morecommonly, “on the egress side” is used in NFPA 101. The use of “on the side from which egress ismade” may be interpreted as something different than “on the egress side,” but that’s not the intent.Also, clarifying what “it” is.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6549-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher


100 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 110 of 718

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


101 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 111 of 718


7.2.1.9.1.7

Sliding, power-operated door assemblies in an exit access serving an occupant load of fewer than 50 thatmanually slide open in the direction of door leaf travel, with forces not exceeding those required in7.2.1.4.5, shall not be required to have the swing-out feature required by 7.2.1.9.1.5. The required signshall be in letters not less than 1 in. (25 mm) high on a contrasting background and shall read as follows:

IN EMERGENCY, SLIDE TO OPEN


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The revision clarifies the requirement.



Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.


102 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 112 of 718

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


103 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 113 of 718


7.2.1.9.2 Self-Closing or Self-Latching Door Leaf Operation.

Where door leaves are required to be self-closing or self-latching and are operated by power upon theapproach of a person by any automatic device , or are provided with power-assisted manual operation,they shall be permitted in the means of egress where they meet the following criteria:

(1) The door Door leaves can be opened manually in accordance with 7.2.1.9.1 to allow egress travel inthe event of power failure.

(2) New door leaves remain in the closed position, unless actuated or opened manually.

(3) When actuated, new door leaves remain open for not more than 30 seconds.

(4) Door leaves held open for any period of time close — and the power-assist mechanism ceases tofunction — upon operation of approved smoke detectors installed in such a way as to detect smokeon either side of the door opening in accordance with the provisions of NFPA 72.

(5) Door leaves required to be self-latching are either self-latching or become self-latching uponoperation of approved smoke detectors per 7.2.1.9.2(4).

(6) New power-assisted swinging door assemblies comply with ANSI/ BHMA/ANSI A156.19, PowerAssist and Low Energy Power Operated Doors.


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Currently the Code limits the applicability to doors with power-assisted manual operation or to doorswhich open upon approach of a person. The intent of the proposed language is to address confusionif the requirement applies to doors provided with a “wave to open” feature or doors provided a sensorwhich stops the doors from closing upon sensing an object in the path of the door swing. The Codelanguage is also located in 7.2.1.9.1 where the handbook states that “Under fire conditions, boxesfalling from shelving, for example, might cause either the approach-actuated powered door or force-actuated power-assist door to open.” The “wave to open” feature or a sensor which stops the doorsfrom closing also appears pose the same hazard of keeping the doors open as the LSC Handbookexample.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6551-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


104 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 114 of 718

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


105 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 115 of 718


7.2.1.13 Balanced Door Assemblies.

If panic hardware is installed on balanced door leaves, the panic hardware shall be of the push-padtype, and the pad shall not extend more than approximately one-half the width of the door leaf,measured from the latch stile. [See 7.2.1.7.1(1) .]


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The language has been clarified and relocated to the panic/fire exit hardware provisions as anew 7.2.1.7.2 via FR-6552.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6553-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.


106 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 116 of 718

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


107 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 117 of 718


7.2.1.13 Special-Purpose Horizontally Sliding Accordion or Folding Door Assemblies.

Special-purpose horizontally sliding accordion or folding door assemblies shall be permitted in means ofegress, provided that all of the following criteria are met:

(1) The door leaf is door is readily operable from either side the egress side without special knowledgeor effort.

(2) The force that, when applied to the operating device in the direction of egress, is required to operatethe door leaf is door is not more than 15 lbf (67 N).

(3) The force required to operate the door leaf in door in the direction of travel is not more than 30 lbf(133 N) to set the leaf door in motion and is not more than 15 lbf (67 N) to close the leaf or door oropen it to the minimum required width.

(4) The door leaf is door is operable using a force of not more than 50 lbf (222 N) when a force of 250 lbf(1100 N) is applied perpendicularly to the leaf adjacent door adjacent to the operating device, unlessthe door opening is an existing special-purpose horizontally sliding accordion or folding exit accessdoor assembly serving an area with an occupant load of fewer than 50.

(5) The door assembly complies with the fire protection rating, if required, and, where rated, is self-closing or automatic-closing by means of smoke detection in accordance with 7.2.1.8 and is installedin accordance with NFPA 80.


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The first revision does two things:

First are editorial changes to delete the word "leaf" or replace the word "leaf" with "door", asappropriate. Referring to the moving part of the door assembly as a leaf is not consistent withindustry terminology.

Secondly is a change to delete "either" and replace it with "egress". While most doors are installedin a double egress location, there are some that are not. Furthermore, the doors are now being usedin security applications and as such, may not be manually operable from one of the two sides. Thisapplication should permitted provided the egress requirements for the "secure" area can be metwithout requiring an occupant to pass through the door.

For example, one might want to secure a lobby area of an office building with a special purposehorizontal sliding, accordion style door to prevent access to other parts of the building byunauthorized personnel. As long as the means of egress requirements can be met for the lobbyarea, the door would not need to be manually operable from the lobby side.

The proposed Item (2) in PI-76 has not been incorporated into the revision. It is unclear how the AHJwould determine acceptability of such an arrangement; whether the building requires a fire alarmsystem to utilize such an arrangement; whether a fire alarm initiation device would be required at thedoor opening. The proposed Item (2) appears to conflict with the current Item (1).

ResponseMessage:

FR-6554-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


108 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 118 of 718


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.

Abstention


109 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 119 of 718

Lathrop, James K.

Due to client interest


110 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 120 of 718


7.2.4.4.5.2

The requirement of 7.2.4.4.5 shall not apply to existing bridges if the bridge has sufficient clear floor area

to accommodate the occupant load of either connected building or fire area based on 3 ft2 (0.28 m2) perperson.


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision clarifies the type of floor area to be considered in response to PI-516. SeeCI-6530 for a proposed definition of the term 'clear floor area'.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6531-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.


111 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 121 of 718

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


112 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 122 of 718


7.2.12.2.4.1

The smokeproof enclosure specified in 7.2.12.2.4(3) shall not be required for areas of refuge that are

more than 1000 ft2 (93 m2) of clear floor area and that are created by a horizontal exit meeting therequirements of 7.2.4.


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-6532-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.


113 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 123 of 718

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


114 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 124 of 718


7.2.12.3.2*

For any area of refuge that does not exceed 1000 ft2 (93 m2) of clear floor area , it shall be demonstratedby calculation or test that tenable conditions are maintained within the area of refuge for a period of15 minutes when the exposing space on the other side of the separation creating the area of refuge issubjected to the maximum expected fire conditions.


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-6533-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.


115 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 125 of 718

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


116 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 126 of 718


7.2.13.2.2

The elevator lobby shall have a capacity of not less than 50 percent of the occupant load of the area

served by the lobby. The capacity of clear floor area shall be calculated based on 3 ft2 (0.28 m2) perperson and shall also include one wheelchair space of 30 in. × 48 in. (760 mm × 1220 mm) for every 50persons, or portion thereof, of the total occupant load served by that lobby.


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-6534-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.


117 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 127 of 718

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


118 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 128 of 718


7.4.2 Spaces About Electrical Equipment.

7.4.2.1 600 1000 Volts, Nominal, or Less.

7.4.2.1.1 Number of Means of Egress.

The minimum number of means of egress for working space about electrical equipment, other thanexisting electrical equipment, shall be in accordance with Section 110.26(C) of NFPA 70.

7.4.2.1.2 Door Unlatching and Direction of Door Swing.

The method of door unlatching and direction of door swing for working space about electrical equipment,other than existing electrical equipment, shall be in accordance with Section 110.26(C)(3) of NFPA 70.

7.4.2.2 Over 600 1000 Volts, Nominal.

7.4.2.2.1 Number of Means of Egress.

The minimum number of means of egress for working space about electrical equipment, other thanexisting electrical equipment, shall be in accordance with Section 110.33(A) of NFPA 70.

7.4.2.2.2 Door Unlatching and Direction of Door Swing.

The method of door unlatching and direction of door swing for working space about electrical equipment,other than existing electrical equipment, shall be in accordance with Section 110.33(A)(3) of NFPA 70.


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Revisions are intended to correlate with changes to NFPA 70.


Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan


119 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 129 of 718

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


120 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 130 of 718


7.5.1.2.1*

Exit access shall be arranged so that there are no dead ends in corridors, unless permitted by, and limitedto the lengths specified in, Chapters 11 through 43.


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Relocate 7.5.1.5 (and A.7.5.1.5) as a new 7.5.1.2.1 (and A.7.5.1.2.1).

The revision is intended for consistency with the order of corridor criteria in most of theoccupancy chapters.




Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.


121 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 131 of 718

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


122 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 132 of 718


7.7.1.2

New exit discharge paths to a public way shall have a width of not less than 36 in. (915 mm) andexisting exit discharge paths to a public way shall have a width of not less than 28 in. (710 mm).


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision incorporates the changes proposed by PI-273 as modified for consistency withother egress width provisions.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6556-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.


123 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 133 of 718

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


124 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 134 of 718


7.7.2* Exit Discharge Through Interior Building Areas.


125 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 135 of 718

Exits shall be permitted to discharge through interior building areas, provided that all of the following aremet:

(1) Not more than 50 percent of the required number of exit stairs serving normally occupied areas ofeach floor, and not more than 50 percent of the exit stair capacity required for normally occupiedareas of each floor, shall discharge through areas on any level of discharge, except as otherwisepermitted by one of the following:

(a) One hundred percent of the exits shall be permitted to discharge through areas on any level ofdischarge in detention and correctional occupancies as otherwise provided in Chapters 22 and23.

(b) In existing buildings, the 50 percent limit on egress capacity shall not apply if the 50 percent limiton the required number of exits is met.

Each level of discharge shall discharge directly outside at the finished ground level or dischargedirectly outside and provide access to the finished ground level by outside stairs or outside ramps.

The interior exit discharge shall lead to a free and unobstructed way to the exterior of the building,and such way shall be readily apparent or shall be identifiable by exit signage from the point ofdischarge from the exit.

(2) 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 systemin accordance with Section 9.7, or the portion of the level of discharge used for interior exitdischarge shall be protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance withSection 9.7 and shall be separated from the nonsprinklered portion of the floor by fire barrierswith a fire resistance rating meeting the requirements for the enclosure of exits. (See 7.1.3.2.1.)

(b) The interior exit discharge area shall be in a vestibule or foyer that meets all of the followingcriteria:

i. The depth from the exterior of the building shall be not more than 10 ft (3050 mm), and thelength shall be not more than 30 ft (9.1 m).

ii. The foyer shall be separated from the remainder of the level of discharge by fire barriers witha minimum 1-hour fire resistance rating, and existing installations of wired glass in steelframes shall be permitted to be continued in use.

iii. The foyer shall serve only as means of egress and shall include an exit directly to theoutside.

(3) Where 7.7.2 (2) is applied, one of the following shall be permitted:

(a) The interior exit discharge shall lead to a free and unobstructed way to the exterior of thebuilding, and such way shall be readily apparent or shall be identifiable by exit signage from thepoint of discharge from the exit.

(b) Up to 75 percent of the exits shall be permitted to discharge through areas on any level ofdischarge provided the interior exit discharge area is located in a vestibule or foyer that meets allof the following criteria:

i. The depth from the exterior of the building shall be not more than 10 ft (3050 mm), and thelength shall be not more than 30 ft (9.1 m).

ii. The foyer shall be separated from the remainder of the level of discharge by fire barrierswith a minimum 1-hour fire resistance rating, and existing installations of wired glass in steelframes shall be permitted to be continued in use.

(4) Each level of discharge shall discharge directly outside at the finished ground level or dischargedirectly outside and provide access to the finished ground level by outside stairs or outside ramps.

(5) The entire area on the level of discharge shall be separated from areas below by construction havinga fire resistance rating not less than that required for the exit enclosure, unless otherwise provided in7.7.2(6).

(6) Levels below the level of discharge in an atrium shall be permitted to be open to the level ofdischarge where such level of discharge is protected in accordance with 8.6.7.


126 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 136 of 718

A.7.7.2

It does not matter where exits that discharge into interior building areas are located provided that thearrangement of means of egress requirements of Section 7.5 , the travel distance requirements ofSection 7.6 , and the requirements of 7.7.2 (1) are met.


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The revision incorporates the changes proposed by PI-367 and PI-368.




Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.



127 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 137 of 718

Larson, Mark


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


Bush, Kenneth E.

I have changed my vote on this issue to Negative. The change to permit up to 75% of the means of egress intoan enclosed vestibule seems to have been done with no specific justification. In addition, the proposed wordingmay lead to confusion as to whether this limit applies to the number of exits, capacity of exits, or both.

Jackson, Waymon

There was no technical justification in the substantiation to allow 75% of interior exit to discharge throughcompliant sprinklered vestibule.

Lathrop, James K.

NO justification has been provided to allow 75% of the exits to discharge inside of the building. This is NOT safe

Abstention

Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

More supportive information should be provided to allow the 75% capacity to exit through the sprinklered andlimited fire resistance vestibules.


128 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 138 of 718


7.10.8.3.2

The NO EXIT sign shall have the word NO in letters 2 in. (51 mm) high, with a stroke width of 3 ⁄8 in.(9.5 mm), and the word EXIT in letters 1 in. (25 mm) high, with the word EXIT below the word NO,unless such sign is an approved existing sign.

For other than previously approved existing NO EXIT signs, the sign shall comply with all of the following:

(1) The word NO shall be in letters not less than 2 in. (51 mm) high, with a stroke width of not less than³⁄ in. (9.5 mm).

(2) The word EXIT shall be in letters not less than 1 in. (25 mm) high.

(3) Larger signs shall retain the same letter-height-to-stroke-width ratio for the word NO and a 2:1 letter-height ratio between the words NO and EXIT.

(4) The word EXIT shall be located below the word NO.


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

A sign with the word NO at a 2" height and EXIT at a 1" height may appear small depending onthe size of the door. The new language stipulates a minimum size for the words, but maintains the2:1 ratio if larger signage is needed.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6512-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.


129 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 139 of 718

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


130 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 140 of 718


7.15.9.2.1

Occupant evacuation elevator lobbies shall have minimum clear floor area, except as otherwise providedin 7.15.9.2.2, as follows:

(1) The elevator lobby clear floor area shall accommodate, at 3 ft2 (0.28 m2) per person, a minimum of25 percent of the occupant load of the floor area served by the lobby.

(2) The elevator lobby clear floor area also shall accommodate one wheelchair space of 30 in. × 48 in.(760 mm × 1220 mm) for each 50 persons, or portion thereof, of the occupant load of the floor areaserved by the lobby.


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-6535-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.


131 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 141 of 718

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


132 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 142 of 718


7.16 Emergency Stair Travel Devices.

Where emergency stair travel devices are provided, they shall comply with ANSI/RESNA ED-1,Emergency Stair Travel Devices Used by Individuals with Disabilities .


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision adds mandatory criteria for emergency stair travel devices, where provided, inresponse to PI-315.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6555-NFPA 101-2018

Public Input No. 315-NFPA 101-2018 [New Section after 7.2.12.2.6]

Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

26 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.


133 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 143 of 718

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John


Frable, David W.

I concur with Messrs. DeVries and Saks. The TC needs to have an opportunity to review the "final" referencedstandard. In addition, this appears to be a retro-active requirement that would impact many installation.

Saks, Kenneth

This should only pertain to new devices. Existing approved devices which don't comply with RESNA ED-1 shouldbe allowed to be maintained.

de Vries, David A.

The referenced standard, ANSI/RESNA ED1, is currently under revision and was not complete and available forreview by the committee. The current edition provides criteria solely for tread-type devices, which may be suitablefor mid- to high-rise buildings, but would far exceed the needs for low, multi-story building evacuation. Theresearch report provided by the proponent establishes criteria for other types of devices that may be suitable forsuch smaller buildings. The proponent should provide NFPA with the updated standard, which will reportedly havecriteria for the other types of devices, once completed, and resubmit the proposed revision. An Annex Notediscussing the suitability of the various devices based on building height and population would then be in order.Furthermore, the text as proposed would appear to be retroactive to existing installations and require replacementof devices that do not comply with the tread-type device criteria.


134 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 144 of 718


8.2.3.1.1

Materials used to construct fire-resistance-rated elements and assemblies shall be limited to thosepermitted in this Code and installed to the manufacturer's installation instructions or listed designs .


Committee: SAF-FIR

Submittal Date: Thu Jul 26 09:46:29 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

There is no description in NFPA 101 about how materials shall be installed to provide hourly fireresistance-ratings. This language provides the appropriate language into the NFPA 101 for thissection. The text approved by the Technical Committee in this first revision addresses anyalternative to the listed design or man installation instructions which may include a material solutionor a listed and tested and system.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6575-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All


Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.


Graupmann, Joseph


135 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 145 of 718

Gump, Jack A.

Hall, William J.


Hopper, Howard

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon

Koffel, William E.


Morris, Jeramie W.

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.



Roeper, Kurt A.

I believe the requirement should only reflect the 'listed design' and not reference 'installation instructions' as theyare not subject to the review and control of a listing. "...and installed to the manufacturer's listed designs"


136 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 146 of 718


8.3.1.3

Walls used as fire barriers shall comply with Chapter 7 the requirements of NFPA 221. The NFPA 221limitation on percentage width of openings shall not apply. applicable to fire barrier walls.


Committee: SAF-FIR


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Text more accurately reflects the reference to NFPA 221. References should point to theapplicable provisions of the document rather than specify a section or Chapter. Should berequirements in the referenced document be relocated within the document, this section would stillapply with the general reference to NFPA 221.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6607-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All


Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.


Graupmann, Joseph

Gump, Jack A.


137 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 147 of 718

Hall, William J.


Hopper, Howard

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon

Koffel, William E.


Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.



138 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 148 of 718



139 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 149 of 718

8.3.3.2.2*


140 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 150 of 718

The minimum fire rating for opening protectives in fire barriers, fire-rated smoke barriers, and fire-ratedsmoke partitions shall be in accordance with Table 8.3.3.2.2, except as otherwise permitted in 8.3.3.2.3 or8.3.3.2.4.

Table 8.3.3.2.2 Minimum Fire Ratings for Opening Protectives in Fire-Resistance-Rated Assemblies andFire-Rated Glazing Markings

Wallsand

Partitions(hr)

Fire DoorAssemblies

(hr)

DoorVisionPanel

MaximumSize

(in.2)

Fire-Rated

GlazingMarking

DoorVisionPanel

Minimum SideLight/Transom Assembly

Rating (hr)

Fire-Rated GlMarking Si

Light/Transom

ComponentFire

p P rotectionFire

r R esistanceFire

p P rotection r R

Elevatorhoistways

2 11⁄2 155 in.2 cD-H-90 or

D-H-W-90

NP 2 NP D-

1 1 155 in.2 cD-H-60 or

D-H-W-60

NP 1 NP D-

1⁄2 1⁄3 85 in.2 d D-20 orD-W-20

1⁄3 1⁄3 D-H-20 D

Elevatorlobby (per7.2.13.4)

1 1 100 in.2 a

≤100 in.2,

D-H-T-60or

D-H-W-60

NP 1 NP D-

>100 in.2,

D-H-W-60

Verticalshafts(includingstairways,exits, andrefusechutes)

2 11⁄2Maximumsize tested

D-H-90 or

D-H-W-90

NP 2 NP D-

1 1Maximumsize tested

D-H-60 or

D-H-W-60

NP 1 NP D-

Replacementpanels inexistingverticalshafts

1⁄2 1⁄3Maximumsize tested

D-20 orD-W-20

1⁄3 1⁄3 D-H-20 D

Horizontalexits


D-H-90 or

D-H-W-90

NP 2 NP D-

Horizontalexits servedby bridgesbetweenbuildings

2 3⁄4Maximumsize

testede

D-H-45 or

D-H-W-45

3⁄4e 3⁄4e D-H-45 D-

Exit access

corridorsf 1 1⁄3Maximumsize tested

D-20 orD-W-20

3⁄4 3⁄4 D-H-45 D-


D-20 orD-W-20

1⁄3 1⁄3 D-H-20 D-


141 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 151 of 718

Wallsand

Partitions(hr)

Fire DoorAssemblies

(hr)

DoorVisionPanel

MaximumSize

(in.2)

Fire-Rated

GlazingMarking

DoorVisionPanel

Minimum SideLight/Transom Assembly

Rating (hr)

Fire-Rated GlMarking Si

Light/Transom

ComponentFire

p P rotectionFire

r R esistanceFire

p P rotection r R

OtherFire firebarriers

3 3 100 in.2 a

≤100 in.2,

D-H-180or

D-H-W-180

NP 3 NP D-

>100 in.2,

D-H-W-180


D-H-90 or

D-H-W-90

NP 2 NP D-

1 3⁄4Maximumsize

testede

D-H-45 or

D-H-W-45

3⁄4e 3⁄4e D-H-45 D-


D-20 orD-W-20

1⁄3 1⁄3 D-H-20 D-

Smoke

barriersf 1 1⁄3Maximumsize tested

D-20 orD-W-20

3⁄4 3⁄4 D-H-45 D-


D-20 orD-W-20

1⁄3 1⁄3 D-H-20 D-H-

Smoke

partitionsf,g 1 1⁄3Maximumsize tested

D-20 orD-W-20

3⁄4 3⁄4 D-H-45 D-H-


D-20 orD-W-20

1⁄3 1⁄3 D-H-20 D-

For SI units, 1 in.2 = 0.00064516 m2.

NP: Not permitted.

aFire-resistance-rated glazing tested to ASTM E119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of BuildingConstruction and Materials, or ANSI/UL 263, Standard for Fire Tests of Building Construction andMaterials, shall be permitted in the maximum size tested (see 8.3.3.6.8).

bFire-rated glazing in exterior windows shall be marked in accordance with Table 8.3.3.6.3.

cSee ASME A17.1/CSA B44, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, for additional information.

dSee ASME A17.3, Safety Code for Existing Elevators and Escalators, for additional information.

eMaximum area of individual exposed lights shall be 1296 in.2 (0.84 m2), with no dimension exceeding54 in. (1.37 m) unless otherwise tested. [80:Table 4.4.5 Note b and 80:4.4.5.1]

fFire doors are not required to have a hose stream test per ANSI/UL 10B, Standard for Fire Tests of DoorAssemblies, or ANSI/UL 10C, Standard for Positive Pressure Fire Tests of Door Assemblies.

gFor residential board and care, see 32.2.3.1 and 33.2.3.1.


Committee: SAF-FIR



142 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 152 of 718

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Even though the title of 8.3.3.2 and the title of Table 8.3.3.2.2 include the adjective “minimum“,some stakeholders are interpreting the fire rating for opening protectives must match the ratingidentified in this table; and that an opening protective with a fire rating exceeding the minimum is notacceptable. Suggest inserting “minimum” here to help communicate it’s perfectly acceptable to installopening protectives with fire ratings of longer duration than required. Text is consistent with the titleand intent of the Table.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6576-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All


Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.


Graupmann, Joseph

Gump, Jack A.

Hall, William J.


Hopper, Howard

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon

Koffel, William E.


Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.


143 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 153 of 718

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.



144 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 154 of 718


8.3.3.2.4

Where a 20-minute fire-protection-rated door is required in existing buildings, an existing 13⁄4 in. (44 mm)solid-bonded wood-core door, an existing steel-clad (tin-clad) wood door, or an existing solid-core steeldoor with positive latch and closer shall be permitted, unless otherwise specified by Chapters 11 through43.

8.3.3.2.5

Existing doors permitted by 8.3.3.2.4 shall have a positive latch and a closer.


Committee: SAF-FIR


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision ensures that the Code is understood to mean that a positive latch and a closer isapplicable to all three types of existing doors listed. Additional revisions were made to the text tocomply with the NFPA Manual of Style.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6577-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All


Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.


145 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 155 of 718


Graupmann, Joseph

Gump, Jack A.

Hall, William J.


Hopper, Howard

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon

Koffel, William E.


Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.



146 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 156 of 718


8.3.3.6.10

The total combined area of fire-protection glazing in fire-rated window assemblies and fire-rated doorassemblies used in fire barriers shall not exceed 25 percent of the area of the fire barrier that is commonwith any room, unless the installation meets one of the following criteria:

(1) The installation is an existing fire window installation of wired glass and other fire-rated glazingmaterials in approved frames.

(2) The fire-protection-rated glazing material is installed in approved existing frames.


Committee: SAF-FIR


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision clarifies the application of section 8.3.3.6.10 for use with fire-protection ratedglazing. The 25% allowance is not intended to apply to fire-resistance rated glazing.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6604-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All


Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.



147 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 157 of 718

Graupmann, Joseph

Gump, Jack A.

Hall, William J.


Hopper, Howard

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon

Koffel, William E.


Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.



148 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 158 of 718


8.3.3.6.11

Existing installations of In other than existing, previously approved installations, wired glass of 1⁄4 in.(6.3 mm) thickness and labeled for fire protection purposes shall be permitted to be used in approvedopening protectives, provided that the maximum size specified by the listing is not exceeded.


Committee: SAF-FIR


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision clarifies the intended application of wired glass. A revision was made to the text inpast editions of the code in attempts to address existing installations of wired glass. There areunintended consequences of the current text that imply that all existing wired glass installations arerequired to be labeled, which they may not be depending on the time of installation.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6608-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All


Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.


Graupmann, Joseph

Gump, Jack A.


149 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 159 of 718

Hall, William J.


Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon

Koffel, William E.


Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.



Hopper, Howard

We understood that this committee input was trying to address problems with verifying that the label on wiredglass in existing installations may be gone, making compliance problematic, including determining the maximumsize specified by the listing. However as worded the comment permits wired glass to be used in other thanexisting installations ( i.e. new installations). During the comment phase this should be addressed, and perhapswording such as the following should be considered: 8.3.3.6.11 Existing installations of wired glass of 1?4 in. (6.3mm) thickness previously approved for fire protection purposes shall be permitted to remain in use.


150 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 160 of 718


8.3.4.6.1

Where piping penetrates a fire-resistance-rated wall or floor assembly, combustible piping shall notconnect to noncombustible piping within 36 in. (915 mm) of the firestop system or device unless it can bedemonstrated that the transition will not reduce the fire resistance rating, except in the case of previouslyapproved installations.


Committee: SAF-FIR


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The current text allowing a transition at 36 inches is not supported by fire testing. Some listings docontain a dimension and those should be permitted in accordance with the listing. There is no needto be further concerned about existing installations greater than 36 inches since the paragraphalready permits previously approved installations.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6578-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All


Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.



151 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 161 of 718

Graupmann, Joseph

Gump, Jack A.

Hall, William J.


Hopper, Howard

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon


Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.



Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Leaving the 36 inches in for previously installed systems may help the field inspector determine if it wasapproved. Without some guidance, every installation less than 36 inches would be scrutinized unless accuraterecords are kept and enforced.

Abstention

Koffel, William E.

In accordance with the policy of the Standards Council, I abstain from voting on this First Revision.


152 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 162 of 718


8.4.3.6

Shutters that protect openings shall be automatic-closing upon operation of approved smoke detectorsinstalled in such a way as to detect smoke on either side of the opening in accordance with the provisionsof NFPA 72.


Committee: SAF-FIR


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Smoke detectors installed to make shutters automatic closing are not required to be installed todetect smoke on either side of the opening. The smoke partition in which the shutter is installedmight be installed to protect smoke travel in only ONE direction. If that is the case, the smokedetector installation requirements in NFPA 72 are different and do not require that smoke is detectedon either side as this paragraph states.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6580-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All


Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.



153 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 163 of 718

Graupmann, Joseph

Gump, Jack A.

Hall, William J.


Hopper, Howard

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon

Koffel, William E.


Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.



154 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 164 of 718


8.6.6 Communicating Space.

Unless prohibited by Chapters 11 through 43, unenclosed floor openings forming a communicating spacebetween floor levels shall be permitted, provided that the following conditions are met:

(1) The communicating space does not connect more than three contiguous stories.

(2) The lowest or next-to-lowest story within the communicating space is a street floor.

(3) The entire floor area of the communicating space shall comply with one of the following:

(a) The area is open and unobstructed, such that a fire in any part of the communicating space willbe readily obvious to the occupants of the space prior to the time it becomes an occupanthazard.

(b) The area is open and provided with automatic smoke detection in accordance with Section 9.6 .

(4) The communicating space is separated from the remainder of the building by fire barriers with notless than a 1-hour fire resistance rating, unless one of the following is met:

(a) In buildings protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance withSection 9.7, a smoke barrier in accordance with Section 8.5 shall be permitted to serve as theseparation required by 8.6.6(4) 8.6.6(4) .

(b) The requirement of 8.6.6(4) 8.6.6(4) shall not apply to fully sprinklered residential housing unitsof detention and correctional occupancies in accordance with 22.3.1(2) and 23.3.1.1(2).

(5) The communicating space has ordinary-hazard contents protected throughout by an approvedautomatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7 or has only low-hazard contents. (See6.2.2.)

(6) Egress capacity is sufficient to allow all the occupants of all levels within the communicating space tosimultaneously egress the communicating space by considering it as a single-floor area indetermining the required egress capacity.

(7)

(8) Each occupant not in the communicating space has access to not less than one exit without having toenter the communicating space.


FileName

Description Approved

8.6.6.docxTerra list is not displaying correctly, attachment shows track changes to (3) in list. For staff use.


Committee: SAF-FIR


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Providing smoke detection throughout the communicating space provides an equivalent level of lifesafety as that of an open area where fire is readily obvious to building occupants. Communicatingspaces often are provided with smoke detection as an alternative measure due to the impracticalityof meeting the existing requirement that a fire can be seen from all locations within thecommunicating space.

* Each occupant within the communicating space has access to not less than one exit without havingto traverse another story within the communicating space.


155 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 165 of 718

ResponseMessage:

FR-6581-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All


Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.


Graupmann, Joseph

Gump, Jack A.

Hall, William J.


Hopper, Howard

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon

Koffel, William E.


Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.



156 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 166 of 718



157 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 167 of 718

8.6.7* Atriums.

Unless prohibited by Chapters 11 through 43, an atrium shall be permitted, provided that all of thefollowing conditions are met:

(1) The atrium is separated from the adjacent spaces by fire barriers with not less than a 1-hour fireresistance rating, with opening protectives for corridor walls, unless one of the following is met:

(a) The requirement of 8.6.7(1) shall not apply to existing, previously approved atriums.

(b) Any number of levels of the building shall be permitted to open directly to the atrium withoutenclosure, based on the results of the engineering analysis required in 8.6.7(5).

(c)

(2) Access to exits is permitted to be within the atrium, and exit discharge in accordance with 7.7.2 ispermitted to be within the atrium.

(3) The occupancy within the atrium meets the specifications for classification as low- or ordinary-hazardcontents. (See 6.2.2.)

(4) The entire building is protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system inaccordance with Section 9.7.

(5)

(6)



* Glass walls and inoperable windows shall be permitted in lieu of the fire barriers where all thefollowing are met:

i. Automatic sprinklers are spaced along both sides of the glass wall and the inoperablewindows at intervals not to exceed 6 ft (1830 mm).

ii. The automatic sprinklers specified in 8.6.7(1)(c)i. are located at a distance from the glasswall not to exceed 12 in. (305 mm) and arranged so that the entire surface of the glass iswet upon operation of the sprinklers.

iii.

iv. The automatic sprinklers required by 8.6.7(1)(c)i. are not required on the atrium side of theglass wall and the inoperable window where there is no walkway or other floor area on theatrium side above the main floor level.

v. Doors in the glass walls are of glass or other material that resists the passage of smoke.

vi. Doors in the glass walls are self-closing or automatic-closing upon detection of smoke.

vii. The glass is continuous vertically, without horizontal mullions, window treatments, or otherobstructions that would interfere with the wetting of the entire glass surface.

* The glass wall is of tempered, wired, or laminated, or ceramic glass held in place by agasket retention system that allows the glass framing system to deflect without breaking(loading) the glass before the sprinklers operate.

A.8.6.7(1)(c)iii.

If the glass is in a location hazardous to human impact, it should comply with 16 CFR1201 or ANSI Z97.1, Safety Glazing Materials Used in Buildings — SafetyPerformance Specifications and Methods of Test . A retention system can includegasketing, framing, or fixed framing.

* For other than existing, previously approved atriums, an engineering analysis is performed thatdemonstrates that the building is designed to keep the smoke layer interface above the highestunprotected opening to adjoining spaces, or 6 ft (1830 mm) above the highest floor level of exitaccess open to the atrium, for a period equal to 1.5 times the calculated egress time or 20 minutes,whichever is greater.

* For other than existing, previously approved smoke control systems, where an engineered smokecontrol system is installed to meet the requirements of 8.6.7(5), the system is independently activatedby each of the following:

(a) Upon initiation of a smoke detector or actuation of the required automatic sprinkler system withinthe atrium or areas open to the atrium

(b) Manual controls that are readily accessible to the fire department


158 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 168 of 718

8.6.7.docx Terra not displaying list correctly, see attached. For staff use


Committee: SAF-FIR

Submittal Date: Wed Aug 01 12:17:06 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

8.6.7(1)(c)(iii): The revised text addresses and resolves the following issues: Ceramic glass isappropriate for these installations and is not included; Although a gasket/framing system is requiredthat will enable the glass to survive deflection without breaking before (and presumably after) thesprinklers begin to operate, there is no test standard specified to provide any certainty that the glassand framing system will perform as required; If the glass and framing system is located in an areaconsidered hazardous to human impact, there is no requirement that it meet either 16 C.F.R. section1201 or ANSI Z97.1 to ensure that safety glazing is being installed in that location.

8.6.7(6) The phrase “initiation of a smoke detector” is added to the activation requirements for asmoke control system. Smoke control shall be activated by either a smoke detector or fire sprinklersystem. Smoke detection, as a means to activate the smoke control system, provides earlieractivation of the system which provides extended egress times. In many atria, the ceiling is highenough that a sprinkler in the atrium will have a very delayed activation, or may never activate, due tocooling of the smoke plume from entrainment of conditioned air. The fire would be significantlydeveloped before the temperature near the ceiling will activate a sprinkler. Beam detectors across theatrium, or spot detectors in areas open to the atrium, provide significantly earlier activation of thesmoke control system vs waiting for sprinkler activation. Adding smoke detection as an activationmethod correlates NFPA 101 section 8.6.7(6) with NFPA 101 section 9.3.4.1, which covers all smokecontrol systems required by other sections.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6597-NFPA 101-2018



Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All


Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.


159 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 169 of 718

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.


Graupmann, Joseph

Gump, Jack A.

Hall, William J.


Hopper, Howard

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon

Koffel, William E.


Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.



Hugo, Jeffrey M.

If correlation to NFPA 101, 9.3.4.1 is desired, then reference the section number or at least duplicate the text:Floor- or zone-dependent smoke control systems shall be automatically activated by sprinkler waterflow or smokedetection systems. Currently, a single smoke detector, not a system could "initiate" the smoke control system. Thistext loses the intent of automatically activating the smoke control system with a full smoke detection system.


160 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 170 of 718


8.7.1.1*

Protection from any area having a degree of hazard greater than that normal to the general occupancy ofthe building or structure shall be provided by one of the following means:

(1) Enclosing Separating the area from other parts of the building with a fire barrier without windowsthat has a having a fire resistance rating of not less than 1 hour fire resistance rating in accordancewith Section 8.3 and without windows

(2) Protecting the area with automatic extinguishing systems in accordance with Section 9.7

(3) Applying both 8.7.1.1(1) and 8.7.1.1(2) where the hazard is severe or where otherwise specified byChapters 11 through 43


Committee: SAF-FIR


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision intends to clarify that a 1-hour fire resistance rated hazardous area is permitted to beprovided with a window in an exterior wall. The text clarifies that the hazardous area should beseparated from portions of the interior of the building (see language in 7.1.3.2 for exit enclosures).This requirement, as written in the current code is more restrictive than an exit as it requires fullenclosure, which could be interpreted to mean providing enclosure even on exterior walls, which wasnot the intent of the provision. Additional revisions were made to the original submittal to clarify theintent and still address the submitter's request.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6585-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All



161 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 171 of 718

Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.


Graupmann, Joseph

Gump, Jack A.

Hall, William J.


Hopper, Howard

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon

Koffel, William E.


Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.



162 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 172 of 718


8.7.1.4

Unless prohibited by Chapters 11 through 43 , doors with existing nonrated, factory- or field-appliedprotective plates extending not more than 48 in. (1220 mm) above the bottom of the door shall bepermitted where they are installed in accordance with the door manufacturer's published listing.


Committee: SAF-FIR


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Doors to hazardous areas are subject to a significant amount of abuse which can threaten theintegrity of the fire rating of the door. Protective plates can provide impact resistance which preventsdegradation of the doors. Although fire rated accessory protective plates exist which are suitable forinstallation on these doors, frequently they are overlooked non-rated plates are installed. They are stillfound in relatively new buildings where the correct product was overlooked when installed. Onceinstalled, these products are permitted to remain in existing health care occupancies under 19.3.2.1.4,however in all other occupancies, they must be removed and/or replaced with the proper ratedproduct. This creates two issues. First removing the protective plates typically leaves holes in thedoor, which NFPA 80 requires to be filled with a like material (steel screws or rated filling product). Thelarge number of screws typically used to install the protective plate create a significant number ofholes to be filled, which in practice is typically done by using the screws that were already used toinstall the non-compliant protective plate. Second, if the non-rated protective plate is not replaced witha suitable rated product after it is removed, it leaves the door unprotected and subject to damage,which can degrade the fire rating of the door. Logically, it does not make sense to allow these toremain in health care, one of the occupancies with the most stringent requirements, where manyoccupants are incapable of self-preservation, but require them to be removed in all other occupancies.

Many times in hospitals, separated health care, business, industrial, and storage occupancies canexist in the same building, be subject to the same wear and tear and abuse by staff, and have to meetless stringent requirements in the health care portions of the building Further to this, the generalphilosophy of the code does not require existing installations to be upgraded unless they pose aserious hazard to occupants in the building, which is further reiterated in 2.1(3).

The existing requirement of 19.3.2.1.4 is also inconsistent with the requirements of NFPA 80, as it failsto take into account that non-labeled protective plates may have been factory installed, may besecured to the door in an incorrect manor (screws vs adhesives), or may be constructed of non-compliant materials. The issue of whether the door is classified as having builders hardware or firedoor hardware is not addressed. The last part of this new section takes into account that the platemust be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's requirements.

This exception should apply to all occupancies, thus should be removed from chapter 19, and addedto chapter 8. The new language allows for individual occupancy chapters to supersede thisrequirement should they deem it a severe hazard. Alternatively the exception could be added to thechapters for existing business, industrial, and storage occupancies (for existing conditions only), asthese are the most applicable occupancies that encounter this issue.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6586-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results



163 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 173 of 718

26 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All


Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.


Graupmann, Joseph

Gump, Jack A.

Hall, William J.


Hopper, Howard

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon

Koffel, William E.


Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.



164 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 174 of 718


8.7.5* Hyperbaric Facilities.

All occupancies containing hyperbaric facilities shall comply with Chapter 14 of NFPA 99, unlessotherwise modified by other provisions of this Code.


Committee: SAF-FIR


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This requirement should make a general pointer to NFPA 99 rather than indicate a specificchapter. Should the provisions in NFPA 99 move, this requirement would still be accurate.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6605-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All


Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.


Graupmann, Joseph

Gump, Jack A.

Hall, William J.



165 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 175 of 718

Hopper, Howard

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon

Koffel, William E.


Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.



166 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 176 of 718


9.1.3.1

Emergency generators and standby power systems shall be installed, inspected, tested, and maintainedin accordance with NFPA 110.


Committee: SAF-BSF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Emergency and standby power systems require inspections to assist reliability and operationalsuccess. Inspections are an integral component of NFPA 110 section 8.4. Inclusion of the"inspection" activity will improve consistency with other sections in this code and with ITM activitiescommon to critical building service utilities.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6538-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Donga, Paul M.

Jardin, Joseph M.

Klinker, Richard L.

White, Kristian

Affirmative All

Balido, Jodi S

Bradley, Harry L.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Brock, Pat D.

Chen, Flora F.

Dempsey, Bryan

Grill, Raymond A.


167 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 177 of 718

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Hutton, Claude O.

Kellett, Michael

Killian, David A.

Larrimer, Peter A.

Lazarz, Daniel J.

Panowitz, Scott E.

Reed, Ray F.

Reiswig, Rodger


Ruchala, Kurt A.

Shudak, Lawrence J.

Szmanda, Michael R.

Warner, Todd W.

Wren, Carl D.

Wyatt, David M.


Dale, Stephen E.

.


168 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 178 of 718


9.1.4 Stored Electrical Energy Systems.

Stored electrical energy systems shall be installed, inspected, tested, and maintained in accordance withNFPA 111.


Committee: SAF-BSF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Emergency and standby power systems require inspections to assist reliability and operationalsuccess. Inspections are an integral component of NFPA 111 section 8.4. Recommend inclusion ofthe "inspection" activity to improve consistency with other sections in this code and with ITMactivities common to critical building service utilities.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6539-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Donga, Paul M.

Jardin, Joseph M.

Klinker, Richard L.

White, Kristian

Affirmative All

Balido, Jodi S

Bradley, Harry L.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Brock, Pat D.

Chen, Flora F.

Dempsey, Bryan

Grill, Raymond A.


169 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 179 of 718

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Hutton, Claude O.

Kellett, Michael

Killian, David A.

Larrimer, Peter A.

Lazarz, Daniel J.

Panowitz, Scott E.

Reed, Ray F.

Reiswig, Rodger


Ruchala, Kurt A.

Shudak, Lawrence J.

Szmanda, Michael R.

Warner, Todd W.

Wren, Carl D.

Wyatt, David M.


Dale, Stephen E.

.


170 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 180 of 718

First Revision No. 6540-NFPA 101-2018 [ New Section after 9.6 ]

9.15* Two-Way Radio Communication Enhancement Systems.

In all new and existing buildings, minimum radio signal strength for fire department communicationsshall be maintained in accordance with the fire code.

A.9.15

Two-way radio communication enhancement systems provide for greater flexibility and safety foremergency responders during in-building operations relating to fire and non-fire emergencies.


Committee: SAF-BSF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision seeks to:

1. Ensure reliable emergency responder communications in new buildings when the authority havingjurisdiction determines the building fails to meet the radio thresholds specified in NFPA 1221.

2. Correlate the requirements for two-way radio communication enhancement systems with section11.10 of NFPA 1 and section 510 of the International Fire Code.

Two-way radio communication enhancement systems are designed to protect life and property byassuring effective public safety radio communications among emergency response personnel duringfire and all other emergencies.

This revision is supported by 1.1.8 and 1.1.8 of the Code. Life safety in buildings includes more thansafety from fire. Although fire safety has been the long-standing focus of NFPA 101, its widely knowntitle, Life Safety Code, and its technical requirements respond to a wider range of concerns,including, for example, crowd safety. Code requirements that contribute to the safe movement ofpeople during fire emergencies might also assist in responding to many other hazards that requiredecisions about where people can be safely located.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6540-NFPA 101-2018

Public Input No. 305-NFPA 101-2018 [New Section after 9.6]

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention


171 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 181 of 718

Not Returned

Donga, Paul M.

Jardin, Joseph M.

Klinker, Richard L.

White, Kristian

Affirmative All

Balido, Jodi S

Bradley, Harry L.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Brock, Pat D.

Chen, Flora F.

Dempsey, Bryan

Grill, Raymond A.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Hutton, Claude O.

Kellett, Michael

Killian, David A.

Larrimer, Peter A.

Lazarz, Daniel J.

Panowitz, Scott E.

Reed, Ray F.

Reiswig, Rodger


Ruchala, Kurt A.

Shudak, Lawrence J.

Szmanda, Michael R.

Warner, Todd W.

Wren, Carl D.

Wyatt, David M.


Dale, Stephen E.

I believe this is a fire code and building code issue and not a 101 issue. While firefighter safety is criticallyimportant, and their safety enhances the life safety of building occupants, that is a line that can stretch on for milesmaking the case that everything related to firefighter safety and operations should be in 101. Should firefighterturnout gear standards be in 101? What about apparatus requirements? I believe this requirement is beyond thescope of 101 and our chapter and citing 101-1.1.8 is a stretch


172 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 182 of 718


9.6.1.3

Fire alarm systems required by this Code shall be installed, tested, and maintained in accordance with theapplicable requirements of NFPA 70 and NFPA 72 unless it is an approved existing installation, whichshall be otherwise permitted to be continued in use by 9.6.1.4 .

9.6.1.4

An approved existing installation shall be permitted to be continued in use and shall comply with9.6.1.5 .


Committee: SAF-BSF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revisions provides clarity for existing installations and editorially corrects an exceptionin section 9.1.6.3.




Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Donga, Paul M.

Jardin, Joseph M.

Klinker, Richard L.

White, Kristian

Affirmative All

Balido, Jodi S

Bradley, Harry L.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Brock, Pat D.

Chen, Flora F.


173 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 183 of 718

Dempsey, Bryan

Grill, Raymond A.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Hutton, Claude O.

Kellett, Michael

Killian, David A.

Larrimer, Peter A.

Lazarz, Daniel J.

Panowitz, Scott E.

Reed, Ray F.

Reiswig, Rodger


Ruchala, Kurt A.

Shudak, Lawrence J.

Szmanda, Michael R.

Warner, Todd W.

Wren, Carl D.

Wyatt, David M.


Dale, Stephen E.

.


174 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 184 of 718


9.6.2.10.3 Smoke Alarms in Sleeping Rooms.

9.6.2.10.3.1

In new construction, where required by Chapters 11 through 43 , the alarm notification signal insleeping rooms resulting from activation of smoke alarms shall be a 520 Hz low-frequency signalcomplying with NFPA 72 . The effective date for compliance with 9.6.2.10.3.1 shall be January 1, 2023.

9.6.2.10.3.2

In existing construction, where required by Chapters 11 through 43 , the alarm notification signal insleeping rooms resulting from activation of smoke alarms shall be a 520 Hz low-frequency signalcomplying with NFPA 72 . The effective date for compliance with 9.6.2.10.3.2 shall be January 1, 2031.


Committee: SAF-BSF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision seeks to enhance the waking effectiveness of high risk segments of the population byproviding a requirement for the 520 Hz low frequency audible fire alarm signal in sleeping rooms foroccupancies where required Chapters 11 through 43. The reason this change is necessary is becauseNFPA 72 stipulates both the 520 Hz and 3 KHz signal in the sleeping rooms of hotels, dormitories andapartment building bedrooms when smoke alarms are installed in the sleeping room. Specifically,Chapter 18 of NFPA 72 requires audible notification appliances (horns, speakers or smoke detectorswith an integral sounder bases) to produce the 520 Hz low frequency signal in all sleeping rooms ofbuildings with a protected premises fire alarm system. Whereas Chapter 29 of NFPA 72 only requiressmoke alarms to produce the 520 Hz low frequency signal for people with hearing loss or providedvoluntarily for those with hearing loss. The different requirements within NFPA 72 present a life safetyissue because peer-reviewed research has concluded the wakening effectiveness of the 520 Hz lowfrequency is superior to 3 KHz audible alarm signal awakening high risk segments of the population.Peer-reviewed research has concluded the 520 Hz low frequency is six times more effective than thestandard 3 KHz signal at waking high risk segments of the population (people over 65, people who arehard of hearing, school age children and people who are alcohol impaired). The standard 3 KHzaudible alarm signal has been used in most fire alarm horns and smoke alarms for the past 30 years.The low frequency signal needs to be provided in areas intended for sleeping to protect people over65, people who are hard of hearing, school age children and people who are alcohol impaired. Therevision does not require the low frequency technology in buildings without a fire alarm systembecause there are no smoke alarms currently available with an integral sounder capable of producingthe low frequency signal. However, it does not prohibit their installation if the product becomesavailable in the future. The reason the revision does require the low frequency signal in sleeping areaswithin hotels and dormitories with a fire alarm system is because there are numerous manufacturers ofsystem connected smoke detectors with an integral sounder that produces the 520 Hz low frequencysignal.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6582-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned


175 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 185 of 718

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Donga, Paul M.

Jardin, Joseph M.

Klinker, Richard L.

White, Kristian

Affirmative All

Balido, Jodi S

Bradley, Harry L.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Brock, Pat D.

Chen, Flora F.

Dempsey, Bryan

Grill, Raymond A.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Hutton, Claude O.

Kellett, Michael

Lazarz, Daniel J.

Panowitz, Scott E.

Reed, Ray F.

Reiswig, Rodger


Ruchala, Kurt A.

Shudak, Lawrence J.

Szmanda, Michael R.

Warner, Todd W.

Wren, Carl D.

Wyatt, David M.


Dale, Stephen E.

I believe this should remain with NFPA 72. While obviously a life safety issue, this is more of a fire alarm issueand belongs with the 72 committee to get their act together. A better way to affect this change if the 101 committeewants this change is to drive it through 72 and not 101. This is analogous to our committee specifying sprinklersystem density requirements for specific occupancies when not happy with the requirements of 13.

Killian, David A.

This requirement falls under the jurisdiction of the Fire Alarm Code (NFPA 72) and should be clearly stated there,not the Life Safety Code. Placing it into the Life Safety Code would create conflict and confusion between the 2Codes.

Larrimer, Peter A.

It seems to me that NFPA 72, 29.5.10.1 already requires those rooms that are required to be accessible for those


176 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 186 of 718

with mild to severe hearing loss as identified in NFPA 72 to be provided with the low frequency alarms and there isno effective date of 2023. Since NFPA 101 references NFPA 72 for the installation of smoke alarms, the lowfrequency alarms are already going to be required in those rooms that are to be accessible by ADA or similar law.However, this change appears to establish a requirement for all smoke alarms provided in any sleeping room tobe designed for those with mild to severe hearing loss as identified in NFPA 72. It doesn’t appear that justificationhas been provided to mandate this in NFPA 101. If this is such a good idea, why not mandate the installation lowfrequency alarms in all sleeping rooms in NFPA 72 so there is no apparent conflict. While enhanced audiblecharacteristics in smoke alarms in every sleeping room of every occupancy might be beneficial, the increase insafety versus the increase in costs, has not been established, especially when one considers that NFPA 101 alsousually requires sprinkler protection to be installed to protect sleeping occupants in the occupancy chapters.


177 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 187 of 718


9.6.3.3

Where required by Chapters 11 through 43 , the audible alarm notification signal provided in sleepingrooms resulting from the activation of the fire alarm system or sleeping room smoke detector shall be a520 Hz low-frequency signal complying with NFPA 72 .


Committee: SAF-BSF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision seeks to enhance the waking effectiveness of high risk segments of the population byproviding a requirement for the 520 Hz low frequency audible fire alarm signal in sleeping rooms foroccupancies where required Chapters 11 through 43. The reason this change is necessary is becauseNFPA 72 stipulates both the 520 Hz and 3 KHz signal in the sleeping rooms of hotels, dormitories andapartment building bedrooms when smoke alarms are installed in the sleeping room. Specifically,Chapter 18 of NFPA 72 requires audible notification appliances (horns, speakers or smoke detectorswith an integral sounder bases) to produce the 520 Hz low frequency signal in all sleeping rooms ofbuildings with a protected premises fire alarm system. Whereas Chapter 29 of NFPA 72 only requiressmoke alarms to produce the 520 Hz low frequency signal for people with hearing loss or providedvoluntarily for those with hearing loss. The different requirements within NFPA 72 present a life safetyissue because peer-reviewed research has concluded the wakening effectiveness of the 520 Hz lowfrequency is superior to 3 KHz audible alarm signal awakening high risk segments of the population.Peer-reviewed research has concluded the 520 Hz low frequency is six times more effective than thestandard 3 KHz signal at waking high risk segments of the population (people over 65, people who arehard of hearing, school age children and people who are alcohol impaired). The standard 3 KHzaudible alarm signal has been used in most fire alarm horns and smoke alarms for the past 30 years.The low frequency signal needs to be provided in areas intended for sleeping to protect people over65, people who are hard of hearing, school age children and people who are alcohol impaired. Therevision does not require the low frequency technology in buildings without a fire alarm systembecause there are no smoke alarms currently available with an integral sounder capable of producingthe low frequency signal. However, it does not prohibit their installation if the product becomesavailable in the future. The reason the revision does require the low frequency signal in sleeping areaswithin hotels and dormitories with a fire alarm system is because there are numerous manufacturers ofsystem connected smoke detectors with an integral sounder that produces the 520 Hz low frequencysignal.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6583-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention


178 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 188 of 718

Not Returned

Donga, Paul M.

Jardin, Joseph M.

Klinker, Richard L.

White, Kristian

Affirmative All

Balido, Jodi S

Bradley, Harry L.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Brock, Pat D.

Chen, Flora F.

Dempsey, Bryan

Grill, Raymond A.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Hutton, Claude O.

Lazarz, Daniel J.

Reed, Ray F.

Reiswig, Rodger


Ruchala, Kurt A.

Shudak, Lawrence J.

Szmanda, Michael R.

Warner, Todd W.

Wren, Carl D.

Wyatt, David M.


Dale, Stephen E.

I believe this should remain with NFPA 72. While obviously a life safety issue, this is more of a fire alarm issueand belongs with the 72 committee to get their act together. A better way to affect this change if the 101 committeewants this change is to drive it through 72 and not 101. This is analogous to our committee specifying sprinklersystem density requirements for specific occupancies when not happy with the requirements of 13.

Kellett, Michael

As worded, this change would be retroactive and mandate alarms in an existing occupancy to be replaced whereaudible alarm notification is required in sleeping rooms. The requirement should be limited to new installations.

Killian, David A.

This requirement falls under the jurisdiction of the Fire Alarm Code (NFPA 72) and should be clearly stated there,not the Life Safety Code. Placing it into the Life Safety Code would create conflict and confusion between the 2Codes.

Larrimer, Peter A.

There is no reason to add this to NFPA 101. A fire alarm system required by NFPA 101 points the user to NFPA72. NFPA 72, 18.4.6.3 already requires low frequency audibles for sleeping areas that are intended to awakenoccupants. Adding this in Chapter 9 and the other companion requirements in the occupancy chapters isdetrimental to the code. For example, for Large Board and Care Occupancies, a new fire alarm system is requiredwith low frequency sounders to wake the residents, but only because NFPA 101 points to NFPA 72 for theinstallation and the requirement is already in Chapter 18 of NFPA 72. Since this new section has the requirementof “where required by Chapter 11 through 43” it implies that low frequency audibles are not required since therequirement for low frequency audibles has not been added in the board and care chapter. This requirement


179 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 189 of 718

should be deleted from Chapter 9. In addition, the new requirements added to all the occupancy chapters shouldbe also be deleted. Low frequency audibles are already a requirement since NFPA 101 requires fire alarm systemto be installed in accordance with the requirements of NFPA 72 and NFPA 72 requires the low frequency alarms inChapter 18.

Panowitz, Scott E.

FR-6583 would be applicable to both new and existing occupancies. While there are numerous manufacturers ofsystem connected smoke detectors with an integral sounder that produces the 520 Hz low frequency signal, themodifications required to an existing fire alarm system to add 520 Hz low frequency signals could be extensive.Many existing fire alarm systems will require additional infrastructure to accommodate the increased current drawof the 520 Hz low frequency signal devices. Existing occupancies should have an effective date sufficient enoughto allow Building Owners to become aware of the requirement and prepare a plan of action on how to meet therequirement.


180 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 190 of 718


9.6.5* Monitor-It-Yourself (MIY) Systems.

The use of a monitor-it-yourself (MIY) system that transmits directly to an emergency forces call centershall not be permitted unless approved by the authority having jurisdiction.

A.9.6.5

The intent is to prevent unwanted alarms from directly reporting to the emergency forces call center.MIY systems are not intended to be an alternative to a supervising station connection.


Committee: SAF-BSF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

With changing technology and the Internet of Things (IoT), it is now possible to have a fire alarmsystem transmit signals directly from the protected premise to a Emergency Forces Call Centerwithout being processed by a Supervising, Proprietary or Remote Station in accordance with NFPA72. These are the modern versions of the former tape dialers. There is nothing within the Code at thepresent time that specifically prohibits their use. These systems have the potential of increasingunwanted alarms. This revision would only allow the use of these systems to be used if the AHJ forthe fire department, fire district or government authority allows their use.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6542-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Donga, Paul M.

Jardin, Joseph M.

Klinker, Richard L.

White, Kristian

Affirmative All

Balido, Jodi S


181 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 191 of 718

Bradley, Harry L.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Brock, Pat D.

Chen, Flora F.

Dempsey, Bryan

Grill, Raymond A.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Hutton, Claude O.

Kellett, Michael

Killian, David A.

Lazarz, Daniel J.

Panowitz, Scott E.

Reed, Ray F.

Reiswig, Rodger


Ruchala, Kurt A.

Shudak, Lawrence J.

Szmanda, Michael R.

Warner, Todd W.

Wren, Carl D.

Wyatt, David M.


Dale, Stephen E.

.


Larrimer, Peter A.

NFPA 101 should not try to restrict specific systems. This (Monitor-It-Yourself {MIY} System) is only one systemand I have no idea what it is, but NFPA 101, 9.6.4 already requires off premises connections to be by one of fourtypes that are recognized in NFPA 72. If this MIY System meets one of those four types, it should be okay,otherwise it already doesn’t meet the code. Chapter 9 should not try to restrict each system that doesn’t meet therequirements of this code.


182 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 192 of 718

First Revision No. 6662-NFPA 101-2018 [ Section No. 9.12 ]

9.12 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Detection and Warning Equipment.

Where required by another section of this Code, carbon monoxide (CO) detection and warning equipmentshall be provided in accordance with NFPA 720 NFPA 72 .


Committee: SAF-BSF


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The requirements are now found in NFPA 72.


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Donga, Paul M.

Jardin, Joseph M.

Klinker, Richard L.

White, Kristian

Affirmative All

Balido, Jodi S

Bradley, Harry L.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Brock, Pat D.

Chen, Flora F.

Dempsey, Bryan

Grill, Raymond A.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Hutton, Claude O.

Kellett, Michael

Killian, David A.


183 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 193 of 718

Larrimer, Peter A.

Lazarz, Daniel J.

Panowitz, Scott E.

Reed, Ray F.

Reiswig, Rodger


Ruchala, Kurt A.

Shudak, Lawrence J.

Szmanda, Michael R.

Warner, Todd W.

Wren, Carl D.

Wyatt, David M.


Dale, Stephen E.

.


184 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 194 of 718


9.14* Risk Analysis for Mass Notification Systems.

9.14.1 Where Required.

9.14.1.1*

Where required by Chapters 11 through 43, a risk analysis for mass notification systems shall be providedin accordance with the requirements of Chapter 24 of NFPA 72 and the provisions of 9.14.2 through9.14.4 .

A.9.14.1.1

A risk analysis will determine whether a mass notification system is required in addition to the lifesafety emergency communication systems required by this Code . The risk analysis might show thatno additional notification is required.

9.14.1.2

Where a mass notification system is required by the risk analysis in 9.14.1.1, the system shall be inaccordance with the requirements of Chapter 24 of NFPA 72.

9.14.2 Purpose.

9.14.2.1

The purpose of the mass notification system shall be to communicate information about emergenciesincluding, but not limited to, fire, human-caused events (accidental and intentional), other dangeroussituations, accidents, and natural disasters.

9.14.2.2

The purpose of the emergency action plan for the mass notification system shall be to identify the massnotification system design and performance requirements in accordance with the results of the riskanalysis.

9.14.3 Documentation.

9.14.3.1

The emergency action plan, risk assessment report, and accompanying documentation shall besubmitted to the authority having jurisdiction by the registered design professional (RDP). The formatand content of the documentation shall be acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.

9.14.3.2*

Where required by the authority having jurisdiction, an independent review of the emergency actionplan, risk assessment, and the accompanying documentation by one or more individuals possessingexpertise in risk characterization for accidental and intentional hazards shall be performed.

A.9.14.3.2

These peer reviews should focus on the assumptions and methods of analysis used and on thefindings. Peer reviewers should submit written assessment reports to the authority having jurisdiction.

9.14.4 Emergency Action Plan.

The completed emergency action plan in accordance with Section 4.8 shall be used for the design ofthe mass notification/emergency communications system.


Committee: SAF-BSF


185 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 195 of 718


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Many of the existing requirements for mass notification systems are already covered in NFPA 72.This revision seeks to clean up the language, making it easier to find the requirements within 72. Atask group worked during the meeting to develop this language and has been assigned to continueworking to develop examples of risk analysis levels for the Second Draft meeting.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6584-NFPA 101-2018

Public Input No. 30-NFPA 101-2018 [Section No. 9.14]

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Donga, Paul M.

Jardin, Joseph M.

Klinker, Richard L.

White, Kristian

Affirmative All

Balido, Jodi S

Bradley, Harry L.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Brock, Pat D.

Chen, Flora F.

Dempsey, Bryan

Grill, Raymond A.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Hutton, Claude O.

Kellett, Michael

Killian, David A.

Larrimer, Peter A.

Lazarz, Daniel J.

Panowitz, Scott E.

Reed, Ray F.

Reiswig, Rodger


Ruchala, Kurt A.


186 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 196 of 718

Shudak, Lawrence J.

Szmanda, Michael R.

Warner, Todd W.

Wren, Carl D.

Wyatt, David M.


Dale, Stephen E.

This is as far as the committee should go on this issue. Anything further would be overstepping the bounds ofrequirements for risk assessments.


187 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 197 of 718


10.2.3.1.2*

Materials tested in accordance with 10.2.3.1.1 and complying with 10.2.3.2 shall also be considered alsoto comply with the requirements of a Class A, Class B, or Class C in accordance with 10.2.3.3.

A.10.2.3.1.2

The converse is not true. Class A materials do not automatically meet the requirements of NFPA 286 .


Committee: SAF-INT


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

If a material complies with the requirements of a Class A it will automatically comply with therequirements of a Class B or of a Class C material. This is explained elsewhere in the code, in10.2.3.3.3. The annex was developed as a reminder that materials that comply with Class A do notnecessarily meet the requirements of 268.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6506-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Carrigan, Matthew

Affirmative All

Babrauskas, Vytenis


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Evans, Michael W.

Fitch, William E.


Lathrop, James K.


188 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 198 of 718

Paszczuk, Henry




Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.


Newman, Kathleen A.

Class B and C ratings have different requirements than Class A ratings. This will eliminate any potential Class Bor C rated materials from being used in a Class B or C rated requirement. Sec. 10.2.3.3 and 10.2.3.3.3 makes itvery clear that a higher rated material can be used.


189 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 199 of 718


10.2.4.1 Thickness Exemption.

The provisions of 10.2.1.1 shall not apply to materials having a total thickness of less than 1⁄28 in. (0.9 mm)that are applied directly to the surface of walls and ceilings where both all of the following conditions aremet:

(1) The wall or ceiling surface is a noncombustible or limited combustible material.

(2) The materials applied meet meets the requirements of Class A interior wall or ceiling finish whentested in accordance with 10.2.3 10.2.3.3 , using fiber cement board as the substrate material.

(3)

10.2.4.1.1

If a material having a total thickness of less than 1⁄28 in. (0.9 mm) is applied to a surface that is notnoncombustible or not limited-combustible, the provisions of 10.2.3 shall apply.

10.2.4.1.2

Approved existing installations of materials applied directly to the surface of walls and ceilings in a totalthickness of less than 1⁄28 in. (0.9 mm) shall be permitted to remain in use, and the provisions of 10.2.3shall not apply.


Committee: SAF-INT


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This clarifies that the thickness exemption applies to materials permitted to be classified inaccordance with ASTM E84, without added requirements (such as sprinklers), as is the case fortextile wall or ceiling coverings (per sections 10.2.4.4 and 10.2.4.6) and for expanded vinyl wall orceiling coverings (per sections 10.2.4.5 and 10.2.4.7). An annex section is proposed to be added forclarification.

The change from 10.2.3 to 10.2.3.3 in item 2 is to add the correct section.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6507-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


* The material applied is not one of the following:

(a) A textile wall or ceiling covering

(b) An expanded vinyl wall or ceiling covering

A.10.2.4.1(3)

Textile wall or ceiling coverings and expanded vinyl wall or ceiling coverings are not permitted tobe installed based on testing to ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for Surface BurningCharacteristics of Building Materials, unless the room or area is protected by an automaticsprinkler system. Requirements for these are found in 10.2.4.4 through 10.2.4.7 .


190 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 200 of 718

15 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

12 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Carrigan, Matthew

Affirmative All

Babrauskas, Vytenis


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Evans, Michael W.

Fitch, William E.

Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry




Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.



After ASTM E84 there probably should be a reference also to UL 723.

Newman, Kathleen A.

ok


191 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 201 of 718


10.2.4.3.1

Cellular or foamed plastic materials shall not be used as interior wall and ceiling finish unless specificallypermitted by 10.2.4.3.2or through 10.2.4.3.4.


Committee: SAF-INT


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Section 10.2.4.3.3 should be included. Editorial change.



Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Carrigan, Matthew

Affirmative All

Babrauskas, Vytenis


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Evans, Michael W.

Fitch, William E.


Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry




Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.


192 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 202 of 718


Newman, Kathleen A.

ok


193 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 203 of 718


10.2.4.3.3.1

One of the following fire tests shall be used for assessing the combustibility of cellular or foamed plasticmaterials as interior finish:

(1) NFPA 286, Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Contribution of Wall and Ceiling InteriorFinish to Room Fire Growth , with the acceptance criteria of 10.2.3.2

(2) ANSI/ UL 1715, Standard for Fire Test of Interior Finish Material( [ including smoke measurements,

with total smoke release not to exceed 10,764 ft 2 ( 1000 m2)]

(3) ANSI/ UL 1040, Standard for Fire Test of Insulated Wall Construction

(4) ANSI/FM Approval 4880, American National Standard for Class 1 Rating Evaluating the FirePerformance of Insulated Wall or Wall and Roof/Ceiling Panels, Building Panel Assemblies andInterior Finish Materials or Coatings, and Exterior Wall Systems


Committee: SAF-INT


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Update to referenced document titles.



Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Carrigan, Matthew

Affirmative All

Babrauskas, Vytenis


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Evans, Michael W.

Fitch, William E.



194 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 204 of 718

Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry




Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.


Newman, Kathleen A.

ok


195 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 205 of 718

First Revision No. 6523-NFPA 101-2018 [ New Section after 10.2.4.3.3.2 ]

10.2.4.3.3.3

Cellular or foamed plastic materials tested in accordance with UL 1040, Standard for Fire Test ofInsulated Wall Construction , or ANSI/FM 4880, American National Standard for Evaluating the FirePerformance of Insulated Building Panel Assemblies and Interior Finish Materials , shall also be testedfor smoke release using NFPA 286 with the acceptance criteria of 10.2.3.2 .


Committee: SAF-INT


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

UL 1040 and FM 4880 do not have smoke measurements. This change brings consistencywith NFPA 5000.



Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Carrigan, Matthew

Affirmative All

Babrauskas, Vytenis


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Evans, Michael W.

Fitch, William E.


Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry





196 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 206 of 718

Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.


Newman, Kathleen A.

ok


197 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 207 of 718

First Revision No. 6524-NFPA 101-2018 [ Section No. 10.2.4.4 [Excluding any Sub-

Sections] ]

Where used as interior wall finish materials, textile materials shall be tested in the manner intended foruse, using the product mounting system, including adhesive, and shall comply with the requirements ofeither, 10.2.3.1, 10.2.4.4.1, or 10.2.4.4.3.


Committee: SAF-INT


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Editorial clarification.



Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Carrigan, Matthew

Affirmative All

Babrauskas, Vytenis


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Evans, Michael W.

Fitch, William E.


Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry




Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.


198 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 208 of 718


Newman, Kathleen A.

ok


199 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 209 of 718


10.2.4.10.1

For new installations, site-fabricated stretch systems containing all three components described in thedefinition in Chapter 3 shall be tested in the manner intended for use and shall comply with therequirements of 10.2.3.1 or with the requirements of Class A in accordance with 10.2.3.3.


Committee: SAF-INT


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This is clarification because the interpretation is unclear. These systems were always intended tomeet Class A in ASTM E84. This was made clear by the manufacturers when they approachedASTM E5 to create Practice ASTM E2573. Section 10.2.3.3 should be referenced as it addressesthe proper test. The mounting method is addressed in the following paragraph.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6510-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Carrigan, Matthew

Affirmative All

Babrauskas, Vytenis


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Evans, Michael W.

Fitch, William E.


Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry




200 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 210 of 718


Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.


Newman, Kathleen A.

This will eliminate any potential Class B or C rated materials from being used in a Class B or C rated requirement.10.2.3.3 lists all classes, which should continue to be used.


201 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 211 of 718


10.2.4.10.2

If the materials are tested in accordance with ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for Surface BurningCharacteristics of Building Materials, or ANSI/ UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface BurningCharacteristics of Building Materials, specimen preparation and mounting shall be in accordance withASTM E2573, Standard Practice for Specimen Preparation and Mounting of Site-Fabricated StretchSystems to Assess Surface Burning Characteristics.


Committee: SAF-INT


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Removing ANSI from UL standards. Editorial change.


Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Carrigan, Matthew

Affirmative All

Babrauskas, Vytenis


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Evans, Michael W.

Fitch, William E.


Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry




Siegel, Shelley


202 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 212 of 718

Sloan, Dwayne E.


Newman, Kathleen A.

ok


203 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 213 of 718


10.2.4.11.2

If the materials are tested in accordance with ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for Surface BurningCharacteristics of Building Materials, or ANSI/ UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface BurningCharacteristics of Building Materials , specimen preparation and mounting shall be in accordance withASTM E2599, Standard Practice for Specimen Preparation and Mounting of Reflective Insulation, RadiantBarrier, and Vinyl Stretch Ceiling Materials for Building Applications to Assess Surface BurningCharacteristics.


Committee: SAF-INT


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Removing ANSI from UL standards. Editorial correction.


Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Carrigan, Matthew

Affirmative All

Babrauskas, Vytenis


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Evans, Michael W.

Fitch, William E.


Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry





204 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 214 of 718

Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.


Newman, Kathleen A.

ok


205 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 215 of 718


10.2.4.15* Light-Transmitting Plastics.

10.2.4.15.1

Light-transmitting plastics used as interior wall and ceiling finish shall be permitted based on large-scalefire tests per 10.2.4.3.3.1, which substantiate the combustibility characteristics of the plastics for the useintended under actual fire conditions.

10.2.4.15.2

The tests shall be performed on a light-transmitting plastic assembly related to the actual end-useconfiguration and on the maximum thickness intended for use.


Committee: SAF-INT


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Carification and consistency with NFPA 5000.



Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Carrigan, Matthew

Affirmative All

Babrauskas, Vytenis


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Evans, Michael W.

Fitch, William E.


Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry



206 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 216 of 718



Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.


Newman, Kathleen A.

ok


207 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 217 of 718


10.2.6.3

Fire-retardant coatings or factory-applied fire-retardant-coated assemblies products shall possess thedesired degree of permanency and shall be maintained so as to retain the effectiveness of the treatmentunder the service conditions encountered in actual use.


Committee: SAF-INT


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: This creates consistency between 10.2.6.2 and 10.2.6.3.



Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Carrigan, Matthew

Affirmative All

Babrauskas, Vytenis


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Evans, Michael W.

Fitch, William E.


Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry




Siegel, Shelley


208 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 218 of 718

Sloan, Dwayne E.


Newman, Kathleen A.

ok


209 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 219 of 718


10.3.3* Rate of Heat Release and Mass Loss Testing of Upholstered Furniture and Mattresses.

10.3.3.1

Where required by the applicable provisions of this Code, upholstered furniture and other seatingfurniture, unless the furniture is located in a building protected throughout by an approved automaticsprinkler system, shall have limited rates of heat release when tested in accordance with ASTM E1537,Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Upholstered Furniture, as follows:

(1) The peak rate of heat release for the single furniture item shall not exceed 80 kW.

(2) The total heat released by the single furniture item during the first 10 minutes of the test shall notexceed 25 MJ.

10.3.3.2*

Where required by the applicable provisions of this Code, mattresses shall comply with 10.3.3.2.1 or10.3.3.2.2, unless the mattress is located in a building protected throughout by an approved automaticsprinkler system.

10.3.3.2.1

The mattress shall have limited rates of heat release when tested in accordance with ASTM E1590,Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Mattresses, as follows:

(1) The peak rate of heat release for the mattress shall not exceed 100 kW.

(2) The total heat released by the mattress during the first 10 minutes of the test shall not exceed 25 MJ.

10.3.3.2.2

The mattress shall have a mass loss not exceeding 15 percent when tested in accordance with the firetest in Appendix A3 of ASTM F1085, Standard Specification for Mattress and Box Springs for Use inBerths and in Marine Vessels.

10.3.3.3

When tests are conducted in accordance with 10.3.3 , the formation of flaming droplets during the testshall be reported.


Committee: SAF-INT


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The formation of flaming droplets is an important consideration when testing the open flameperformance of upholstered furniture and mattresses.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6511-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All


210 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 220 of 718



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Carrigan, Matthew

Affirmative All

Babrauskas, Vytenis


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Evans, Michael W.

Fitch, William E.


Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry




Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.


Newman, Kathleen A.

ok


211 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 221 of 718


10.3.7 Lockers.

Lockers shall be considered interior finish and shall comply with the requirements of 10.2.4.8 .

10.3.7.1 Combustible Lockers.

Where lockers constructed of combustible materials other than wood are used, the lockers shall beconsidered interior finish and shall comply with Section 10.2 , except as permitted by 10.3.7.2 .

10.3.7.2 Wood Lockers.

Lockers constructed entirely of wood and of noncombustible materials shall be permitted to be used inany location where interior finish materials are required to meet a Class C classification in accordancewith 10.2.3 .



101_INT_FR-6513_10.3.7.docx legislative changes--for staff use. Final


Committee: SAF-INT


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This is a duplicate of 10.2.4.8. The reason this is proposed to be revised is in case it is beingargued that they are not interior finish.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6513-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Carrigan, Matthew

Affirmative All

Babrauskas, Vytenis


Dawe, Nicholas A.


212 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 222 of 718

Evans, Michael W.

Fitch, William E.


Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry




Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.


Newman, Kathleen A.

ok


213 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 223 of 718


10.3.9 Combustible Artificial Decorative Vegetation.

10.3.9.1 Flammability.

Combustible artificial decorative vegetation shall meet one of the following:

(1) The flame propagation performance criteria of Test Method 1 or Test Method 2, as appropriate, ofNFPA 701

(2) A maximum heat release rate of 100 kW when tested to NFPA 289 , using the 20 kW ignitionsource

10.3.9.2 Electrical Equipment.

10.3.9.2.1

Electrical wiring and listed luminaires used on combustible artificial decorative vegetation shall be listedfor that application.

10.3.9.2.2

The use of electrical wiring and of luminaires constructed entirely of metal shall not be permitted oncombustible artificial decorative vegetation.

10.3.9.3 Open Flames.

Candles and open flames shall not be used on or near combustible artificial decorative vegetation.


Committee: SAF-INT


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

NFPA 101 does not contain any information on combustible artificial decorative vegetation and suchinformation is important. NFPA 1 contains similar requirements for candles and open flames and forelectrical lights and wiring, but they cover both natural and artificial vegetation. Most NFPA 101occupancies are not allowed to have natural cut trees but artificial combustible vegetation is allowedeverywhere. The requirements proposed are based on those for other decorations.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6514-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Carrigan, Matthew


214 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 224 of 718

Affirmative All

Babrauskas, Vytenis


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Evans, Michael W.

Fitch, William E.


Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry




Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.


Newman, Kathleen A.

ok


215 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 225 of 718


10.4 Outdoor Furniture.

10.4.1* General.

Outdoor furniture placed under a combustible exterior projection shall comply with Section 10.4 .

A.10.4.1

Benches are an example of outdoor furniture.

10.4.2 Distance from Buildings.

Furniture placed outdoors placed within 2 ft (61 mm) of any building shall be located in an areaprotected by an approved automatic sprinkler system or shall be labeled as having complied with anyone of 10.4.3 through 10.4.6 .

10.4.3 Traditional Materials.

The furniture shall be constructed entirely of wood identified for outdoor use or noncombustiblematerials complying with 4.6.13 , or both.

10.4.4 Plastic Composites.

The furniture shall be constructed of plastic composite materials intended for outdoor use that meet therequirements of a Class C material in accordance with Section 10.2 , except that the smoke developedindex shall not be limited.

10.4.5 Heat Release.

The furniture shall be constructed entirely of materials intended for outdoor use that exhibit a peak rate

of heat release not exceeding 300 kW/m 2 when tested in accordance with ASTM E1354 at an incident

heat flux of 50 kW/m 2 in the horizontal orientation.

10.4.6 Full-Scale Testing.

The furniture shall be constructed entirely of materials intended for outdoor use and the entire item offurniture shall exhibit a maximum rate of heat release not exceeding 100 kW when tested in accordancewith NFPA 289 , using the 20 kW ignition source.


Committee: SAF-INT


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

It has been found that when plastic benches are attached to buildings and placed underneathcombustible overhead projections, they can result in severe fires that can destroy the overhang andthen continue to destroy the building itself. ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms andExplosives) conducted tests on several plastic lumber benches simulating an actual incident. In theincident, a plastic lumber bench attached to a brick wall, from the outside, at a school and under acombustible overhang, was ignited with a small ignition source (child’s coat) and the entire schoolwas destroyed soon after ignition. Tests conducted by GBH International showed that a SouthernYellow Pine (standard park bench lumber) would have performed much better and that even someplastic lumber materials could have done much better. The maximum heat release rate of plasticlumber bench ignited in this type of scenario is very high and can be above 4 MW, while the woodbench did not ignite the overhang. An attached set of pictures and information shows key results.

It is interesting that NFPA 101 does not regulate benches, or other furniture, when placed outdoors, inspite of a clear fire safety concern. It has been explained that the practice of placing park benches


216 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 226 of 718

under an overhang is a common feature in areas where rain is frequent, for protection.

NFPA 13, in section 8.15.7, requires sprinkler protection of combustible projections. However, itexplains that furniture for occupant use should not require sprinkler protection. NFPA 13 also requiresprotection for storage but furniture placed outdoors for use is not storage. This public input proposesthat furniture can be placed outdoors without added requirements if the area is sprinklered.

If the area is not sprinklered, this public input puts fire test requirements on outdoor furniture. Thispublic input would allow benches, or other outdoor furniture, constructed of wood or of non-combustible materials without further requirements (section 10.4.3, on traditional materials).

If the benches are constructed of other materials (typically plastics or plastic composites) areproposed to be placed near buildings, the public input requires that they need to comply with one ofthe following: (a) the same fire safety requirements that wood materials comply with (i.e. a Class Cflame spread index, without smoke developed index requirements, because this is outdoors)(10.4.4)or (b) the same heat release results from ASTM E1354 (cone calorimeter) that materials used forcontainers for waste or linen are required to meet in section 10.3.8 (10.4.5) or (c) the entire item offurniture needs to meet the same heat release results as decorative furnishings or other decorativeproducts used indoors (10.4.6).

The distance of 2 feet from the building was chosen because that is a typical distance to placefurniture underneath a combustible projection to obtain protection.

This revision was based on a public input submitted on behalf of a Task Group in ExteriorCombustible in NFPA 101, created by the chair of the NFPA 101 technical committee on interiorfinish, contents and furnishings. The task group consisted of: Marcelo Hirschler (chair), DouglasEvans, Ali Fattah, William Fitch, Milosh Puchovsky and Shelley Siegel, with Tracy Vecchiarelli as staffliaison).

ResponseMessage:

FR-6515-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Carrigan, Matthew

Affirmative All

Babrauskas, Vytenis


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Evans, Michael W.

Fitch, William E.


Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry


217 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 227 of 718




Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.


Newman, Kathleen A.

ok


218 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 228 of 718


10.5 Combustible Artificial Decorative Vegetation on Roofs and Near Buildings.

10.5.1* General.

Combustible artificial decorative vegetation placed outdoors, within 5 ft (61 mm) of a building, on a roofof a building, or under an overhang shall comply with Section 10.5 .

A.10.5.1

The distance is measured from the closest portion of the vegetation to any portion of the building.

10.5.2 Flammability.

Combustible artificial decorative vegetation shall be labeled as having complied with one of thefollowing:

(1) The vegetation item shall meet the flame propagation performance criteria of Test Method 1 orTest Method 2, as appropriate, of NFPA 701 .

(2) The vegetation item shall be tested in accordance with NFPA 289 , using the 20 kW ignitionsource, and shall have a maximum heat release rate of 100 kW.

10.5.3 Open Flames.

Candles and open flames shall be prohibited on artificial vegetation.

10.5.4 Electrical.

Electrical wiring and lighting used on artificial vegetation shall be listed for the application.

10.5.5 Metallic Vegetation.

No electrical wiring or lighting shall be permitted on artificial decorative vegetation constructed entirely ofmetal.


Committee: SAF-INT


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Multiple examples exist of fires that have occurred on building roofs and in the vicinity of buildings.The requirements recommended in this public input are consistent with requirements contained inNFPA 1 for combustible vegetation indoors and which are also recommended (by PI 132) for NFPA101 indoors.

The distance from the building recommended is very short so this will not affect decorativevegetation far away from buildings.

This revision is based on public input submitted on behalf of a Task Group in Exterior Combustiblein NFPA 101, created by the chair of the NFPA 101 technical committee on interior finish, contentsand furnishings. The task group consisted of: Marcelo Hirschler (chair), Douglas Evans, Ali Fattah,William Fitch, Milosh Puchovsky and Shelley Siegel, with Tracy Vecchiarelli as staff liaison).

ResponseMessage:

FR-6517-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


219 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 229 of 718


15 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Carrigan, Matthew

Affirmative All

Babrauskas, Vytenis


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Evans, Michael W.

Fitch, William E.


Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry




Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.


Newman, Kathleen A.

ok


220 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 230 of 718


11.7.3.1.2 Multiple-Story Structures.

Multiple-story structures shall comply with the following:

(1) The story at the finished ground level shall comply with 11.7.3.1.1.

(2) Other stories shall be provided with emergency access openings in accordance with 11.7.3.2 and allof the following:

(a)

(b) The openings are spaced not more than 30 ft (9.1 m) apart.

(c) For other than approved existing installations, the distance between each end of the applicablebuilding exterior walls and an emergency access opening does not exceed 15 ft (4.6 m) or thedistance from an access opening on one wall, and the nearest access opening on an adjacentwall does not exceed 30 ft (9.1 m).


Committee: SAF-IND


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The requirement for emergency access panels on two side of the building is vague for buildingsother than simple rectangular shaped buildings. For example, a building that is in the shape of theletter "F" has many interpretations as to what constitutes two sides. Many of these interpretationsrequire very few emergency access openings, possibly creating difficulty for the fire department.Even for a rectangular building there are issues with only requiring openings on two sides rather thana perimeter requirement. As the requirement stands today, a very long rectangular building could onlyhave openings on the two short sides but still not be considered limited access. By requiringemergency access openings on 50% of the perimeter of the building sufficient openings will beensured.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6700-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All


* The openings are provided on a minimum of two sides of the building story and are distributedon at least 50 percent of the perimeter of the story .

A.11.7.3.1.2(2)(a)

The intent of the 50 percent requirement is to ensure a design where the emergency accessopenings are located remotely from one another on each story and provide access to agreater percentage of the building. This provision addresses those buildings that areirregularly shaped as well as rectangular in design.


221 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 231 of 718


0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


222 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 232 of 718


11.7.4.2

Exits from underground structures with an occupant load of more than 100 persons in the undergroundportions of the structure and having a floor used for human occupancy located more than 30 ft (9.1 m)below the lowest level with an exit discharge, or having more than one level located below the lowestlevel with an exit discharge, shall be provided with outside smoke-venting facilities or other means toprevent the exits from becoming charged with smoke from any fire in the areas served by the exits underany of the following conditions:

(1) Occupant load of more than 100 persons in the underground portions of the structure

(2) More than one level located below the lowest level with an exit discharge


Committee: SAF-IND


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision removes the redundancy of having a floor located more than 30 ft below the lowestlevel with an exit discharge as that is now a part of the definition of an underground structure perSection 3.3.282.12. Section was also reformatted to remove confusion created by the use of "and"and "or" in the condition statement for the requirement.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6706-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.


223 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 233 of 718

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


224 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 234 of 718


11.7.4.3

The underground portions of an underground structure, other than an existing underground structure, shallbe provided with approved automatic smoke venting in accordance with Section 9.3 where theunderground structure has the following features:

(1) Occupant load of more than 100 persons in the underground portions of the structure

(2) Floor level used for human occupancy located more than 30 ft (9.1 m) below the lowest level with anexit discharge, or more More than one level located below the lowest level with an exit discharge

(3) Combustible contents, combustible interior finish, or combustible construction


Committee: SAF-IND


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision removes the redundancy of having a floor located more than 30 ft below the lowestlevel with an exit discharge as that is now a part of the definition of an underground structure perSection 3.3.282.12.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6796-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.


225 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 235 of 718

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


226 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 236 of 718


11.7.4.4

Exit stair enclosures in underground structures having a floor level used for human occupancy locatedmore than 30 ft (9.1 m) below the lowest level with an exit discharge, or having more than one levellocated below the lowest level with an exit discharge, shall be provided with signage in accordance with7.2.2.5.4 at each floor level landing traversed in traveling to the exit discharge. The signs shall include achevron-shaped indicator to show direction to the exit discharge.


Committee: SAF-IND


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision removes the redundancy of having a floor located more than 30 ft below the lowestlevel with an exit discharge as that is now a part of the definition of an underground structure perSection 3.3.282.12. Therefore, all stair enclosures in underground structures will require signage

ResponseMessage:

FR-6708-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.


227 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 237 of 718

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


228 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 238 of 718


11.8.1.1

The provisions of Section 11.8 shall apply to the following:

(1) New high-rise buildings, as defined in 3.3.37.7

(2) Existing high-rise buildings as specifically required by Chapters 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 26, 29, 31, 33,37, 39, 40, 42, or 43


Committee: SAF-FUN


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The committee is recommending the occupancy chapters provide a user-friendly pointer toChapter 11 for occupancies located in special structures. The revision is needed to clarify thatSection 11.8 applies only where an existing occupancy chapter specifically references it.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6652-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


20 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

18 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Laramee, Scott T.

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid


Cheng, Amy Y.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Frable, David W.

Groner, Norman E.

Jacoby, David J.

Jelenewicz, Chris

Klein, David P.


229 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 239 of 718

Lathrop, James K.

Murga, Ricardo

Pauls, Jake


Reiswig, Rodger

Roberts, Jon G.

Tyree, David P.

Vann, Joshua


Hopkins, Mark

The change creates an inconsistency (correlating issue) in the document and does not change the meaning ofthe requirement. The requirements of the other chapters still apply whether or not the word "specifically" is in thetext.


230 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 240 of 718


11.8.4.2.2*

The requirement of 11.8.4.2.1 shall not apply where the fire department radio system is approved as anequivalent system.

A.11.8.4.2.2

First responders depend on the use of portable radios during incidents for operational and safetypurposes. Equivalent coverage occurs when the public safety two-way communications system utilizedby the agency provides coverage throughout the building's general areas and critical areas asidentified by NFPA 1221 , with or without a two-way radio enhancement system.


Committee: SAF-FUN


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision provides clarification on what is considered equivalent radio system coveragefor the AHJ.



Ballot Results


20 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Laramee, Scott T.

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid


Cheng, Amy Y.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Frable, David W.

Groner, Norman E.


231 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 241 of 718

Hopkins, Mark

Jacoby, David J.

Jelenewicz, Chris

Klein, David P.

Lathrop, James K.

Murga, Ricardo

Pauls, Jake


Reiswig, Rodger

Roberts, Jon G.

Tyree, David P.

Vann, Joshua


232 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 242 of 718


11.8.5.4

Fuel lines supplying a generator set inside a high-rise building shall be separated from areas of thebuilding other than the room in which the generator is located by one of the following methods:

(1) A fire resistant pipe-protection system that meets all of the following:

(a) Tested in accordance with UL 1489, Standard for Fire Tests of Fire Resistant PipeProtection Systems Carrying Combustible Liquids

(b) Installed as tested and in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions

(c) Has a rating of not less than 2 hours or not less than 1 hour where the building is protectedwith an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7

(2) An assembly that has a fire resistance rating of not less than 2 hours or not less than 1 hourwhere the building is protected with an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system inaccordance with Section 9.7


Committee: SAF-FUN


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision is intended to provide a higher level of protection for fuel lines supplying a generator setinside a high-rise building. NFPA 110 does not prescribe a minimum level of protection for the fuellines. However, in high-rise buildings, the occupants and emergency responders are more dependenton the operation of the building systems. The standby power system is required to operate for a least1 hour and, in some instances, the emergency power system is required to operate for at least 90minutes. Item 3 in the related public input was not accepted as other approved means is alreadycovered by 1.4.3.

UL 1489, "Fire Resistant Pipe Protection Systems Carrying Combustible Liquids," is one fo the threecompliance options proposed. The standard addresses the fire-resistive performance of fuel linesprotected for an hourly rating and compliments ASTM E119. UL 1489 uses the same test equipmentand time-temperature fire exposure as ASTM E119 however the sample testing configurationspecifically addresses pipe protection systems. The conditions of acceptance follow the intent ofASTM E119 and require:

1. Resistance to the fire and hose stream exposure without developing openings in the pipe, and

2. Preventing a temperature increase exceeding 325F at any single point or 250F at any crosssection along the pipe.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6648-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


20 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

18 Affirmative All


233 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 243 of 718



1 Abstention

Not Returned

Laramee, Scott T.

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid


Cheng, Amy Y.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Frable, David W.

Groner, Norman E.

Hopkins, Mark

Jacoby, David J.

Jelenewicz, Chris

Klein, David P.

Murga, Ricardo

Pauls, Jake


Reiswig, Rodger

Roberts, Jon G.

Tyree, David P.

Vann, Joshua

Abstention

Lathrop, James K.

Due to client interest


234 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 244 of 718


12.2.5.1 General.

Means of egress shall be arranged in accordance with Section 7.5.

12.2.5.2 Common Path of Travel.

A common path of travel shall be permitted for the first 20 ft (6100 mm) from any point where the commonpath serves any number of occupants, and for the first 75 ft (23 m) from any point where the common pathserves not more than 50 occupants.

12.2.5.3 Dead-End Corridors.

Dead-end corridors shall not exceed 20 ft (6100 mm).


Committee: SAF-AXM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The FR only renumbers the arrangement of means of egress requirements in response todirection from the correlating committee and recommendation by the TC on Means of Egress viaits resolution of PI-157. Renumber successive paragraphs accordingly.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6665-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.


235 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 245 of 718

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Little, Julie A.

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Washburn, Janet A.


236 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 246 of 718


12.2.5.7.1*

The required clear width of aisle accessways between rows of seating shall be determined as follows:

(1) Horizontal measurements shall be made, between vertical planes, from the back of one seat to thefront of the most forward projection of the seat immediately behind it.

(2) Where the entire row consists of automatic- or self-rising seats that comply with ASTM F851,Standard Test Method for Self-Rising Seat Mechanisms, the measurement shall be permitted to bemade with the seats in the up position.


Committee: SAF-AXM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision responds to PI-347 and revises the suggested language by deleting "of the seat" in12.2.5.5.1 such that the measurement applies whether the aisle accessway is located in front ofor behind the row of seats.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6687-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Gandy, Max L.


237 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 247 of 718

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Little, Julie A.

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Washburn, Janet A.


238 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 248 of 718


12.3.5.1

The following assembly occupancies shall be protected throughout by an approved, supervised automaticsprinkler system in accordance with 9.7.1.1(1):

(1) Dance halls

(2) Discotheques

(3) Nightclubs

(4) Bars

(5) Restaurants

(6) Assembly occupancies with festival seating


Committee: SAF-AXM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

NFPA 101 Chapter 12 thresholds for automatic sprinkler protection in assembly occupancies isinconsistent with the IFC and the IBC. Both the IBC/IFC require sprinkler protection of A-2occupancies, which include restaurants and bars. While there is no mandate or intent for correlationwith IBC/IFC, the reality is that 101 is adopted in most jurisdictions with the IBC and/or IFC. Whenthe IFC/IBC and 101 do not come close to matching on such an important issue, it creates conflictsand it is a poor reflections on model codes as design professionals, contractors and owners thenquestion the credibility of the both codes.

In addition, the current language in 101 is highly problematic for AHJ's to enforce. We sprinklernightclubs, but now not bars, and never restaurants. The transition line from a bar, to a nightclub, to arestaurant is highly questionable. Even applying the current language to a "Station Nightclub" typeenvironment, I could see an owner fighting the AHJ saying we are not a true "nightclub." "Nightclub"implies a dancing disco type environment that could potentially not include "Station Nightclub" typeenvironment.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6697-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


239 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 249 of 718

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Little, Julie A.

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Washburn, Janet A.


240 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 250 of 718


12.3.5.5

High-rise buildings shall comply with 12.4.5 .

12.3.5.6

Where required by 12.1.6 , buildings containing assembly occupancies shall be protected by anapproved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7 throughout thestories specified by Table 12.1.6 .


Committee: SAF-AXM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision responds to direction from the correlating committee to provide user-friendly pointersto the high-rise and construction sprinkler requirements in the XX.3.5 subsections of theoccupancy chapters. No technical change is intended.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6667-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.


241 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 251 of 718

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Little, Julie A.

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Washburn, Janet A.


242 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 252 of 718


12.4.1 Special Structures.

Assembly occupancies shall comply with Chapter 11 where located in special structures.


Committee: SAF-AXM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision responds to direction by the correlating committee and guidance by the TC onFundamentals to provide a user-friendly reference to Chapter 11 in the X.4.1 subsection of theoccupancy chapters for special structures. It is noted that the current 12.4.1 and successiveparagraphs are to be renumbered accordingly.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6675-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan


243 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 253 of 718

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Little, Julie A.

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Washburn, Janet A.


244 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 254 of 718


12.4.7.11.4

In theaters, motion picture theaters, and television stage settings, with or without horizontal projections,and in simulated caves and caverns of foamed plastic assembly occupancies , any single fuel packageshall have a heat release rate not to exceed 100 kW where tested in accordance with one of the following:

(1) ANSI/UL 1975, Standard for Fire Tests for Foamed Plastics Used for Decorative Purposes

(2) NFPA 289 using the 20 kW ignition source


Committee: SAF-AXM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This provision should not be limited to theater and television hall exposures for obvious reasons.The FR revises the PI language by making the requirement applicable to stages and platforms inany assembly occupancy.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6689-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Gandy, Max L.


245 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 255 of 718

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Little, Julie A.

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Washburn, Janet A.


246 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 256 of 718


12.4.9.5* Alarm Initiation.

Actuation of any smoke detection system device shall sound an alarm at a constantly attended location onthe premises.

A.12.4.9.5

Special amusement attractions might contain an operator console or “tower,” which might also serveas a constantly attended location when the ride is operating.


Committee: SAF-AXM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision identifies an arrangement sometimes found in special amusement buildings.Additional suggested language in PI-396 goes beyond explaining the requirement of 12.4.8.5.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6705-NFPA 101-2018

Public Input No. 396-NFPA 101-2018 [New Section after A.12.4.8.2]

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.


247 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 257 of 718

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Little, Julie A.

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Washburn, Janet A.


248 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 258 of 718


12.4.9.6* Illumination.

Actuation of the automatic sprinkler system, or any other suppression system, or actuation of a smokedetection system having an approved verification or cross-zoning operation capability shall provide forboth of the following:

(1) Increase in illumination in the means of egress to that required by Section 7.8

(2) Termination of any conflicting or confusing sounds and visuals

A.12.4.9.6

Lighting levels within special amusement buildings are typically reduced to levels that are lower thanthose required by Section 7.8 for show purposes. In addition, projections, special effects, haze, andother theatrical elements might be combined, which can disorient occupants who are unfamiliar withthe egress route. The activation of the automatic sprinkler system or smoke detection system mustimmediately increase illumination to the required levels and stop all show elements that wouldcontinue to disorient or confuse occupants.

Because of the delay in verification or cross-zoning of smoke detectors, positive alarm sequenceshould not be utilized when alarm-verification or cross-zoned smoke detectors is selected.


Committee: SAF-AXM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision provides up-to-date information on the environment common to today's specialamusement buildings.

Due to the use of alarm verification or smoke detector cross zoning, the use of positive alarmsequence should not normally be allowed as this may create a further delay in evacuation time.Currently a conflict exists between 12.3.4.3.1 which allows positive alarm sequence in assemblyoccupancies and 12.4.8.6 which requires alarm verification or cross-zoning. The proposed additionallows the authority having jurisdiction to asses and approve the use of positive alarm sequence.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6704-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention


249 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 259 of 718

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Little, Julie A.

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Washburn, Janet A.


250 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 260 of 718


13.2.5.1 General.



A common path of travel shall be permitted for the first 20 ft (6100 mm) from any point where the commonpath serves any number of occupants, and for the first 75 ft (23 m) from any point where the common pathserves not more than 50 occupants.


Dead-end corridors shall not exceed 20 ft (6100 mm).


Committee: SAF-AXM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The FR only renumbers the arrangement of means of egress requirements in response todirection from the correlating committee and recommendation by the TC on Means of Egress viaits resolution of PI-157. Renumber successive paragraphs accordingly.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6666-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.


251 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 261 of 718

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Little, Julie A.

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Washburn, Janet A.


252 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 262 of 718


13.2.5.7.1*

The required clear width of aisle accesses between rows of seating shall be determined as follows:

(1) Horizontal measurements shall be made between vertical planes, from the back of one seat to thefront of the most forward projection of the seat immediately behind it.

(2) Where the entire row consists of automatic- or self-rising seats that comply with ASTM F851,Standard Test Method for Self-Rising Seat Mechanisms, the measurement shall be permitted to bemade with the seats in the up position.


Committee: SAF-AXM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision is intended for consistency with a parallel revision to 12.2.5.5.1 (seeFR-6687).


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.


253 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 263 of 718

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Little, Julie A.

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Washburn, Janet A.


254 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 264 of 718


13.3.5.5

High-rise buildings shall comply with 13.4.5 .

13.3.5.6

Where required by 13.1.6 , buildings containing assembly occupancies shall be protected by anapproved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7 throughout thestories specified by Table 13.1.6 .


Committee: SAF-AXM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision responds to direction from the correlating committee to provide user-friendly pointersto the high-rise and construction sprinkler requirements in the XX.3.5 subsections of theoccupancy chapters. No technical change is intended.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6668-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.


255 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 265 of 718

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Little, Julie A.

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Washburn, Janet A.


256 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 266 of 718



Assembly occupancies shall comply with Chapter 11 where located in special structures.


Committee: SAF-AXM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-6676-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan


257 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 267 of 718

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Little, Julie A.

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Washburn, Janet A.


258 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 268 of 718


13.4.7.11.4

In theaters, motion picture theaters, and television stage settings, with or without horizontal projections,and in simulated caves and caverns of foamed plastic assembly occupancies , any single fuel packageshall have a heat release rate not to exceed 100 kW where tested in accordance with one of the following:

(1) ANSI/UL 1975, Standard for Fire Tests for Foamed Plastics Used for Decorative Purposes

(2) NFPA 289 using the 20 kW ignition source


Committee: SAF-AXM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision is intended for consistency with a parallel revision to 12.4.6.11.4 (seeFR-6689).


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.


259 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 269 of 718

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Little, Julie A.

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Washburn, Janet A.


260 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 270 of 718


13.4.9.5* Alarm Initiation.

Actuation of any smoke detection system device shall sound an alarm at a constantly attended location onthe premises.

A.13.4.9.5

Special amusement attractions might contain an operator console or “tower,” which might also serveas a constantly attended location when the ride is operating.


Committee: SAF-AXM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision identifies an arrangement sometimes found in special amusement buildings.Additional suggested language in PI-387 goes beyond explaining the requirement of 13.4.8.5.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6711-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.


261 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 271 of 718

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Little, Julie A.

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Washburn, Janet A.


262 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 272 of 718


13.4.9.6* Illumination.

Actuation of the automatic sprinkler system, or any other suppression system, or actuation of a smokedetection system having an approved verification or cross-zoning operation capability shall provide forboth of the following:

(1) Increase in illumination in the means of egress to that required by Section 7.8

(2) Termination of any conflicting or confusing sounds and visuals

A.13.4.9.6

Lighting levels within special amusement buildings are typically reduced to levels that are lower thanthose required by Section 7.8 for show purposes. In addition, projections, special effects, haze, andother theatrical elements might be combined, which can disorient occupants who are unfamiliar withthe egress route. The activation of the automatic sprinkler system or smoke detection system mustimmediately increase illumination to the required levels and stop all show elements that wouldcontinue to disorient or confuse occupants.

Because of the delay in verification or cross-zoning of smoke detectors, positive alarm sequenceshould not be utilized when alarm-verification or cross-zoned smoke detectors is selected.


Committee: SAF-AXM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision provides up-to-date information on the environment common to today's specialamusement buildings.

Due to the use of alarm verification or smoke detector cross zoning, the use of positive alarmsequence should not normally be allowed as this may create a further delay in evacuation time.Currently a conflict exists between 13.3.4.3.1 which allows positive alarm sequence in assemblyoccupancies and 13.4.8.6 which requires alarm verification or cross-zoning. The proposed additionallows the authority having jurisdiction to asses and approve the use of positive alarm sequence.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6712-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention


263 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 273 of 718

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Little, Julie A.

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Washburn, Janet A.


264 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 274 of 718


14.1.2.2

Educational occupancies shall include preschools, kindergartens, and other schools meeting both of thefollowing criteria:

(1) The purpose is primarily educational, even though the children who attend such schools are ofpreschool age.

(2) The children are all 24 30 months of age or older.


Committee: SAF-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

NFPA 101 (2018) A.3.3.252 states “For the 2018 edition of the Code, the minimum age at which theCode classifies children as capable of self-preservation was increased from 24 months to 30months.” Paragraphs 14.1.2.2(2), 15.1.2.2(2), 16.1.2.1, and 17.1.2.1 allow children consideredincapable of self-preservation (i.e., 24 months or older but less than 30 months) in EducationalOccupancies. Chapters 14 and 15 (Educational Occupancies) do not afford the same protection tostudents incapable of self-preservation as Chapters 16 and 17 (Day Care Occupancies). Forexample, adequate adult staff is not required to be on duty to address the care, maintenance, andsupervision required for students incapable of self-preservation.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6858-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


265 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 275 of 718


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.


Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.




Abstention

Blaser, Scott J.

I have not seen enough data to make me educated enough to make a decision on the subject of age and theirability to preform tasks.


266 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 276 of 718


Global FR-6537

14.2.2.2.4* Locking of Classroom DoorsLocking to Prevent Unwanted Entryand Doors to otherInstructional Spaces.

Classroom doors and doors to other instructional spaces shall be permitted to be locked to preventunwanted entry provided that the locking means is approved and all of the following conditions are met:

(1) The locking means shall be capable of being engaged from the egress side of the door withoutopening the door.

(2) The unlocking and unlatching from the classroomegress side of the door canshall be accomplishedwithout the use of a key, tool, or special knowledge or effort.

(3) The releasing mechanism shall open the door leaf with not more than one releasingoperationmotion.

(4) The releasing mechanism for unlocking and unlatching shall be located at a height not less than34 in. (865 mm) and not exceeding 48 in. (1220 mm) above the finished floor.

(5) Locks, if remotely engaged, shall be unlockable from the classroomegress side of the door withoutthe use of a key, tool, or special knowledge or effort.

(6) The door shall be capable of being unlocked and opened from outside the room with the necessarykey or other credential.

(7) The locking means shall not modify the door closer, panic hardware, or fire exit hardware or impairtheir operation.

(8) Modifications to fire door assemblies, including door hardware, shall be in accordance withNFPA 80.

(9) The emergency action plan, required by 14.7.1, shall address the use of the locking and unlockingmeans from within and outside the roomboth sides of the door.

(10) Staff shall be drilled in the engagement and release of the locking means, from within and outsidethe roomboth sides of the door, as part of the emergency egress drills required by 14.7.2.


Committee: SAF-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The language puts forth requirements to safely lock doors for security purposes and can be used byAHJs, school systems, facility owners and managers. Barricade and other third party devices aregetting into schools and daycare facilities and are being used to lock doors and lead to unintendedconsequences and violate a fundamental concept of NFPA 101 requiring free egress.

The changes proposed in this First Revision represent a combination of concepts proposed in themultiple public inputs that were received on this subject as well as additional feedback from the fullTechnical Committee. A task group was established to thoroughly review the changes in the 13public inputs related to door locking for educational occupancies. The result was a proposed revisionincorporating the appropriate components of the various submittals. The First Revision clarifies someof the identified concerns of the Committee as follows:

-Title/charging sentence: Updated to reflect the intended application of the section. Preventing‘unwanted entry’ is the purpose of any door lock. The revised text clarifies where this package ofdoor locking criteria should be used.

-(1), change clarifies that doors have to have the capability of being locked from the egress side,


267 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 277 of 718

specifically, without opening the door.

-(2), change clarifies that unlocking and unlatching has to be accomplished from the egress side ofthe door. Occupants cannot be trapped inside of an area with a locked door and unable to egress.

-(5), same concept as (1) and (2).

-(7), the fundamental concept of this list item is that devices cannot interfere with the critical doorcomponents including the closer or panic hardware. Barricade-type devices not only modify them butimpair their operation. In addition, there are devices that do not necessarily modify components, butdo impair their operation. The text should have the effect of not permitting any non-compliant anddangerous devices.

-(9) and (10), change clarifies that staff shall be made aware of the locking/latching arrangementfrom both sides of the door and that this is also reflected in the required emergency action plan.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6863-NFPA 101-2018


Public Input No. 218-NFPA 101-2018 [New Section after 14.2.2.2.3.3]






Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.


268 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 278 of 718

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.

Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael





Roeper, Kurt A.




Subpara (3) can be read to mean that opening the door cannot require turning a knob (1 motion) and pushing thedoor open (2nd motion). I, and I am sure, many AHJ's will interpret that to mean that panic hardware is requiredon classroom doors.


269 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 279 of 718

First Revision No. 6887-NFPA 101-2018 [ Sections 14.2.5.1, 14.2.5.2, 14.2.5.3 ]

14.2.5.1


14.2.5.2

Limitations on common path of travel shall be in accordance with 14.2.5.3.1 14.2.5.2.1 and 14.2.5.3.214.2.5.2.2.

14.2.5.2.1

Common path of travel shall not exceed 100 ft (30 m) in a building protected throughout by an approved,supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7.

14.2.5.2.2

Common path of travel shall not exceed 75 ft (23 m) in a building not protected throughout by anapproved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7.

14.2.5.3

No dead-end corridor shall exceed 20 ft (6100 mm), other than in buildings protected throughout by anapproved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7, in which case dead-endcorridors shall not exceed 50 ft (15 m).


Committee: SAF-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This reorganization of the XX.2.5 subsection of the occupancy chapters is in response to theCorrelating Committee directive from minutes item 7(a)(i).

ResponseMessage:

FR-6887-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.


270 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 280 of 718

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.


Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.





271 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 281 of 718


14.3.4.4.2

Where carbon monoxide detectors are installed in accordance with 14.3.4.4.1(1), the alarm signal shall beautomatically transmitted to an approved on-site location or to an off-premises location in accordance withNFPA 720 NFPA 72 .


Committee: SAF-END

Submittal Date: Thu Sep 06 10:12:18 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: NFPA 720 has been incorporated into NFPA 72.


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.



272 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 282 of 718

Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.





273 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 283 of 718


14.4.1

Educational occupancies shall comply with Chapter 11 where located in a special structure.


Committee: SAF-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This new section provides a user-friendly pointer to Chapter 11 to remind users to apply thatchapter when the occupancy is located in a special structure. Revision does not introduce anynew technical requirements.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6916-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.



274 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 284 of 718

Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.





275 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 285 of 718


15.1.2.2

Educational occupancies shall include preschools, kindergartens, and other schools meeting both of thefollowing criteria:

(1) The purpose is primarily educational, even though the children who attend such schools are ofpreschool age.

(2) The children are all 24 30 months of age or older.


Committee: SAF-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-6875-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


276 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 286 of 718


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.


Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.




Abstention

Blaser, Scott J.



277 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 287 of 718


15.2.2.2.4* Classroom Door Locking to Prevent Unwanted Entry Locking of Classroom Doors and OtherInstructional Spaces .

Detail FR-6867

15.2.2.2.4.1

Classroom doors and doors to other instructional spaces shall be permitted to be locked to preventunwanted entry provided that the locking means is approved and all of the following conditions are met:


(2) The unlocking and unlatching from the classroom egress side of the door can shall be accomplishedwithout the use of a key, tool, or special knowledge or effort.

(3) Two non-simultaneous releasing operations shall be permitted where approved by the authorityhaving jurisdiction.


(5) Locks, if remotely engaged, shall be unlockable from the classroom egress side of the door withoutthe use of a key, tool, or special knowledge or effort.


(7) The locking means shall not modify the door closer, panic hardware, or fire exit hardware or impairtheir operation .

(8) Modifications to fire door assemblies, including door hardware, shall be in accordance with NFPA 80.

(9) The emergency action plan, required by 15.7.1, shall address the use of the locking and unlockingmeans from within and outside the room both sides of the door .

(10) Staff shall be drilled in the engagement and release of the locking means, from within and outside theroom both sides of the door , as part of the emergency egress drills required by 15.7.2.

Detail FR-6936

15.2.2.2.4.2

Where existing classroom doors and doors to instructional spaces are replaced, they shall comply withthe provisions of 14.2.2.2.4 .


Committee: SAF-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


The changes proposed in this First Revision represent a combination of concepts proposed in themultiple public inputs that were received on this subject. A task group was established to thoroughlyreview the changes in the 13 public inputs related to door locking for educational occupancies. Theresult was a proposed revision incorporating the appropriate components of the various submittals.The First Revision clarifies some of the identified concerns of the Committee as follows:


278 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 288 of 718


-(1), change clarifies that doors have to have the capability of being locked from the egress side,specifically, without opening the door.




-(8) and (9), change clarifies that staff shall be made aware of the locking/latching arrangement fromboth sides of the door and that this is also reflected in the required emergency action plan.

Regarding the application to existing buildings, there are buildings with existing doors and doorassemblies that have been installed for decades. The Technical Committee is in support of providinga safe package of code requirements that is realistic and achievable for facilities that have existingdoors that need a solution to lock them for security purposes.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6866-NFPA 101-2018








Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.


279 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 289 of 718

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.


Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael





Roeper, Kurt A.



280 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 290 of 718


15.2.4.2

Not less than two separate exits shall be in accordance with the following criteria:

(1) They shall be provided on every story unless otherwise permitted by 15.2.4.3 .

(2) They shall be accessible from every part of every story and mezzanine; however, exit access travelshall be permitted to be common for the distance permitted as common path of travel by 15.2.5.2.

(3) Unenclosed stairs shall be permitted in accordance with 15.3.1.3 .


Committee: SAF-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Currently, the Code provides no connection between 15.2.4.2 and the permission to use openstairs in Section 15.3.1.3. The revised text adds a permission for open stairs subject to theconditions in 15.3.1.3.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6911-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.


281 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 291 of 718

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.


Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.





Blaser, Scott J.

I understand the reasoning that many schools already have this condition, however, I cannot sign on to as apractice.


282 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 292 of 718


15.2.5.1


15.2.5.2

Limitations on common path of travel shall be in accordance with 15.2.5.3.1 15.2.5.2.1 and 15.2.5.3.215.2.5.2.2.

15.2.5.2.1


15.2.5.2.2


15.2.5.3



Committee: SAF-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-6888-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.


283 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 293 of 718

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.


Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.





284 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 294 of 718


15.4.1

Educational occupancies shall comply with Chapter 11 where located in a special structure.


Committee: SAF-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-6917-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.



285 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 295 of 718

Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.





286 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 296 of 718


16.1.2.1 General.

Occupancies that include preschools, kindergartens, and other schools whose purpose is primarilyeducational for children 24 30 months of age or older, even though the children who attend such schoolsare of preschool age, shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 14.


Committee: SAF-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-6881-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


287 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 297 of 718


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.


Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.




Abstention

Blaser, Scott J.



288 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 298 of 718


16.1.6.1

Day care occupancies, other than day care homes, shall be limited to the building construction typesspecified in Table 16.1.6.1 based on the number of stories in height as defined in 4.6.3. (See 8.2.1.)


Stories in Heighta

Construction Type Sprinkleredb One Story Belowc 1 2 3–4 >4 but Not High-Rise High-Rise

I (442) Yes X X X X X X

No NP X X X NP NP

I (332) Yes X X X X X X

No NP X X X NP NP

II (222) Yes X X X X X X

No NP X X X NP NP

II (111) Yes X X X X X NP

No NP X NP NP NP NP

II (000) Yes X X X X NP NP

No NP X NP NP NP NP

III (211) Yes X X X X NP NP

No NP X NP NP NP NP

III (200) Yes NP X X NP NP NP

No NP X NP NP NP NP

IV (2HH) Yes X X X NP NP NP

No NP X NP NP NP NP

V (111) Yes X X X X NP NP

No NP X NP NP NP NP

V (000) Yes NP X X NP NP NP

No NP X NP NP NP NP

X: Permitted. NP: Not Permitted.

aSee 4.6.3.

bSprinklered throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance withSection 9.7. (See 16.3.5.)

cOne story below the level of exit discharge.


Committee: SAF-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

In response to Correlating Committee minutes action item 7(a)(iii), this revision adds a pointer toSection 16.3.5 for other sprinkler requirements. This provides a more user friendly approach toapplying the provisions of the occupancy chapter. This change is consistent with a pointer alreadyprovided in Table 17.1.6.1.


289 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 299 of 718

ResponseMessage:

FR-6906-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.


Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.





290 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 300 of 718


Global FR-6537

16.2.2.2.6 Locking of Classroom Doorsand Locking to Prevent Unwanted EntryDoors to Other ClientCare Spaces.

Classroom doors and doors to other client care spaces shall be permitted to be locked to preventunwanted entry provided that the locking means is approved and all of the following conditions are met:

(1) The locking means shall be capable of being engaged from the egress side without opening thedoor.

(2) The unlocking and unlatching from the classroomegress side of the door canshall be accomplishedwithout the use of a key, tool, or special knowledge or effort.

(3) The releasing mechanism shall open the door leaf with not more than one releasingoperationmotion.


(5) Locks, if remotely engaged, shall be unlockable from the classroomegress side of the door withoutthe use of a key, tool, or special knowledge or effort.


(7) The locking means shall not modify the door closer, panic hardware, or fire exit hardware or impairtheir operation.

(8) Modifications to fire door assemblies, including door hardware, shall be in accordance withNFPA 80.

(9) The emergency action plan, required by 16.7.1, shall address the use of the locking and unlockingmeans from within and outside the roomboth sides of the door.

(10) Staff shall be drilled in the engagement and release of the locking means, from within and outsidethe roomboth sides of the door, as part of the emergency egress drills required by 16.7.2.


Committee: SAF-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


The changes proposed in this First Revision represent a combination of concepts proposed in themultiple public inputs that were received on this subject. A task group was established to thoroughlyreview the changes in the 13 public inputs related to door locking for daycare occupancies. Theresult was a proposed revision incorporating the appropriate components of the various submittals.The First Revision clarifies some of the identified concerns of the Committee as follows:




291 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 301 of 718




-(9) and (10), change clarifies that staff shall be made aware of the locking/latching arrangementfrom both sides of the door and that this is also reflected in the required emergency action plan.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6868-NFPA 101-2018





Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.

Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.


292 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 302 of 718

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael





Roeper, Kurt A.




Subpara (3) can be interpreted to prohibit the turning of a doorknob (1 motion) and pushing the door open (2ndmotion).


293 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 303 of 718


16.2.5.1


16.2.5.2

Limitations on common path of travel shall be in accordance with 16.2.5.3.1 16.2.5.2.1 and16.2.5.3.2 16.2.5.2.2 .

16.2.5.2.1


16.2.5.2.2


16.2.5.3



Committee: SAF-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-6889-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.


294 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 304 of 718

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.


Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.





295 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 305 of 718


16.3.5.2

Required sprinkler systems shall be installed in accordance with 9.7.1.1(1) and supervised in accordancewith 9.7.2 .


Committee: SAF-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Proposed change properly references the supervision requirements from Section 9.7.2. Requiredsprinkler systems in new educational occupancies must be supervised in the building code so thischange is consistent.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6912-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.


296 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 306 of 718


Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.





297 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 307 of 718


16.3.5.4

Where required by 16.1.6 , buildings containing a day care occupancy shall be protected throughout byan approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7 .


Committee: SAF-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

In response to Correlating Committee minutes action item 7(a)(iii), this revision adds a pointer toSection 16.1.6 which may mandate sprinkler protection. This provides a more user friendlyapproach to applying the provisions of the occupancy chapter.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6905-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.


298 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 308 of 718


Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.





299 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 309 of 718


16.4.1

Day care occupancies shall comply with Chapter 11 where located in a special structure.


Committee: SAF-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-6918-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.



300 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 310 of 718

Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.





301 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 311 of 718


16.6.2.1.2

Where bathtubs, bathtub-shower combinations, or showers are present for client use, grab bars shall beprovided in accordance with the provisions of 24.2.8 .


Committee: SAF-END


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Correction of reference to core requirements moved to Chapter 24 last cycle.



Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.



302 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 312 of 718

Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.





303 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 313 of 718


17.1.2.1 General.

Occupancies that include preschools, kindergartens, and other schools whose purpose is primarilyeducational for children 24 30 months of age or older, even though the children who attend such schoolsare of preschool age, shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.


Committee: SAF-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-6884-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


304 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 314 of 718


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.


Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.




Abstention

Blaser, Scott J.



305 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 315 of 718


17.2.2.2.6 Locking of Classroom Doors and Locking to Prevent Unwanted Entry Doors to Other ClientCare Spaces .

Detail FR-6872

17.2.2.2.6.1

Classroom doors and doors to other client care spaces shall be permitted to be locked to preventunwanted entry provided that the locking means is approved and all of the following conditions are met:


(2) The unlocking and unlatching from the classroom egress side of the door can shall be accomplishedwithout the use of a key, tool, or special knowledge or effort.

(3) Two non-simultaneous releasing operations shall be permitted where approved by the authorityhaving jurisdiction.


(5) Locks, if remotely engaged, shall be unlockable from the classroom egress side of the door withoutthe use of a key, tool, or special knowledge or effort.


(7) The locking means shall not modify the door closer, panic hardware, or fire exit hardware or impairtheir operation .

(8) Modifications to fire door assemblies, including door hardware, shall be in accordance with NFPA 80.

(9) The emergency action plan, required by 17.7.1, shall address the use of the locking and unlockingmeans from within and outside the room both sides of the door .

(10) Staff shall be drilled in the engagement and release of the locking means, from within and outside theroom both sides of the door , as part of the emergency egress drills required by 17.7.2.

Detail FR-6937

17.2.2.2.6.2

Where existing classroom doors and doors to client care spaces are replaced, they shall comply with theprovisions of 16.2.2.2.6 .


Committee: SAF-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


The changes proposed in this First Revision represent a combination of concepts proposed in themultiple public inputs that were received on this subject. A task group was established to thoroughlyreview the changes in the 13 public inputs related to door locking for daycare occupancies. Theresult was a proposed revision incorporating the appropriate components of the various submittals.The First Revision clarifies some of the identified concerns of the Committee as follows:


306 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 316 of 718






-(8) and (9), change clarifies that staff shall be made aware of the locking/latching arrangement fromboth sides of the door and that this is also reflected in the required emergency action plan.

Regarding the application to existing buildings, there are buildings with existing doors and doorassemblies that have been installed for decades. The Technical Committee is in support of providinga safe package of code requirements that is realistic and achievable for facilities that have existingdoors that need a solution to lock them for security purposes.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6871-NFPA 101-2018





Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.



307 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 317 of 718

Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.


Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael





Roeper, Kurt A.



308 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 318 of 718


17.2.5.1


17.2.5.2

Limitations on common path of travel shall be in accordance with 17.2.5.3.1 17.2.5.2.1 and17.2.5.3.2 17.2.5.2.2 .

17.2.5.2.1


17.2.5.2.2


17.2.5.3



Committee: SAF-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-6890-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.


309 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 319 of 718

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.


Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.





310 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 320 of 718


17.3.5.4

Where required by 17.1.6 , buildings containing a day care occupancy shall be protected throughout byan approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7 .


Committee: SAF-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

In response to Correlating Committee minutes action item 7(a)(iii), this revision adds a pointer toSection 17.1.6 which may mandate sprinkler protection. This provides a more user friendlyapproach to applying the provisions of the occupancy chapter.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6907-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.


311 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 321 of 718


Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.





312 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 322 of 718


17.4.1

Day care occupancies shall comply with Chapter 11 where located in a special structure.


Committee: SAF-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-6919-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.



313 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 323 of 718

Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.





314 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 324 of 718


18.1.1.4.2 Changes of Use or Occupancy Classification.

Changes of use or occupancy classification shall comply with 4.6.11, unless otherwise permitted by one ofthe following:

(1) A change from a hospital to a nursing home or from a nursing home to a hospital shall not beconsidered a change in occupancy classification or a change in use.

(2) A change from a hospital or nursing home to a limited care facility shall not be considered a change inoccupancy classification or a change in use.

A change from a hospital or nursing home to an ambulatory health care facility shall not beconsidered a change in occupancy classification or a change in use.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The change of occupancy classification described in (3) is adequately addressed byChapter 43.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.


315 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 325 of 718

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



316 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 326 of 718


18.1.1.4.3.1

For purposes of the provisions of this chapter, the following shall apply:

(1) A major rehabilitation shall involve the modification of more than 50 percent, or more than 4500 ft2

(420 m2) gross , of the area of the smoke compartment.

(2) A minor rehabilitation shall involve the modification of not more than 50 percent, and not more than

4500 ft2 (420 m2) gross , of the area of the smoke compartment.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision responds to PI-521 and clarifies the area indicated is intended to be the grossarea.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.


317 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 327 of 718

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



318 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 328 of 718


18.1.6.1

Health care occupancies shall be limited to the building construction types specified in Table 18.1.6.1,unless otherwise permitted by 18.1.6.2 through 18.1.6.7 18.1.6.6 . (See 8.2.1.)


Construction Type Sprinklered† a

Total Number of Stories of Building‡ b

1 2 3 ≥4

I(442) Yes X X X X

No NP NP NP NP

I(332) Yes X X X X

No NP NP NP NP

II(222) Yes X X X X

No NP NP NP NP

II(111) Yes X X X NP

No NP NP NP NP

II(000) Yes X NP NP NP

No NP NP NP NP

III(211) Yes X NP NP NP

No NP NP NP NP

III(200) Yes NP NP NP NP

No NP NP NP NP

IV(2HH) Yes X NPc NPc NPc

No NP NP NP NP

V(111) Yes X NP NP NP

No NP NP NP NP

V(000) Yes NP NP NP NP

No NP NP NP NP


The total number of stories of the building is required to be determined as follows:

Notes:

(1) The total number of stories is to be counted starting with the level of exit discharge and ending with thehighest occupiable story of the building.


(3) Interstitial spaces used solely for building or process systems directly related to the level above orbelow are not considered a separate story.


† a Sprinklered throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance withSection 9.7. (See 18.3.5.)

‡ b Basements are not counted as stories.

c Up to 7 stories permitted for buildings complying with 7.2.5.6.1.1 of NFPA 5000.



319 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 329 of 718

Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

the special construction with mass timber requires sprinklers, protected concealed spaces andnoncombustible exteriors. In addition, other fire protection features would be included as high riserequirements.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6747-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



2 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.


320 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 330 of 718

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Victor, Terry L.


Farraher, Martin J.

Table modified for new heavy timber construction with sprinklers



In the healthcare occupancy the requirements for the protection of patients incapable of self- preservation isbased on both active and passive fire protection systems. In the event that the active fire protection systems areimpaired, the passive fire protection systems, including structural components, shall provide the patients the samelevel of safety to protect and defend in place, evacuate horizontally into an adjacent compartment, and onlyevacuate vertically as a last resort. A combustible structure, such as a tall timber building, significantly increasesthe fire risk and eliminates the role of non-combustible construction as part of passive fire protection systems. Atthe September 2018 Property Insurance Research Group (PIRG) meeting, the 2019 Project Funding Decisionsincluded six high priority projects, one being “Tall Wood Buildings – Phase 3 – Repair/Recertification (litreview/gap analysis)”. Additional proposed tall wood buildings projects under consideration included gaps inknowledge identified in the Phase 1 report: • The fire impact on connections • The fire impact on penetrations forservices Additional concerns addressed in the Phase I report, Task 2 - Gap Analysis: • Cross Laminated Timbers(CLT) delamination and char fall-off: “CLT element charring and separation from the assembly can result inincreased charring rate and fire intensity (Frangi, Fontana, Knoblock, & Bochicchio, Fire Behavior of Cross-Laminated Solid Timber Panels, 2008). This has the potential to increase the fire temperature and burning ratewithin the compartment, and could impact the structural fire resistance at later stages in the fire duration.”Recommended future work from the Phase 2, Task 2 & 3 report ; “Heat delamination of the exposed CLT affectedits fire performance as observed in this series of the large-scale compartment fire tests. Further study is necessaryto quantify the contribution of the CLT structural members that do not exhibit heat delamination.” • Protection ofEgress Routes / Fire-Fighter Access Routes: “Further research is needed to consider the conditions under whichcombustible construction for circulation elements such as stairwells, elevator shafts and vertical cores isacceptable. These vertical elements are not only the primary means of escape for building occupants, but alsoprovide access routes for firefighter operations.” There should be no changes to Table 18.1.6.1 or other tableswithin Chapter 7 until the research into the fire safety challenges of tall wood buildings is fully understood.References: NFPA. (2013). Fire Safety Challenges of Tall Wood Buildings, Phase I Final Report, The FireProtection Research Foundation. Quincy, Massachusetts, USA: National Fire Protection Association. NFPA.(2018). Fire Safety Challenges of Tall Wood Buildings, Phase2 Task 2 & 3 – Cross Laminated TimberCompartment Fire Tests, The Fire Protection Research Foundation. Quincy, Massachusetts, USA: National FireProtection Association.

Abstention

Koffel, William E.


Vann, Joshua

Insufficient detail and clarity provided on proposed change.


321 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 331 of 718


18.1.6.6*

Fire-retardant-treated wood that serves as supports for the installation of fixtures and equipment shallbe permitted to be installed behind noncombustible or limited-combustible sheathing.

A.18.1.6.6

This provision is not intended to limit the use of fire-retardant-treated wood to fixtures and equipmentas defined in 3.3.111 . Other types of fixtures and equipment for which fire-retardant-treated woodcould be used as support include grab bars, shelving, and toilet accessories.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

See also PI-53. NFPA 220, 4.3.2.13 already permits non treated wood as blocking. Thissection almost seems to imply

that non treated wood is not permitted in Type II construction. However, NFPA 220, which is

referenced by this section, permits combustible blocking and NFPA 101 doesn't appear torestrict it. This

new paragraph, which was added in 2015 seems to be confusing at best. The annex noteshould also

be deleted as should 18.1.6.6. and A.18.1.6.6.

If nothing else, the annex notes A.18/19.1.6.6 should be rewritten to place "as defined in3.3.111"

behind "fire retardant-treated wood" and not behind "equipment" since the definition is for fire

retardant-treated wood.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6738-NFPA 101-2018


Public Input No. 342-NFPA 101-2018 [Section No. A.18.1.6.6]

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All




322 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 332 of 718

0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



323 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 333 of 718


18.2.2.2.2

Locks shall not be permitted on patient sleeping room doors, unless otherwise permitted by one of thefollowing:

(1) Key-locking Locking devices that restrict access to the room from the corridor and that are operableonly by staff from the corridor side shall be permitted, provided that such devices do not restrictegress from the room.

(2) Locks complying with 18.2.2.2.5 shall be permitted.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

For patient privacy, locks that allow patients to lock the door when they leave the room may bedesirable, particularly in nursing homes. RFID locks that allow access by staff and the patient orpatient's family are readily available. There is no safety issue regarding access from the corridor solong as egress is uninhibited and staff can access the room, and there is no reason to limit accessso only staff can unlock the door from the corridor side.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6746-NFPA 101-2018



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.


324 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 334 of 718

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



325 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 335 of 718


18.2.2.2.7*

Doors permitted to be locked in accordance with 18.2.2.2.5.1 shall be permitted to have murals on theegress doors to disguise the doors, provided all of the following are met:

(1) Staff can readily unlock the doors at all times in accordance with 18.2.2.2.6.

(2)

(3)

(4) The murals do not impair the operation of the doors.

(5) The location and operation of doors disguised with murals are identified in the fire safety plan and areincluded in staff training.

(6) Any modification to a fire door complies with NFPA 80 .


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision clarifies that modifications to fire doors are subject to the requirements ofNFPA 80.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

* The door-releasing hardware, where provided, is readily accessible for staff use.

* Door leaves, windows, and door hardware, other than door-releasing hardware, are permitted to becovered by the murals.


326 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 336 of 718

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



Knippa, Kevin

This is unnecessary. Nothing in the existing language implies a fire door is permitted to rendered non-compliantwith NFPA 80 as a result of applying a mural. We should not include advisory language in code as it opens thedoor to doing so throughout the code. Chapter 8 already requires fire doors to comply with NFPA 80.


327 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 337 of 718


18.2.4.3

Not less than two separate exits shall be accessible from every part of every story, except where roomsare not required to have a door leading directly to the exit access corridor, as permitted by 18.2.5.6.3 .


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Rooms having doors directly to the outside do not require direct corridor access per 18.2.5.6.3,however they still require access to a second means of egress per 18.2.4.3 if they are not separatedwith a 2-hour fire barrier occupancy separation. This exception would link the two requirements sothat spaces (typically mechanical, electrical, or other similar spaces) would be permitted to have onlya single means of egress, provided all other egress criteria are met for the space. Currently thesearrangements would be permitted anyway by denoting such spaces as “non-patient care” suites,however adding this designation is an unnecessary step which is rarely accurately shown on lifesafety plans.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6740-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.


328 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 338 of 718

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



329 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 339 of 718



Common path of travel shall not exceed 100 ft (30 m).


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The FR only renumbers the arrangement of means of egress requirements in response todirection from the correlating committee and recommendation by the TC on Means of Egress viaits resolution of PI-157.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6670-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.


330 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 340 of 718

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



331 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 341 of 718


18.2.5.5 Two Means of Egress.

18.2.5.5.1

Sleeping rooms of more than 1000 ft2 (93 m2) gross shall have not less than two exit access doorsremotely located from each other.

18.2.5.5.2

Non-sleeping rooms of more than 2500 ft2 (230 m2) gross shall have not less than two exit access doorsremotely located from each other.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision responds to PI-521 and clarifies the areas indicated are intended to be thegross areas.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.


332 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 342 of 718

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



333 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 343 of 718


18.2.5.7 Health Care Suites.

18.2.5.7.1 General.

18.2.5.7.1.1 Suite Permission.

Suites complying with 18.2.5.7 shall be permitted to be used to meet the corridor access requirements of18.2.5.6.

18.2.5.7.1.2* Suite Separation.

Suites shall be separated from the remainder of the building, and from other suites, by walls and doorsmeeting the requirements of 18.3.6.2 through 18.3.6.5.

18.2.5.7.1.3 Suite Hazardous Contents Areas.

(A)*

Intervening rooms shall not be hazardous areas as defined by 18.3.2.

(B)

Hazardous areas within a suite shall be separated from the remainder of the suite in accordance with18.3.2.1, unless otherwise provided in 18.2.5.7.1.3(C).

(C)*

Hazardous areas within a suite shall not be required to be separated from the remainder of the suitewhere complying with all of the following:

(1) The suite is primarily a hazardous area.

(2) The suite is protected by an approved automatic smoke detection system in accordance withSection 9.6.

(3) The suite is separated from the rest of the health care facility as required for a hazardous area by18.3.2.1.

18.2.5.7.1.4 Suite Subdivision.

The subdivision of suites shall be by means of noncombustible or limited-combustible partitions orpartitions constructed with fire-retardant-treated wood enclosed with noncombustible or limited-combustible materials, and such partitions shall not be required to be fire rated.

18.2.5.7.2 Sleeping Suites.

Sleeping suites shall be in accordance with the following:

(1) Sleeping suites for patient care Patient care sleeping suites shall comply with the provisions of18.2.5.7.2.1 through 18.2.5.7.2.4.

(2) Sleeping suites not for patient care shall comply with the provisions of 18.2.5.7.4.

18.2.5.7.2.1 Patient Care Sleeping Suite Supervision.

(A)

Sleeping Patient care sleeping suites shall be provided with constant staff supervision within the suite.


334 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 344 of 718

(B)*

Sleeping Patient care sleeping suites shall be arranged in accordance with one of the following:

(1)

(2) Sleeping Patient care sleeping suites shall be provided with a total (complete) coverage automaticsmoke detection system in accordance with 9.6.2.9 and 18.3.4.

18.2.5.7.2.2 Patient Care Sleeping Suite Means of Egress.

(A)*

Sleeping Patient care sleeping suites shall have exit access to a corridor complying with 18.3.6 or to ahorizontal exit, directly from the suite.

(B)

Sleeping Patient care sleeping suites of more than 1000 ft2 (93 m2) gross shall have not less than twoexit access doors remotely located from each other.

(C)*

For suites requiring two exit access doors, one of the exit access doors from the suite shall be permittedto be to one of the following:

(1) An exit stair

(2) An exit passageway

(3) An exit door to the exterior

(4) Another suite, provided that the separation between the suites complies with the corridorrequirements of 18.3.6.2 through 18.3.6.5

18.2.5.7.2.3 Patient Care Sleeping Suite Maximum Size.

(A)

Reserved.

(B)

Sleeping Patient care sleeping suites shall not exceed 7500 ft2 (700 m2) gross , unless otherwiseprovided in 18.2.5.7.2.3(C).

(C)

Sleeping Patient care sleeping suites greater than 7500 ft2 (700 m2) gross and not exceeding 10,000 ft2

(930 m2) gross shall be permitted where both of the following are provided in the suite:

(1)

(2) Total (complete) coverage automatic smoke detection in accordance with 9.6.2.9 and 18.3.4

18.2.5.7.2.4 Patient Care Sleeping Suite Travel Distance.

(A)

Travel distance between any point in a patient care sleeping suite and an exit access door to anothersuite, an exit access corridor door, or a horizontal exit door from that suite shall not exceed 100 ft (30 m).

(B)

Travel distance between any point in a patient care sleeping suite and an exit shall not exceed 200 ft(61 m).

18.2.5.7.3 Patient Care Non-Sleeping Suites.

* Patient sleeping rooms within patient care sleeping suites shall provide one of the following:

(a) The patient sleeping rooms shall be arranged to allow for direct supervision from a normallyattended location within the suite, such as is provided by glass walls, and cubicle curtains shallbe permitted.

(b) Any patient sleeping rooms without the direct supervision required by 18.2.5.7.2.1(B)(1)(a) shallbe provided with smoke detection in accordance with Section 9.6 and 18.3.4.

* Direct visual supervision in accordance with 18.2.5.7.2.1(B)(1)(a)


335 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 345 of 718

Non-sleeping suites shall be in accordance with the following:

(1) Non-sleeping suites for patient care shall comply with the provisions of 18.2.5.7.3.1 through18.2.5.7.3.3.

(2) Non-sleeping suites not for patient care shall comply with the provisions of 18.2.5.7.4.

18.2.5.7.3.1 Patient Care Non-Sleeping Suite Means of Egress.

(A)

Patient care non-sleeping suites shall have exit access to a corridor complying with 18.3.6 or to ahorizontal exit, directly from the suite.

(B)

Patient care non-sleeping suites of more than 2500 ft2 (230 m2) gross shall have not less than two exitaccess doors remotely located from each other.

(C)*

For suites requiring two exit access doors, one of the exit access doors shall be permitted to be to one ofthe following:

(1) An exit stair



(4) Another suite, provided that the separation between the suites complies with the corridorrequirements of 18.3.6.2 through 18.3.6.5.

18.2.5.7.3.2 Patient Care Non-Sleeping Suite Maximum Size.

(A)

Non-sleeping suites shall not exceed 12,500 ft2 (1160 m2) gross , unless otherwise provided in18.2.5.7.3.2(B).

(B)

Non-sleeping suites greater than 12,500 ft2 (1160 m2) gross and not exceeding 15,000 ft2 (1390 m2)gross shall be permitted where provided with total (complete) coverage automatic smoke detection inaccordance with 9.6.2.9 and 18.3.4.

18.2.5.7.3.3 Patient Care Non-Sleeping Suite Travel Distance.

(A)

Travel distance within a non-sleeping suite to an exit access door to another suite, an exit access corridordoor, or a horizontal exit door from the suite shall not exceed 100 ft (30 m).

(B)

Travel distance between any point in a non-sleeping suite and an exit shall not exceed 200 ft (61 m).

18.2.5.7.4 Non-Patient-Care Suites.

The egress provisions for non-patient-care suites shall be in accordance with the primary use andoccupancy of the space.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The proposed revisions are intended to correlate with revisions to corresponding definitions inChapter 3. The revision also responds to PI-521 and clarifies the areas indicated are intended tobe the gross areas.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6769-NFPA 101-2018


336 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 346 of 718

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.




337 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 347 of 718

Farraher, Martin J.



338 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 348 of 718


18.3.1.3

Unenclosed vertical openings in accordance with 8.6.9.2 connecting not more than two contiguousstories shall be permitted.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision permits the use of the 8.6.9.2 convenience stair provided that it is limited toconnecting not more than two stories.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6821-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.


339 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 349 of 718

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



Knippa, Kevin

The rationale for incorporating this change is because floor openings for escalators and moving walks arepermitted by 8.6.9.7, which should never have been permitted in past editions of NFPA 101. Both this provisionand 8.6.9.7 expect a sprinkler curtain to magically keep smoke that can freely flow between floors via the verticalopening from entering exit access corridors on the floors.


340 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 350 of 718


18.3.4.3.1 Occupant Notification.

Occupant notification shall be accomplished automatically in accordance with 9.6.3, unless otherwisemodified by the following:

(1) Paragraph 9.6.3.2.3 shall not be permitted to be used.

(2)

(3) The provision of 18.3.2.5.3(13)(c) shall be permitted to be used.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The proposed revision aligns the fire alarm notification zone requirements of NFPA 101,72, and 99.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

* In lieu of audible alarm signals, visible alarm-indicating appliances shall be permitted to be used incritical care areas Where the private operating mode in accordance with NFPA 72 is used, alarmnotification appliances shall not be required in patient care spaces where alarm notification adverselyaffects patient care .

A.18.3.4.3.1(2)

It is the intent of this provision to permit a visible fire alarm signal instead of an audible signal toreduce interference between the fire alarm and medical equipment monitoring alarms In healthcare occupancies, fire alarm system notification is often designed primarily to notify staff who areresponsible for the occupants in their care. The staff can be used as an alternate means fornotifying others who might need to relocate or evacuate .


341 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 351 of 718

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Knippa, Kevin

I believe the language should state, “in accordance with 9.6.3.6.3,” rather than with NFPA 72.


Farraher, Martin J.

Why modify these life safety system requirements?


342 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 352 of 718


18.3.6.1 Corridor Separation.

Corridors shall be separated from all other areas by partitions complying with 18.3.6.2 through18.3.6.5(see also 18.2.5.4), unless otherwise permitted by one of the following:

(1)

Waiting areas shall be permitted to be open to the corridor, provided that all of the following criteriaare met:

The aggregate waiting area in each smoke compartment does not exceed 600 ft 2

(55.7 m 2 ).

The area does not obstruct access to required exits.

(2)

(3) Gift shops not exceeding 500 ft2 (46.4 m2) shall be permitted to be open to the corridor or lobby.

(4) In a limited care facility, group meeting or multipurpose therapeutic spaces shall be permitted to opento the corridor, provided that all of the following criteria are met:

(a) The space is not a hazardous area.

(b)

(c) The space does not obstruct access to required exits.

(5) Cooking facilities in accordance with 18.3.2.5.3 shall be permitted to be open to the corridor.


Committee: SAF-HEA

* Spaces shall be permitted to be unlimited in area and open to the corridor, provided that all of thefollowing criteria are met:

(a)

(b) The corridors onto which the spaces open in the same smoke compartment are protected by anelectrically supervised automatic smoke detection system in accordance with 18.3.4, or thesmoke compartment in which the space is located is protected throughout by quick-responsesprinklers.

(c)

(d) The space does not obstruct access to required exits.

* The spaces are not used for patient sleeping rooms, treatment rooms, or hazardous areas.

* The open space is protected by an electrically supervised automatic smoke detection system inaccordance with 18.3.4, or the entire space is arranged and located to allow direct supervision bythe facility staff from a nurses’ station or similar space.

* Each area is protected by an electrically supervised automatic smoke detection system inaccordance with 18.3.4 , or each area is arranged and located to allow direct supervision bythe facility staff from a nursing station or similar space.

A.18.3.6.1(2)(b)

The omission of smoke detection does not pertain to nurses’ stations that are notcontinuously staffed as there would not be early detection by staff in such areas during“off” hours.

* This requirement shall not apply to spaces for nurses’ stations.

* The space is protected by an electrically supervised automatic smoke detection system inaccordance with 18.3.4, or the space is arranged and located to allow direct supervision by thefacility staff from the nurses’ station or similar location.


343 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 353 of 718


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

There is no reason to continue to include this subsection as waiting areas are covered by18.3.6.1(1). The 600 sq. ft. limitation in this subsection provides confusion when unlimited areawaiting rooms are allowed by the previous subsection.

NOTE: The FR only deletes 18.3.6.1(2) and associated Annex A text. Underlined text is NOT new.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6825-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.



344 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 354 of 718

Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.

I do not agree with the limiting the level of fire detection and suppression. Waiting room occupants are not alwaysawake and staff is limited in majority of facilities.

Koffel, William E.

The First Revision eliminates an option available for smaller waiting rooms without requiring all the protectionrequired for unlimited area spaces open to the corridor.


345 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 355 of 718


18.3.6.2* Construction of Corridor Walls.

18.3.6.2.1*

Corridor walls shall be permitted to terminate at or above the ceiling, but shall not be required to extendto the deck above, where the ceiling is constructed to limit the transfer of smoke.

18.3.6.2.2

No fire resistance rating shall be required for corridor walls.

18.3.6.2.3*

Corridor walls shall form a barrier to limit the transfer of smoke.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Additional language is intended to clarify that corridor walls may terminate at the ceiling, deckabove, or anywhere in between, as long as the smoke tight conditions are met.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6743-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.


346 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 356 of 718

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.

Wall material should have a minimum fire raing.


347 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 357 of 718


18.3.6.3.7

Powered doors that comply with the requirements of 7.2.1.9 shall not be required to meet the latchingrequirements of 18.3.6.3.5, provided that both that all of the following criteria are met:

(1) The door is equipped with a means for keeping the door closed that is acceptable to the authorityhaving jurisdiction.

(2) The device used is capable of keeping the door fully closed if a force of 5 lbf (22 N) is applied at thelatch edge of a swinging door and applied in any direction to a sliding or folding door, whether or notpower is applied.

(3) The power-assist mechanism ceases to function upon operation of approved smoke detectorsinstalled in accordance with the provisions of NFPA 72 .


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The Code currently permits the omission of latches on corridor doors in health care occupanciesprovided the doors meet certain provisions including 7.2.1.9. 7.2.1.9.2 is titled “Self-Closing or Self-Latching Door Leaf Operation” and subsection (4) requires local smoke detection at the doors tooverride the power opening feature which can be argued does not apply since the doors meeting18.3.6.3.7 are not required to self-latch.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6745-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.



348 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 358 of 718

Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.


Knippa, Kevin

I believe the language should state, “in accordance with the provisions in Section 9.6.”


349 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 359 of 718


18.3.7.1

Buildings containing health care facilities shall be subdivided by smoke barriers (see 18.2.4.3), unlessotherwise permitted by 18.3.7.2, as follows:

(1) To divide every story used by inpatients for sleeping or treatment into not less than two smokecompartments

(2) To divide every story having an occupant load of 50 or more persons, regardless of use, into not lessthan two smoke compartments

(3) To limit the size of each smoke compartment required by 18.3.7.1(1) and 18.3.7.1(2) to an area notexceeding one of the following:

(a) 22,500 ft2 (2100 m2) gross in hospital smoke compartments where any patient sleeping room isconfigured for two or more patients

(b) 40,000 ft2 (3720 m2) gross in hospital smoke compartments where all patient sleeping roomsare configured for only one patient, in which case suites in accordance with 18.2.5.7 shall bepermitted where every occupiable sleeping room within the suite is configured for only onepatient

(c) 40,000 ft2 (3720 m2) gross in hospital smoke compartments that contain no patient sleepingrooms

(d) 22,500 ft2 (2100 m2) gross in nursing homes and limited care facilities

(4) To separate atriums in accordance with 8.6.7, in which case no limitation in size is required

(5) To limit the travel distance from any point to reach a door in the required smoke barrier to a distancenot exceeding 200 ft (61 m)


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


350 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 360 of 718

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



351 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 361 of 718



Health care occupancies shall comply with Chapter 11 where located in special structures.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-6677-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.


352 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 362 of 718

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



353 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 363 of 718


18.4.4* Alcohol-Based Hand-Rub Dispensers.

Alcohol-based hand-rub dispensers shall be protected in accordance with 8.7.3.1, unless all of thefollowing conditions are met:

(1) Where dispensers are installed in a corridor, the corridor shall have a minimum width of 6 ft(1830 mm).

(2) The maximum individual dispenser fluid capacity shall be as follows:

(a) 0.32 gal (1.2 L) for dispensers in rooms, corridors, and areas open to corridors

(b) 0.53 gal (2.0 L) for dispensers in suites of rooms

(3) Where aerosol containers are used, the maximum capacity of the aerosol dispenser shall be 18 oz(0.51 kg) and shall be limited to Level 1 aerosols as defined in NFPA 30B.

(4) Dispensers shall be separated from each other by horizontal spacing of not less than 48 in.(1220 mm).

(5) Not more than an aggregate 10 gal (37.8 L) of alcohol-based hand-rub solution or 1135 oz (32.2 kg)of Level 1 aerosols, or a combination of liquids and Level 1 aerosols not to exceed, in total, theequivalent of 10 gal (37.8 L) or 1135 oz (32.2 kg), shall be in use outside of a storage cabinet in asingle smoke compartment, except as otherwise provided in 18.4.4(6).

(6) One dispenser complying with 18.4.4(2) or (3) per room and located in that room shall not be includedin the aggregated quantity addressed in 18.4.4(5).

(7) Storage of quantities greater than 5 gal (18.9 L) in a single smoke compartment shall meet therequirements of NFPA 30.

(8) Dispensers shall not be installed in the following locations:

(a) Above an ignition source within a 1 in. (25 mm) horizontal distance from each side of the ignitionsource

(b) To the side of an ignition source within a 1 in. (25 mm) horizontal distance from the ignitionsource

(c) Beneath an ignition source within a 1 in. (25 mm) vertical distance from the ignition source

(9) Dispensers installed directly over carpeted floors shall be permitted only in sprinklered smokecompartments.

(10) The alcohol-based hand-rub solution shall not exceed 95 percent alcohol content by volume.

(11) Operation of the dispenser shall comply with the following criteria:

(a) The dispenser shall not release its contents except when the dispenser is activated, eithermanually or automatically by touch-free activation.

(b) Any activation of the dispenser shall occur only when an object is placed within 4 in. (100 mm) ofthe sensing device.

(c) An object placed within the activation zone and left in place shall not cause more than oneactivation.

(d) The dispenser shall not dispense more solution than the amount required for hand hygieneconsistent with label instructions.

(e) The dispenser shall be designed, constructed, and operated in a manner that ensures thataccidental or malicious activation of the dispensing device is minimized.

The dispenser shall be tested in accordance with the manufacturer’s care and use instructionseach time a new refill is installed.



354 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 364 of 718

Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The revision is intended to eliminate confusion regarding testing of ABHR dispensers.

NOTE: The revision only deletes item 11(f). Underlined text is NOT new.




Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.



355 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 365 of 718

Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



356 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 366 of 718


18.5.1.4

Maintenance and testing Design, installation, testing, and maintenance of essential electrical systemsshall be in accordance with NFPA 99.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The proposed revision responds to PI-140, which was submitted on 7.2.3.12, and shouldmeet the submitter's intent.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6864-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.


357 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 367 of 718

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



358 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 368 of 718


18.7.1.4*

Fire drills in health care occupancies shall include the transmission simulation of a fire alarm emergencyfire signal conditions and simulation activation of emergency fire conditions the fire alarm systemnotification appliances .


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This clarifies the intent of "transmission of a fire alarm signal" and shows that it is not intendedto send a signal to emergency forces.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6827-NFPA 101-2018



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.


359 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 369 of 718

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.

Fire drills need to be conducted as close to a real event as needed.


360 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 370 of 718


18.7.1.7

When drills are conducted between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (2100 hours and 0600 hours), a codedannouncement shall be permitted to be used instead of audible alarms activating the fire alarm systemnotification appliances .


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This clarifies that fire alarm notification appliances do not need to be activated after-hours.




Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary


361 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 371 of 718

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.

fire drills should be conducted when staff is present.


362 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 372 of 718


18.7.4* Smoking.

Smoking regulations shall be adopted and shall include not less than the following provisions:

(1) Smoking shall be prohibited in any room, ward, or individual enclosed space where flammable liquids,combustible gases, or oxygen is used or stored and in any other hazardous location, and such areasshall be posted with signs that read NO SMOKING or shall be posted with the international symbol forno smoking.

(2) In health care occupancies where smoking is prohibited and signs are prominently placed at all majorentrances, secondary signs with language that prohibits smoking shall not be required.

(3) Smoking by patients classified as not responsible shall be prohibited.

(4) The requirement of 18.7.4(3) shall not apply where the patient is under direct supervision.

(5) Ashtrays of noncombustible material and safe design shall be provided in all areas where smoking ispermitted inside the building .

(6) Metal containers with self-closing cover devices into which ashtrays can be emptied shall be readilyavailable to all areas where smoking is permitted inside the building .


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The proposed revisions should meet the intent of PI-31.



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.



363 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 373 of 718

Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



Knippa, Kevin

The argument for this revision is that NFPA 101 does not regulate the outside of a building. In fact, NFPA 101regulates beyond the exit door, through the exit access to the public way. There are multiple documented cases ofsmoking causing landscape fires that then ignited a building.


364 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 374 of 718


18.7.5.7.1

Soiled linen or trash collection receptacles shall not exceed 32 64 gal (121 242 L) in capacity and shallmeet all of the following requirements:

(1) The average density of container capacity in a room or space shall not exceed 0.5 1.0 gal/ft2

(20.4 40.7 L/m2).

(2)

(3) Container size and density shall not be limited in hazardous areas.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision responds to PI-371. A task group has been established to further study thisissue.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

26 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

* Mobile soiled linen or trash collection receptacles with capacities greater than 32 64 gal (121 242 L)shall be located in a room protected as a hazardous area when not attended.


365 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 375 of 718

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



Bush, Kenneth E.

There seems to be no technical justification for the increase in container size and density other than to coordinatewith the provisions of the Health Care Chapter. Further study would be needed in order to increase the containersize.

Koffel, William E.

The increase in container size and density has not been substantiated.


366 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 376 of 718


18.7.8* Portable Space-Heating Devices.

Portable space-heating devices shall be prohibited in all health care occupancies, unless both of thefollowing criteria are met:

(1) Such devices are permitted to be used only in non-sleeping staff and employee areas.

(2) The heating elements of such devices do not exceed 212°F (100°C) Such devices are listed andlabeled for use as a freestanding, movable heater in accordance with UL 1278, Standard forMovable and Wall- or Ceiling-Hung Electric Room Heaters .


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The current criteria is only one test for radiant heaters using ferrous metal elements. There aremany other portable space heaters available now. The temperature measurement of the elementmay not be capable in the field. Using a listed or labeled device will set the acceptable deviceperformance and will allow for enforcement without having to measure temperatures.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6752-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.


367 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 377 of 718

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



368 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 378 of 718


18.7.9.3

For repair, renovation, or preparation for construction activities of a duration not greater than 30 daysthat do not cause the classification of the construction area as a hazardous area as identified in 18.3.2 ,fire-retardant plastic in accordance with NFPA 701 shall be permitted to be used to separate theconstruction area from the other spaces provided that both the construction area and the adjacentoccupied spaces are protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

While protected by automatic suppression systems, the fire risk in areas under construction areminimal; however, risks of infections due to dust remain high. Fire resistant plastic sheetingprovides superior dust control while without increasing fire risks.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6849-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

26 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.


369 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 379 of 718

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.


Koffel, William E.

The reference to fire retardant should be flame retardant since the test standard referenced is NFPA 701.


Knippa, Kevin

NFPA 101 does not prohibit the use of fire-retardant plastic sheeting for this use, so why is it necessary to stateit? This change would have the effect of permitting a non-conforming part of a building to be separated from aconforming building by a plastic sheet. The provision does not mention other system required for compliance, onlyfire sprinklers. Are all fire alarm and detection appliances in place and functional? Can an installed fire sprinklersystem be disabled in lieu of a fire watch? Does the work area conform to requirements for fire resistantconstruction type?


370 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 380 of 718


19.1.1.4.2 Changes of Use or Occupancy Classification.

Changes of use or occupancy classification shall comply with 4.6.11, unless otherwise permitted by one ofthe following:

(1) A change from a hospital to a nursing home or from a nursing home to a hospital shall not beconsidered a change in occupancy classification or a change in use.

(2) A change from a hospital or nursing home to a limited care facility shall not be considered a change inoccupancy classification or a change in use.

A change from a hospital or nursing home to an ambulatory health care facility shall not beconsidered a change in occupancy classification or a change in use.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The change of occupancy classification described in (3) is adequately addressed byChapter 43.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.


371 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 381 of 718

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



372 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 382 of 718


19.1.1.4.3.1

For purposes of the provisions of this chapter, the following shall apply:

(1) A major rehabilitation shall involve the modification of more than 50 percent, or more than 4500 ft2

(420 m2) gross , of the area of the smoke compartment.

(2) A minor rehabilitation shall involve the modification of not more than 50 percent, and not more than

4500 ft2 (420 m2) gross , of the area of the smoke compartment.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.


373 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 383 of 718

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



374 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 384 of 718


Detail FR-6874


375 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 385 of 718

19.1.6.1*

Health care occupancies shall be limited to the building construction types specified in Table 19.1.6.1,unless otherwise permitted by 19.1.6.2 through 19.1.6.6. (See 8.2.1.)


Construction Type

Total Number of Stories of Building‡b

Sprinklered†a 1 2 3 ≥4

I (442) Yes X X X X

No X X X X

I (332) Yes X X X X

No X X X X

II (222) Yes X X X X

No X X X X

II (111) Yes X X X NPc

No X NP NP NP

II (000) Yes X X NPc NPd

No NP NP NP NP

III (211) Yes X X NPc NPc

No NP NP NP NP

III (200) Yes X NPc NPd NP

No NP NP NP NP

IV (2HH) Yes X Xe NPc, e NPc, e

No NP NP NP NP

V (111) Yes X X NPc NPc

No NP NP NP NP

V (000) Yes X NPc NPd NP

No NP NP NP NP


The total number of stories of the building is to be determined as follows:

Notes:

(1) The total number of stories is to be counted starting with the level of exit discharge and ending with thehighest occupiable story of the building.


(3) Interstitial spaces used solely for building or process systems directly related to the level above orbelow are not considered a separate story.


† a Sprinklered throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance withSection 9.7. (See 19.3.5.)

‡ b Basements are not counted as stories.

c Permitted for nursing homes where the requirements of 19.1.6.7 are met.

d Permitted for nursing homes where the requirements of 19.1.6.8 are met.

e Buildings complying with NFPA 5000, 7.2.5.6.1.1, shall be permitted to be up to 7 stories.


Committee: SAF-HEA


376 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 386 of 718


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The revision is intended for consistency with revisions to Table 18.1.6.1 in FR-6747.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



2 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Victor, Terry L.


377 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 387 of 718


Farraher, Martin J.




In the healthcare occupancy the requirements for the protection of patients incapable of self- preservation isbased on both active and passive fire protection systems. In the event that the active fire protection systems areimpaired, the passive fire protection systems, including structural components, shall provide the patients the samelevel of safety to protect and defend in place, evacuate horizontally into an adjacent compartment, and onlyevacuate vertically as a last resort. A combustible structure, such as a tall timber building, significantly increasesthe fire risk and eliminates the role of non-combustible construction as part of passive fire protection systems. Atthe September 2018 Property Insurance Research Group (PIRG) meeting, the 2019 Project Funding Decisionsincluded six high priority projects, one being “Tall Wood Buildings – Phase 3 – Repair/Recertification (litreview/gap analysis)”. Additional proposed tall wood buildings projects under consideration included gaps inknowledge identified in the Phase 1 report: • The fire impact on connections • The fire impact on penetrations forservices Additional concerns addressed in the Phase I report, Task 2 - Gap Analysis: • Cross Laminated Timbers(CLT) delamination and char fall-off: “CLT element charring and separation from the assembly can result inincreased charring rate and fire intensity (Frangi, Fontana, Knoblock, & Bochicchio, Fire Behavior of Cross-Laminated Solid Timber Panels, 2008). This has the potential to increase the fire temperature and burning ratewithin the compartment, and could impact the structural fire resistance at later stages in the fire duration.”Recommended future work from the Phase 2, Task 2 & 3 report ; “Heat delamination of the exposed CLT affectedits fire performance as observed in this series of the large-scale compartment fire tests. Further study is necessaryto quantify the contribution of the CLT structural members that do not exhibit heat delamination.” • Protection ofEgress Routes / Fire-Fighter Access Routes: “Further research is needed to consider the conditions under whichcombustible construction for circulation elements such as stairwells, elevator shafts and vertical cores isacceptable. These vertical elements are not only the primary means of escape for building occupants, but alsoprovide access routes for firefighter operations.” There should be no changes to Table 18.1.6.1 or other tableswithin Chapter 7 until the research into the fire safety challenges of tall wood buildings is fully understood.References: NFPA. (2013). Fire Safety Challenges of Tall Wood Buildings, Phase I Final Report, The FireProtection Research Foundation. Quincy, Massachusetts, USA: National Fire Protection Association. NFPA.(2018). Fire Safety Challenges of Tall Wood Buildings, Phase2 Task 2 & 3 – Cross Laminated TimberCompartment Fire Tests, The Fire Protection Research Foundation. Quincy, Massachusetts, USA: National FireProtection Association.

Abstention

Koffel, William E.


Vann, Joshua

Insufficient detail and clarity provided on proposed change.


378 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 388 of 718


19.1.6.6*

Fire-retardant-treated wood that serves as supports for the installation of fixtures and equipment shallbe permitted to be installed behind noncombustible or limited-combustible sheathing.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

NFPA 220, 4.3.2.13 already permits non treated wood as blocking. This section almost seems toimply that non treated wood is not permitted in Type II construction. However, NFPA 220, which isreferenced by this section, permits combustible blocking and NFPA 101 doesn't appear to restrict it.This new paragraph, which was added in 2015, seems to be confusing at best.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6873-NFPA 101-2018



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.


379 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 389 of 718

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



380 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 390 of 718


19.2.2.2.2

Locks shall not be permitted on patient sleeping room doors, unless otherwise permitted by one of thefollowing:

(1) Key-locking Locking devices that restrict access to the room from the corridor and that are operableonly by staff from the corridor side shall be permitted, provided that such devices do not restrictegress from the room.

(2) Locks complying with 19.2.2.2.5 shall be permitted.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

For patient privacy, locks that allow patients to lock the door when they leave the room may bedesirable, particularly in nursing homes. RFID locks that allow access by staff and the patient orpatient's family are readily available. There is no safety issue regarding access from the corridor solong as egress is uninhibited and staff can access the room, and there is no reason to limit accessso only staff can unlock the door from the corridor side.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6834-NFPA 101-2018



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.


381 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 391 of 718

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



382 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 392 of 718


19.2.2.2.7*

Doors permitted to be locked in accordance with 19.2.2.2.5.1 shall be permitted to have murals on theegress doors to disguise the doors, provided all of the following are met:

(1) Staff can readily unlock the doors at all times in accordance with 19.2.2.2.6.

(2)

(3)

(4) The murals do not impair the operation of the doors.

(5) The affected smoke compartments are protected throughout by an approved, supervised automaticsprinkler system in accordance with 19.3.5.7.

(6) The location and operation of doors disguised with murals are identified in the fire safety plan and areincluded in staff training.

(7) Any modification to a fire door complies with NFPA 80 .


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision responds to PI-331 and defers to the requirements of NFPA 80 with regard tothe modification of fire doors.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6835-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.

* The door-releasing hardware, where provided, is readily accessible for staff use.

* Door leaves, windows, and door hardware, other than door-releasing hardware, are permitted to becovered by the murals.


383 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 393 of 718


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.

Language added to include NFPA80


Knippa, Kevin

This is unnecessary. Nothing in the existing language implies a fire door is permitted to rendered non-compliantwith NFPA 80 as a result of applying a mural. We should not include advisory language in code as it opens thedoor to doing so throughout the code. Chapter 8 already requires fire doors to comply with NFPA 80.


384 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 394 of 718



385 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 395 of 718

19.2.3.4*


386 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 396 of 718

Any required aisle, corridor, or ramp required for exit access shall be not less than 48 in. (1220 mm) inclear width where serving as means of egress from patient sleeping rooms, unless otherwise permitted byone of the following:

(1) Aisles, corridors, and ramps in adjunct areas not intended for the housing, treatment, or use ofinpatients shall be not less than 44 in. (1120 mm) in clear and unobstructed width.

(2)

(3) Exit access within a room or suite of rooms complying with the requirements of 19.2.5 shall bepermitted.

(4) Projections into the required width shall be permitted for wheeled equipment, provided that all of thefollowing conditions are met:

(a) The wheeled equipment does not reduce the clear, unobstructed corridor width to less than 60 in.(1525 mm).

(b) The health care occupancy fire safety plan and training program address the relocation of thewheeled equipment during a fire or similar emergency.

(c)

(5)

(6) Where the corridor width is at least 8 ft (2440 mm), projections into the required width shall bepermitted for emergency stair travel devices, provided that all of the following conditions are met:

(a) These devices do not reduce the clear, unobstructed corridor width to less than 72 in.(1830 mm).

(b) These devices are secured to the wall.

* Where corridor width is at least 6 ft (1830 mm), projections from the corridor wall shall be permittedby one of the following:

(a) Noncontinuous projections not more than 4 in. (100 mm) from the corridor wall, positioned abovehandrail height, are permitted.

(b) Noncontinuous projections of more than 4 in. (100 mm) but not more than 6 in. (150 mm) fromthe corridor wall are permitted provided that both of the following are met:

i. The projecting item is positioned above handrail height.

ii. A vertical extension is provided below the projection such that the extension has a leadingedge that is within 4 in. (100 mm) of the leading edge of the projection at a point that is 27 in.(685 mm) maximum above the floor.

* The wheeled equipment is limited to the following:

i. Equipment in use and carts in use

ii. Medical emergency equipment not in use

iii. Patient lift and transport equipment

* Where the corridor width is at least 8 ft (2440 mm), projections into the required width shall bepermitted for fixed furniture, provided that all of the following conditions are met:

(a) The fixed furniture is securely attached to the floor or to the wall.

(b) The fixed furniture does not reduce the clear, unobstructed corridor width to less than 6 ft(1830 mm), except as permitted by 19.2.3.4(2).

(c) The fixed furniture is located only on one side of the corridor.

(d) The fixed furniture is grouped such that each grouping does not exceed an area of 50 ft2

(4.6 m2).

(e) The fixed furniture groupings addressed in 19.2.3.4(5)(d) are separated from each other by adistance of at least 10 ft (3050 mm).

(f)

(g) Corridors throughout the smoke compartment are protected by an electrically supervisedautomatic smoke detection system in accordance with 19.3.4, or the fixed furniture spaces arearranged and located to allow direct supervision by the facility staff from a nurses’ station orsimilar space.

(h) The smoke compartment is protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinklersystem in accordance with 19.3.5.8.

* The fixed furniture is located so as to not obstruct access to building service and fire protectionequipment.


387 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 397 of 718

(c) Where furniture is placed in the corridor in accordance with 19.2.3.4(5), the emergency stairtravel devices are placed on the same side of the corridor as the furniture.

(d) These devices are located so as to not obstruct access to building service and fire protectionequipment.

(e) These devices are grouped such that each grouping does not exceed a projected floor area of

12 ft2 (3.7 m2).

(f) The groupings addressed in 19.2.3.4(6)(e) are separated from each other by a distance of atleast 10 ft (3050 mm).

(g) The smoke compartment is protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinklersystem in accordance with 19.3.5.8.

(7) Where the corridor width is at least 8 ft (2440 mm), self-retracting seats fixed to the wall shall bepermitted provided all of the following are met:

(a) The seats comply with ASTM F851, Standard Test Method for Self-Rising Seat Mechanisms.

(b) The seats automatically return to their normally retracted position, at which time the seatprojection into the means of egress complies with 7.3.2.2 and does not interfere with the meansof egress.

(c) The self-retracting seats are normally in the retracted position and project not more than 4 in.(100 mm) from the wall.

(d) Exposed upholstery components, where provided, meet the requirements for Class I when testedin accordance with NFPA 260.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision makes the language consistent with Chapter 18. Exit discharge paths often containramps and the existing language could be interpreted to require a 48 inch width path from the exitdischarge to a public way.

NOTE: The FR only adds the words 'required for exit access' to the base provision. Otherunderlined text is NOT new.

Renumber items (6)(d)i, (6)(d)ii, and (6)(d)iii as (6)(e), (6)(f), and (6)(g), respectively (editorial).

ResponseMessage:

FR-6837-NFPA 101-2018



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


388 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 398 of 718

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



Knippa, Kevin

The provision addresses means of egress from patient sleeping rooms. The means of egress includes existaccess, the exit and the exit discharge, not just the exit access. There is no evidence the intent of previouscommittees was to limit the application of this provision solely to exit access.


389 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 399 of 718


19.2.4.3

Not less than two separate exits shall be accessible from every part of every story, except where roomsare not required to have a door leading directly to the exit access corridor, as permitted by 19.2.5.6.3 .


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Rooms having doors directly to the outside do not require direct corridor access per 19.2.5.6.3,however they still require access to a second means of egress per 19.2.4.3 if they are not separatedwith a 2-hour fire barrier occupancy separation. This exception would link the two requirements sothat spaces (typically mechanical, electrical, or other similar spaces) would be permitted to have onlya single means of egress, provided all other egress criteria are met for the space. Currently thesearrangements would be permitted anyway by denoting such spaces as “non-patient care” suites,however adding this designation is an unnecessary step which is rarely accurately shown on lifesafety plans.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6838-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.


390 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 400 of 718

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



391 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 401 of 718


19.2.5.2

Reserved.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-6671-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.


392 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 402 of 718

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.

Numbering change needed


393 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 403 of 718


19.2.5.5 Two Means of Egress.

19.2.5.5.1

Sleeping rooms of more than 1000 ft2 (93 m2) gross shall have not less than two exit access doorsremotely located from each other.

19.2.5.5.2

Non-sleeping rooms of more than 2500 ft2 (230 m2) gross shall have not less than two exit access doorsremotely located from each other.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.


394 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 404 of 718

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.

Change to gross area


395 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 405 of 718


19.2.5.7 Health Care Suites.

19.2.5.7.1 General.

19.2.5.7.1.1 Suite Permission.

Suites complying with 19.2.5.7 shall be permitted to be used to meet the corridor access requirements of19.2.5.6.

19.2.5.7.1.2* Suite Separation.

Suites shall be separated from the remainder of the building, and from other suites, by one of thefollowing:

(1) Walls and doors meeting the requirements of 19.3.6.2 through 19.3.6.5

(2) Existing approved barriers and doors that limit the transfer of smoke

19.2.5.7.1.3 Suite Hazardous Contents Areas.

(A)*

Intervening rooms shall not be hazardous areas as defined by 19.3.2.

(B)

Hazardous areas within a suite shall be separated from the remainder of the suite in accordance with19.3.2.1, unless otherwise provided in 19.2.5.7.1.3(C) or 19.2.5.7.1.3(D).

(C)*

Hazardous areas within a suite shall not be required to be separated from the remainder of the suitewhere complying with both of the following:

(1) The suite is primarily a hazardous area.

(2) The suite is separated from the rest of the health care facility as required for a hazardous area by19.3.2.1.

(D)*

Spaces containing sterile surgical materials limited to a one-day supply in operating suites or similarspaces that are sprinklered in accordance with 19.3.5.7 shall be permitted to be open to the remainder ofthe suite without separation.

19.2.5.7.1.4 Suite Subdivision.

The subdivision of suites shall be by means of noncombustible or limited-combustible partitions orpartitions constructed with fire-retardant-treated wood enclosed with noncombustible or limited-combustible materials, and such partitions shall not be required to be fire rated.

19.2.5.7.2 Sleeping Suites.

Sleeping suites shall be in accordance with the following:

(1) Sleeping suites for patient care Patient care sleeping suites shall comply with the provisions of19.2.5.7.2.1 through 19.2.5.7.2.4.

(2) Sleeping suites not for patient care shall comply with the provisions of 19.2.5.7.4.

19.2.5.7.2.1 Patient Care Sleeping Suite Supervision.

(A)

Sleeping Patient care sleeping suites shall be provided with constant staff supervision within the suite.


396 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 406 of 718

(B)*

Sleeping Patient care sleeping suites shall be arranged in accordance with one of the following:

(1)

(2) Sleeping Patient care sleeping suites shall be provided with a total (complete) coverage automaticsmoke detection system in accordance with 9.6.2.9 and 19.3.4.

19.2.5.7.2.2 Patient Care Sleeping Suite Means of Egress.

(A)*

Sleeping Patient care sleeping suites shall have exit access to a corridor complying with 19.3.6 or to ahorizontal exit, directly from the suite.

(B)

Sleeping Patient care sleeping suites of more than 1000 ft2 (93 m2) gross shall have not less than twoexit access doors remotely located from each other.

(C)*

For suites requiring two exit access doors, one of the exit access doors from the suite shall be permittedto be to one of the following:

(1) An exit stair




19.2.5.7.2.3 Patient Care Sleeping Suite Maximum Size.

(A)

Sleeping Patient care sleeping suites shall not exceed 5000 ft2 (460 m2) gross , unless otherwiseprovided in 19.2.5.7.2.3(B) or 19.2.5.7.2.3(C).

(B)

Sleeping Patient care sleeping suites shall not exceed 7500 ft2 (700 m2) gross where the smokecompartment is protected throughout by one of the following:

(1) Approved electrically supervised sprinkler system in accordance with 19.3.5.7 and total (complete)coverage automatic smoke detection in accordance with 9.6.2.9 and 19.3.4

(2) Approved electrically supervised sprinkler system protection complying with 19.3.5.8

(C)

Sleeping Patient care sleeping suites greater than 7500 ft2 (700 m2) gross , and not exceeding 10,000 ft2

(930 m2) gross , shall be permitted where all of the following are provided in the suite:

(1)



19.2.5.7.2.4 Patient Care Sleeping Suite Travel Distance.

(A)

Travel distance between any point in a sleeping suite and an exit access door to another suite, an exitaccess corridor door, or a horizontal exit door from that suite shall not exceed 100 ft (30 m).

* Patient sleeping rooms within patient care sleeping suites shall provide one of the following:

(a) The patient sleeping rooms shall be arranged to allow for direct supervision from a normallyattended location within the suite, such as is provided by glass walls, and cubicle curtains shallbe permitted.

(b) Any patient sleeping rooms without the direct supervision required by 19.2.5.7.2.1(B)(1)(a) shallbe provided with smoke detection in accordance with Section 9.6 and 19.3.4.

* Direct visual supervision in accordance with 19.2.5.7.2.1(B)(1)(a)


397 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 407 of 718

(B)

Travel distance between any point in a sleeping suite and an exit shall not exceed the following:

(1) 150 ft (46 m) if the building is not protected throughout by an approved electrically supervisedsprinkler system complying with 19.3.5.7

(2) 200 ft (61 m) if the building is protected throughout by an approved electrically supervised sprinklersystem complying with 19.3.5.7

19.2.5.7.3 Patient Care Non-Sleeping Suites.

Non-sleeping suites shall be in accordance with the following:

(1) Non-sleeping suites for patient care shall comply with the provisions of 19.2.5.7.3.1 through19.2.5.7.3.3.

(2) Non-sleeping suites not for patient care shall comply with the provisions of 19.2.5.7.4.

19.2.5.7.3.1 Patient Care Non-Sleeping Suite Means of Egress.

(A)

Patient care non-sleeping suites shall have exit access to a corridor complying with 19.3.6 or to ahorizontal exit, directly from the suite.

(B)

Patient care non-sleeping suites of more than 2500 ft2 (230 m2) gross shall have not less than two exitaccess doors remotely located from each other.

(C)*

For suites requiring two exit access doors, one of the exit access doors shall be permitted to be to one ofthe following:

(1) An exit stair




19.2.5.7.3.2 Patient Care Non-Sleeping Suite Maximum Size.

Non Patient care non -sleeping suites shall not exceed 10,000 ft2 (930 m2) gross , unless otherwiseprovided in 19.2.5.7.3.2(A) or 19.2.5.7.3.2(B).

(A)

Non Patient care non -sleeping suites greater than 10,000 ft2 (930 m2) gross and not exceeding

12,500 ft2 (1161 m2) gross shall be permitted where the smoke compartment is protected throughout byone of the following:

(1) Approved electrically supervised sprinkler system in accordance with 19.3.5.7 and total (complete)coverage automatic smoke detection in accordance with 9.6.2.9 and 19.3.4


(B)

Non Patient care non -sleeping suites greater than 12,500 ft2 (1161 m2) gross and not exceeding

15,000 ft2 (1394 m2) gross shall be permitted where both of the following are provided in the suite:



19.2.5.7.3.3 Patient Care Non-Sleeping Suite Travel Distance.

(A)

Travel distance within a patient care non-sleeping suite to an exit access door to another suite, an exitaccess corridor door, or a horizontal exit door from the suite shall not exceed 100 ft (30 m).


398 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 408 of 718

(B)

Travel distance between any point in a non-sleeping suite and an exit shall not exceed the following:

(1) 150 ft (46 m) if the building is not protected throughout by an approved electrically supervisedsprinkler system complying with 19.3.5.7

(2) 200 ft (61 m) if the building is protected throughout by an approved electrically supervised sprinklersystem complying with 19.3.5.7

19.2.5.7.4 Non-Patient-Care Suites.

The egress provisions for non-patient-care suites shall be in accordance with the primary use andoccupancy of the space.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The proposed revisions are intended to correlate with revisions to corresponding definitions inChapter 3. The revision also responds to PI-522 and clarifies the areas indicated are intended tobe the gross areas.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6832-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary


399 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 409 of 718

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.

Changes needed to meet definition section


400 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 410 of 718


19.3.1.3

Unenclosed vertical openings in accordance with 8.6.9.2 connecting not more than two contiguousstories shall be permitted.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision permits the use of the 8.6.9.2 convenience stair provided that it is limited toconnecting not more than two stories.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6822-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.


401 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 411 of 718

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



Knippa, Kevin

The rationale for incorporating this change is because floor openings for escalators and moving walks arepermitted by 8.6.9.7, which should never have been permitted in past editions of NFPA 101. Both this provisionand 8.6.9.7 expect a sprinkler curtain to magically keep smoke that can freely flow between floors via the verticalopening from entering exit access corridors on the floors.


402 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 412 of 718



Occupant notification shall be accomplished automatically in accordance with 9.6.3, unless otherwisemodified by the following:

(1)

(2) Where visual devices have been installed in patient sleeping areas in place of an audible alarm, theyshall be permitted where approved by the authority having jurisdiction.

(3) The provision of 19.3.2.5.3(13)(c) shall be permitted to be used.

(4)


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

* In lieu of audible alarm signals, visible alarm-indicating appliances shall be permitted to be used incritical care areas.

* Where the private operating mode in accordance with NFPA 72 is used, alarm notificationappliances shall not be required in patient care spaces where alarm notification adversely affectspatient care.

A.19.3.4.3.1(4)

In health care occupancies, fire alarm system notification is often designed primarily to notifystaff who are responsible for the occupants in their care. The staff can be used as an alternatemeans for notifying others who might need to relocate or evacuate.


403 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 413 of 718

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.


Knippa, Kevin



404 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 414 of 718


19.3.5.8*

Where this Code permits exceptions for fully sprinklered buildings or , suites, or smoke compartments andspecifically references this paragraph, the sprinkler system shall meet all of the following criteria:

(1) It shall be installed throughout the building, suite, or smoke compartment in accordance withSection 9.7.

(2) It shall be installed in accordance with 9.7.1.1(1), unless it is an approved existing system.

(3) It shall be electrically connected to the fire alarm system.

(4) It shall be fully supervised.

(5) It shall be equipped with listed quick-response or listed residential sprinklers throughout all smokecompartments containing patient sleeping rooms.

(6)

(7) Standard-response sprinklers shall be permitted for use in hazardous areas protected in accordancewith 19.3.2.1.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

19.2.5.7.2.3(C)(3) and 19.2.5.7.3.2(B)(2) suite provisions both reference 19.3.5.8 for completesprinkler protection throughout the suite only, therefore the term suite should be added to thisparagraph.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6839-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

* Standard-response sprinklers shall be permitted to be continued to be used in approved existingsprinkler systems where quick-response and residential sprinklers were not listed for use in suchlocations at the time of installation.


405 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 415 of 718

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



406 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 416 of 718


19.3.6.2.4*

In smoke compartments protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system inaccordance with 19.3.5.7, a corridor shall be permitted to be separated from all other areas by non-fire-rated partitions and shall be permitted to terminate at or above the ceiling, but shall not be required toextend to the deck above, where the ceiling is constructed to limit the transfer of smoke.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Additional language is intended to clarify that corridor walls may terminate at the ceiling, deckabove, or anywhere in between, as long as the smoke tight conditions are met.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6840-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.


407 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 417 of 718

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



408 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 418 of 718


19.3.6.3.5*

Doors shall be provided with a means for keeping the door closed, that is acceptable to the authorityhaving jurisdiction, and the following requirements also shall apply:

(1) The device used shall be capable of keeping the door fully closed if a force of 5 lbf (22 N) is applied atthe latch edge of the door.

(2) Roller latches shall be prohibited on corridor doors in buildings not fully protected by an approvedautomatic sprinkler system in accordance with 19.3.5.7.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: 5 LB is a known means to keep the door closed and should not require AHJ approval.



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.


409 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 419 of 718

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.

We need a trained third party reviewing all requirements of ensuring life safety.

Roeper, Kurt A.

the requirement 'acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction' applies to the means used to keep the doorclosed, not to the 5 lbs. of force cited in the committee statement. The existing language of 2018 LSC should beretained


410 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 420 of 718


19.3.6.3.7

Powered doors that comply with the requirements of 7.2.1.9 shall be considered as complying with therequirements of 19.3.6.3.5, provided that both all of the following criteria are met:

(1) The door is equipped with a means for keeping the door closed that is acceptable to the authorityhaving jurisdiction.

(2) The device used is capable of keeping the door fully closed if a force of 5 lbf (22 N) is applied at thelatch edge of a swinging door and applied in any direction to a sliding or folding door, whether or notpower is applied.

(3) The power-assist mechanism ceases to function upon operation of approved smoke detectorsinstalled in accordance with the provisions of NFPA 72 .


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The Code currently permits the omission of latches on corridor doors in health care occupanciesprovided the doors meet certain provisions including 7.2.1.9. 7.2.1.9.2 is titled “Self-Closing or Self-Latching Door Leaf Operation” and subsection (4) requires local smoke detection at the doors tooverride the power opening feature which can be argued does not apply since the doors meeting19.3.6.3.7 are not required to self-latch.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6842-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.



411 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 421 of 718

Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



412 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 422 of 718


Detail FR-6843

19.3.7.1*

Smoke barriers shall be provided to divide every story used for sleeping rooms for more than 30 patientsinto not less than two smoke compartments (see 19.2.4.4), and the following also shall apply:

(1) The size of any such smoke compartment shall comply with one of the following:

(a) Smoke compartments shall not exceed 22,500 ft2 (2100 m2) gross .

(b) Where the building is sprinklered in accordance with 19.3.5.8, hospital smoke compartments

shall not exceed 40,000 ft2 (3720 m2) gross where all sleeping rooms are configured for onlyone patient. Suites in accordance with 19.2.5.7 shall be permitted where every occupiablesleeping room within the suite is configured for only one patient.

(c) Where the building is sprinklered in accordance with 19.3.5.8 , hospital smoke compartments

shall not exceed 40,000 ft2 (3720 m2 ) where the smoke compartment contains no patientsleeping rooms.

(2) The travel distance from any point to reach a door in the required smoke barrier shall not exceed200 ft (61 m).

(3) Where neither the length nor width of the smoke compartment exceeds 150 ft (46 m), the traveldistance to reach the smoke barrier door shall not be limited.

(4) The area of any smoke compartment that contains an atrium shall not include the area of the atriumseparated in accordance with 8.6.7 shall not be limited in size .


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision responds to PI-522 by clarifying the areas indicated are intended to be the grossareas. The revision also responds to PI-55 by modifying item (4) re. atrium area.

NOTE: The FR only adds the word 'gross' (X2) and revises item (4) to clarify the intent regardingatriums in smoke compartments.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6833-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention


413 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 423 of 718

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



414 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 424 of 718



Health care occupancies shall comply with Chapter 11 where located in special structures.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-6678-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.


415 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 425 of 718

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



416 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 426 of 718


19.4.3 High-Rise Buildings.

19.4.3.1

All high-rise buildings containing health care occupancies shall be protected throughout by an approved,supervised automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 9.7 within 12 years of theadoption of this Code, except as otherwise provided in 19.4.2.3 19.4.3.3 , 19.4.2.4 19.4.3.4 , or19.4.2.4 19.4.3.4 .

19.4.3.2*

Where a jurisdiction adopts this edition of the Code and previously adopted the 2015 2018 edition, thesprinklering required by 19.4.2.1 19.4.3.1 shall be installed within 9 years of the adoption of this Code.

A.19.4.3.2

The provision of 19.4.3.2 is intended to prevent the phase-in period for the installation of sprinklers frombeing reset to 12 years upon adoption of the 2018 2021 edition of the Code in jurisdictions where the12-year period had already begun via the adoption of the 2015 2018 edition.

19.4.3.3*


A.19.4.3.3


19.4.3.4*


A.19.4.3.4



Committee: SAF-HEA

Submittal Date: Fri Sep 21 09:28:26 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision updates the code edition years for the 12-year sprinkler retrofit phase-in forhigh-rise buildings.


Ballot Results


417 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 427 of 718


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.

Waiting to make life safety improvements should not be spread out over time.


418 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 428 of 718


19.4.4* Alcohol-Based Hand-Rub Dispensers.

Alcohol-based hand-rub dispensers shall be protected in accordance with 8.7.3.1, unless all of thefollowing conditions are met:

(1) Where dispensers are installed in a corridor, the corridor shall have a minimum width of 6 ft(1830 mm).

(2) The maximum individual dispenser fluid capacity shall be as follows:

(a) 0.32 gal (1.2 L) for dispensers in rooms, corridors, and areas open to corridors

(b) 0.53 gal (2.0 L) for dispensers in suites of rooms

(3) Where aerosol containers are used, the maximum capacity of the aerosol dispenser shall be 18 oz(0.51 kg) and shall be limited to Level 1 aerosols as defined in NFPA 30B.

(4) Dispensers shall be separated from each other by horizontal spacing of not less than 48 in.(1220 mm).

(5) Not more than an aggregate 10 gal (37.8 L) of alcohol-based hand-rub solution or 1135 oz (32.2 kg)of Level 1 aerosols, or a combination of liquids and Level 1 aerosols not to exceed, in total, theequivalent of 10 gal (37.8 L) or 1135 oz (32.2 kg), shall be in use outside of a storage cabinet in asingle smoke compartment, except as otherwise provided in 19.4.3(6) 19.4.4(6) .

(6) One dispenser complying with 18.4.4(2) or (3) per room and located in that room shall not be includedin the aggregated quantity addressed in 19.4.3(5) 19.4.4(5) .

(7) Storage of quantities greater than 5 gal (18.9 L) in a single smoke compartment shall meet therequirements of NFPA 30.

(8) Dispensers shall not be installed in the following locations:

(a) Above an ignition source within a 1 in. (25 mm) horizontal distance from each side of the ignitionsource

(b) To the side of an ignition source within a 1 in. (25 mm) horizontal distance from the ignitionsource

(c) Beneath an ignition source within a 1 in. (25 mm) vertical distance from the ignition source

(9) Dispensers installed directly over carpeted floors shall be permitted only in sprinklered smokecompartments.

(10) The alcohol-based hand-rub solution shall not exceed 95 percent alcohol content by volume.

(11) Operation of the dispenser shall comply with the following criteria:

(a) The dispenser shall not release its contents except when the dispenser is activated, eithermanually or automatically by touch-free activation.

(b) Any activation of the dispenser shall occur only when an object is placed within 4 in. (100 mm) ofthe sensing device.

(c) An object placed within the activation zone and left in place shall not cause more than oneactivation.

(d) The dispenser shall not dispense more solution than the amount required for hand hygieneconsistent with label instructions.

(e) The dispenser shall be designed, constructed, and operated in a manner that ensures thataccidental or malicious activation of the dispensing device is minimized.

The dispenser shall be tested in accordance with the manufacturer’s care and use instructionseach time a new refill is installed.



419 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 429 of 718

Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: This is an unnecessary requirement.

NOTE: The revision only deletes item (12); other underlined text is NOT new.



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.


420 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 430 of 718

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.

If the manufacturer recommends maintenance it should be kept in.


421 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 431 of 718


19.5.1.3

Maintenance and testing Design, installation, testing, and maintenance of essential electrical systemsshall be in accordance with NFPA 99.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The proposed revision responds to PI-140, which was submitted on 7.2.3.12, and shouldmeet the submitter's intent.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6865-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.


422 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 432 of 718

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



423 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 433 of 718


19.7.1.4*

Fire drills in health care occupancies shall include the transmission the simulation of a fire alarmsignal emergency fire conditions and simulation activation of emergency fire conditions the fire alarmsystem notification appliances .


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This clarifies the intent of "transmission of a fire alarm signal" and shows that it is not intendedto send a signal to emergency forces.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6845-NFPA 101-2018



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.


424 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 434 of 718

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.

Fire drills need to be as real as possible especially with notification. Transmitting signals is necessary.


425 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 435 of 718


19.7.1.7

When drills are conducted between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (2100 hours and 0600 hours), a codedannouncement shall be permitted to be used instead of audible alarms activating the fire alarm systemnotification appliances .


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This clarifies that fire alarm notification appliances do not need to be activated after-hours.




Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary


426 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 436 of 718

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.

Drills should be done during normal business hours especially for staff and residents.


427 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 437 of 718


19.7.4* Smoking.

Smoking regulations shall be adopted and shall include not less than the following provisions:

(1) Smoking shall be prohibited in any room, ward, or individual enclosed space where flammable liquids,combustible gases, or oxygen is used or stored and in any other hazardous location, and such areasshall be posted with signs that read NO SMOKING or shall be posted with the international symbol forno smoking.

(2) In health care occupancies where smoking is prohibited and signs are prominently placed at all majorentrances, secondary signs with language that prohibits smoking shall not be required.

(3) Smoking by patients classified as not responsible shall be prohibited.

(4) The requirement of 19.7.4(3) shall not apply where the patient is under direct supervision.

(5) Ashtrays of noncombustible material and safe design shall be provided in all areas inside the buildingwhere smoking is permitted.

(6) Metal containers with self-closing cover devices into which ashtrays can be emptied shall be readilyavailable to all areas where smoking is permitted inside the building .


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision is intended to clarify that these requirements do not apply outside and inparking lots.




Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.


428 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 438 of 718

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



Knippa, Kevin

The argument for this revision is that NFPA 101 does not regulate the outside of a building. In fact, NFPA 101regulates beyond the exit door, through the exit access to the public way. There are multiple documented cases ofsmoking causing landscape fires that then ignited a building.


429 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 439 of 718


19.7.5.7.1

Soiled linen or trash collection receptacles shall not exceed 32 64 gal (121 242 L) in capacity and shallmeet all of the following requirements:


(20.4 40.7 L/m2).

(2)



Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision responds to PI-147. A task group has been established to further study thisissue.



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

26 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

* Mobile soiled linen or trash collection receptacles with capacities greater than 32 64 gal (121 242 L)shall be located in a room protected as a hazardous area when not attended.


430 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 440 of 718

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



Bush, Kenneth E.


Koffel, William E.

The increase in container size and density have not been substantiated.


431 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 441 of 718


19.7.8* Portable Space-Heating Devices.

Portable space-heating devices shall be prohibited in all health care occupancies, unless both of thefollowing criteria are met:

(1) Such devices are used only in non-sleeping staff and employee areas.



Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-6753-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.


432 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 442 of 718

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



433 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 443 of 718


19.7.9.3

For repair, renovation, or preparation for construction activities of a duration not greater than 30 daysthat do not cause the classification of the construction area as a hazardous area as identified in 18.3.2 ,fire-retardant plastic in accordance with NFPA 701 shall be permitted to be used to separate theconstruction area from the other spaces provided that both the construction area and the adjacentoccupied spaces are protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

While protected by automatic suppression systems, the fire risk in areas under construction areminimal; however, risks of infections due to dust remain high. Fire resistant plastic sheetingprovides superior dust control while without increasing fire risks.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6848-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

26 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.


434 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 444 of 718

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.


Koffel, William E.

The reference to fire retardant should be flame retardant since the test standard referenced is NFPA 701.


Knippa, Kevin

NFPA 101 does not prohibit the use of fire-retardant plastic sheeting for this use, so why is it necessary to stateit? This change would have the effect of permitting a non-conforming part of a building to be separated from aconforming building by a plastic sheet. The provision does not mention other system required for compliance, onlyfire sprinklers. Are all fire alarm and detection appliances in place and functional? Can an installed fire sprinklersystem be disabled in lieu of a fire watch? Does the work area conform to requirements for fire resistantconstruction type?


435 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 445 of 718


20.1.1.4.2 Changes of Occupancy.

A change from a hospital or nursing home to an ambulatory health care occupancy shall not beconsidered a change in occupancy or occupancy subclassification.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Change of occupancy is adequately addressed by Chapter 43.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.


436 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 446 of 718

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



437 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 447 of 718


20.2.3.2

The clear width of any corridor or passageway ramp required for exit access shall be not less than 44 in.(1120 mm).


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The term passageway is not defined in the Code and is open to interpretation. There are instanceswhere AHJs have interpreted the term "passageway" to mean the circulation space within open bayoutpatient medical treatment area. Applying the-44 inch clear width requirement to this type of areais more restrictive than the clear width requirement in the circulation space of a suite in a health careoccupancy.

If the committee determines the term passageway needs to remain, the intent of the term needs tobe further explained perhaps via an annex note to avoid misinterpretations.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6750-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.


438 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 448 of 718

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



439 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 449 of 718


20.2.5.2

Limitations on common path of travel shall be in accordance with 20.2.5.3.1 20.2.5.2.1 ,20.2.5.3.2 20.2.5.2.2 , and 20.2.5.3.3 20.2.5.2.3 .

20.2.5.2.1

Common path of travel shall not exceed 100 ft (30 m) in a building protected throughout by an approved,supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 9.7.1.1(1).

20.2.5.2.2

Common path of travel shall not exceed 100 ft (30 m) within a single tenant space having an occupantload not exceeding 25 persons.

20.2.5.2.3

In buildings other than those complying with 20.2.5.3.1 20.2.5.2.1 or 20.2.5.3.2 20.2.5.2.2 , common pathof travel shall not exceed 75 ft (23 m).


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-6672-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.



440 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 450 of 718

Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



441 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 451 of 718



20.3.4.3.1.1

Occupant notification shall be accomplished automatically, without delay, in accordance with 9.6.3 uponoperation of any fire alarm activating device.

20.3.4.3.1.2*

Where the private operating mode in accordance with NFPA 72 is used, alarm notification appliancesshall not be required in patient care spaces where alarm notification adversely affects patient care.

A.20.3.4.3.1.2

In ambulatory health care occupancies, fire alarm system notification is often designed primarily tonotify staff who are responsible for the occupants in their care. The staff can be used as an alternatemeans for notifying others who might need to relocate or evacuate.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.


442 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 452 of 718

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



443 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 453 of 718


20.3.7.2

Every story of an ambulatory health care occupancy shall be divided into not less than two smokecompartments, unless otherwise permitted by one of the following:

(1) This requirement shall not apply where the area of the ambulatory health care occupancy is less than

5000 ft2 (465 m2) gross per story and that area is protected by an approved automatic smokedetection system.


10,000 ft2 (929 m2) gross per story and the building is protected throughout by an approved,supervised automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 9.7.

(3) An area in an adjoining occupancy shall be permitted to serve as a smoke compartment for anambulatory health care occupancy if all of the following criteria are met:

(a) The separating wall and both compartments meet the requirements of 20.3.7.

(b) The ambulatory health care occupancy does not exceed one of the following:

i. 22,500 ft2 (2100 m2) gross

ii. 40,000 ft2 (3720 m2) gross in buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervisedautomatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7

(c) Access from the ambulatory health care occupancy to the other occupancy is unrestricted.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision responds to PI-523 and clarifies that the noted areas are intended to be grossfloor areas.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All


444 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 454 of 718

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



445 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 455 of 718


20.3.7.3

Smoke compartments shall not exceed one of the following:

(1) An area of 22,500 ft2 (2100 m2) gross

(2) An area of 40,000 ft2 (3720 m2) gross in buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervisedautomatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision responds to PI-523 and clarifies that the noted areas are intended to be grossfloor areas.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary


446 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 456 of 718

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



447 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 457 of 718



Ambulatory health care occupancies shall comply with Chapter 11 where located in special structures.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-6679-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.


448 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 458 of 718

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



449 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 459 of 718


20.7.5.5.1

Soiled linen or trash collection receptacles shall not exceed 32 64 gal (121 242 L) in capacity, and all ofthe following also shall apply:


(20.4 40.7 L/m2).

(2) Mobile soiled linen or trash collection receptacles with capacities greater than 32 64 gal (121 242 L)shall be located in a room protected as a hazardous area when not attended.



Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The proposed revisions are intended for consistency with revisions to Chapter 18. A taskgroup has been established to further study this issue.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6854-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

26 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.


450 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 460 of 718

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



Bush, Kenneth E.


Koffel, William E.



451 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 461 of 718


20.7.7.1

New engineered smoke control systems shall be designed, installed, tested, and maintained inaccordance with established engineering principles and shall meet the performance requirements of suchtesting prior to acceptance NFPA 92 .

20.7.7.2

Following acceptance, all engineered smoke control systems shall be tested periodically in accordancewith recognized engineering principles.

20.7.7.2

Test documentation shall be maintained on the premises at all times.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The proposed change updates the provisions for smoke control systems to current standards.The change is consistent with health care occupancy requirements.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6852-NFPA 101-2018

Public Input No. 259-NFPA 101-2018 [Sections 20.7.7.1, 20.7.7.2, 20.7.7.3]

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke


452 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 462 of 718

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Knippa, Kevin

I believe this should refer to Section 9.3 rather than directly to NFPA 92.


Farraher, Martin J.

These systems need to be tested by skilled and trained providers.


453 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 463 of 718


20.7.8 Portable Space-Heating Devices.

Portable space-heating devices shall be prohibited in all ambulatory health care occupancies, unless bothof the following criteria are met:




Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-6754-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.


454 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 464 of 718

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



455 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 465 of 718


21.1.1.4.2 Changes of Occupancy.

A change from a hospital or nursing home to an ambulatory health care occupancy shall not beconsidered a change in occupancy or occupancy subclassification.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Change of occupancy is adequately addressed by Chapter 43.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.


456 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 466 of 718

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



457 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 467 of 718


21.2.3.2

The clear width of any corridor or passageway ramp required for exit access shall be not less than 44 in.(1120 mm).


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The term passageway is not defined in the Code and is open to interpretation. There are instanceswhere AHJs have interpreted the term "passageway" to mean the circulation space within open bayoutpatient medical treatment area. Applying the 44-inch clear width requirement to this type of areais more restrictive than the clear width requirement in the circulation space of a suite in a health careoccupancy.

If the committee determines the term passageway needs to remain, the intent of the term needs tobe further explained perhaps via an annex note to avoid misinterpretations.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6751-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.


458 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 468 of 718

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



459 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 469 of 718


21.2.5.2

Limitations on common path of travel shall be in accordance with 21.2.5.2.1, 21.2.5.2.2, and 21.2.5.2.3.

21.2.5.2.1

Common path of travel shall not exceed 100 ft (30 m) on a story protected throughout by an approvedautomatic sprinkler system in accordance with 9.7.1.1(1).

21.2.5.2.2

Common path of travel shall not be limited in a single-tenant space with an occupant load not exceeding25 people.

21.2.5.2.3

In buildings other than those complying with 21.2.5.2.1 or 21.2.5.2.2, common path of travel shall notexceed 75 ft (23 m).


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-6673-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.


460 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 470 of 718

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



461 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 471 of 718



21.3.4.3.1.1

Occupant notification shall be accomplished automatically, without delay, in accordance with 9.6.3 uponoperation of any fire alarm activating device.

21.3.4.3.1.2*

Where the private operating mode in accordance with NFPA 72 is used, alarm notification appliancesshall not be required in patient care spaces where alarm notification adversely affects patient care.

A.21.3.4.3.1.2

In ambulatory health care occupancies, fire alarm system notification is often designed primarily tonotify staff who are responsible for the occupants in their care. The staff can be used as an alternatemeans for notifying others who might need to relocate or evacuate.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

26 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.


462 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 472 of 718

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.


Knippa, Kevin


Koffel, William E.

While existing smoke control systems may not be designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 92, one wouldthink that they should be tested as required by NFPA 92.


463 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 473 of 718


21.3.5.3

Portable fire extinguishers shall be provided in ambulatory health care facilities in accordance withSection 9.9.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Editorial correction.




Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.


464 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 474 of 718

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



465 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 475 of 718


21.3.7.2

Every story of an ambulatory health care occupancy shall be divided into not less than two smokecompartments, unless otherwise permitted by one of the following:


5000 ft2 (465 m2) gross per story and that area is protected by an approved automatic smokedetection system.


10,000 ft2 (929 m2) gross per story and the building is protected throughout by an approved,supervised automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 9.7.

(3) An area in an adjoining occupancy shall be permitted to serve as a smoke compartment for anambulatory health care occupancy if all of the following criteria are met:

(a) The separating wall and both compartments meet the requirements of 21.3.7.

(b) The ambulatory health care occupancy does not exceed one of the following:

i. 22,500 ft2 (2100 m2) gross

ii. 40,000 ft2 (3720 m2) gross in buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervisedautomatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7

(c) Access from the ambulatory health care occupancy to the other occupancy is unrestricted.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision clarifies that the noted areas are intended to be gross floor areas.

NOTE: The revision only adds the word 'gross' in four locations; other underlined text isNOT new.



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben


466 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 476 of 718

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.

Added a few clarifications


467 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 477 of 718



Ambulatory health care occupancies shall comply with Chapter 11 where located in special structures.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-6680-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.


468 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 478 of 718

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



469 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 479 of 718


21.4.3.1

All high-rise buildings shall be provided with a reasonable degree of safety from fire, and such degree ofsafety shall be accomplished by one of the following means: High-rise buildings shall be protectedthroughout by a complete, approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with9.7.1.1 (1).

Installation of a complete, approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with9.7.1.1(1)

Installation of an engineered life safety system complying with all of the following:

The engineered life safety system shall be developed by a registered professional engineerexperienced in fire and life safety systems design.

The life safety system shall be approved by the authority having jurisdiction and shall bepermitted to include any or all of the following systems:

Partial automatic sprinkler protection

Smoke detection alarms

Smoke control

Compartmentation

Other approved systems

21.4.3.1.1

All high-rise occupancy buildings shall comply with 21.4.3.1 within 12 years of the adoption of thisCode .

21.4.3.1.2

The authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to require compliance with 21.4.3.1 in less than 12years.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Considering that many occupants in an ambulatory health care occupancy are incapable of self-preservation, sprinklers should be required in existing high-rise buildings. When installed andmaintained properly, sprinklers are an effective tool in containing a fire thus allowing buildingoccupants who need to evacuate, additional time to do so safely, as well as, limiting the size of thearea involved. The committee acknowledges that it is not always feasible for existing buildings toimmediately comply with a retrofit requirement and therefore has allowed a 12 year period forcompliance.

The public input on which this revision is based was prepared by the NFPA High Rise Building SafetyAdvisory Committee. The HRB-SAC members are:

James R. Quiter (Chair), Arup

Geoff Craighead, Allied Universal


470 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 480 of 718

John Esposito, Fire Department City of New York

Jon Magnusson, National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

John Miller, Los Angeles City Fire Department

Jack Murphy, Fire Safety Directors Association of Greater New York

Jake Pauls, American Public Health Association

Sally Regenhard, The skyscraper Safety Campaign

James Shea, Brookfield Multiplex Europe

William Stewart, Metropolitan Fire Chiefs- IAFC

Peter Weismantle, Council on Tall Buildings & Urban Habitat

Charles Jennings, The Skyscraper Safety Campaign (alt. to S. Regenhard)

HRB-SAC is an advisory committee established by the NFPA Standards to advise the association,and especially the association’s technical committees, on all safety issues related to high risebuildings.

HRB-SAC Ballot Results for This Public Input:

11 Eligible to Vote

11 Affirmative Votes (C. Jennings for S. Regenhard)

ResponseMessage:

FR-6857-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

26 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.


471 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 481 of 718

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Knippa, Kevin

An AHJ does not need our permission to require a different period for compliance.


Farraher, Martin J.

12 years is a long time to wait for improvements with life safety.


AFAA supports a balanced approach to life safety protection that includes automatic sprinklers and detection.Therefore, the option for engineered life safety system should remain.


472 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 482 of 718


21.7.5.5.1

Soiled linen or trash collection receptacles shall not exceed 32 64 gal (121 242 L) in capacity, and all ofthe following also shall apply:


(20.4 40.7 L/m2).

(2) Mobile soiled linen or trash collection receptacles with capacities greater than 32 64 gal (121 242 L)shall be located in a room protected as a hazardous area when not attended.



Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision is intended for consistency with Chapter 20. A task group has been establishedto further study this issue.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6860-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

26 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.


473 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 483 of 718

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



Bush, Kenneth E.


Koffel, William E.



474 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 484 of 718


21.7.7.1

New Existing engineered smoke control systems, unless specifically exempted by the authority havingjurisdiction, shall be tested in accordance with established engineering principles and shall meet theperformance requirements of such testing prior to acceptance .

21.7.7.2

Following acceptance, all engineered smoke control systems shall be tested periodically in accordancewith recognized engineering principles Systems not meeting the performance requirements of the testingspecified in 21.7.7.1 shall be continued in operation only with specific approval of the authority havingjurisdiction .

21.7.7.3

Test documentation shall be maintained on the premises at all times.


Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The proposed change updates the provisions for smoke control systems to current standards.The change is consistent with health care occupancy requirements.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6859-NFPA 101-2018

Public Input No. 260-NFPA 101-2018 [Sections 21.7.7.1, 21.7.7.2, 21.7.7.3]

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.


475 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 485 of 718

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Knippa, Kevin

An AHJ does not need our permission to permit existing system not meeting the requirements to continue inplace.


Farraher, Martin J.

This action is removing the requirement that the systems be tested yearly by skilled and trained staff. Cost shouldnot be a reason when life safety is involved.


476 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 486 of 718


21.7.8 Portable Space-Heating Devices.

Portable space-heating devices shall be prohibited in all ambulatory health care occupancies, unless bothof the following criteria are met:




Committee: SAF-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-6755-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.


477 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 487 of 718

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Harris, Donald W.

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



478 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 488 of 718


22.1.6.1

Detention and correctional occupancies shall be limited to the building construction types specified inTable 22.1.6.1. (See 8.2.1.)


Stories in Height ‡ †

ConstructionType Sprinklered† *

1 WithBasement

1 WithoutBasement 2 3

>3 But NotHigh-Rise

High-Rise

I(442) Yes X X X X X X

No NP NP NP NP NP NP

I(332) Yes X X X X X X


II(222) Yes X X X X X X


II(111) Yes X X X NP NP NP


II(000) Yes X X X NP NP NP


III(211) Yes X X X NP NP NP


III(200) Yes X X X NP NP NP


IV(2HH) Yes X X X NP A NP A NP B


V(111) Yes X X X NP NP NP


V(000) Yes X X X NP NP NP


X: Permitted for Use Conditions II, III, IV, and V. (See 22.1.2.3 for Use Condition I.)

A: Permitted for Type IV buildings in accordance with 7.5.3 of NFPA 5000 .

B: Permitted for Type IV buildings in accordance with 7.5.3.1 of NFPA 5000 .

NP: Not permitted.

† * Sprinklered throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with9.7.1.1(1) . (See 22.3.5.)

‡ † See 4.6.3.


Committee: SAF-DET


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This correlates the minimum construction table with the mass timber allowances permitted inNFPA 5000.


479 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 489 of 718

The supporting material for mass timber buildings, including video of the various fire tests and thefinal report on those tests, E119 reports, and many of the research papers available at the TWBsite are also available at www.awc.org/tallmasstimber

ResponseMessage:

FR-6688-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


16 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Kelly, John



Affirmative All

Aler, Clay P.

Bollig, Tracy

Collins, Peter J.

DiMascio, Michael

Gaw, Randy

Heffernan, Rick


Lumley, Troy A.

Perry, Robert R.

Poole, Jack

Schultz, Terry

Young, Sichel

Youngberg, Garrick


480 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 490 of 718


22.2.5 Arrangement of Means of Egress.

22.2.5.1 General.

See also Arrangement of means of egress shall comply with Section 7.5.


A common path of travel shall not exceed 100 ft (30 m).


No exit or exit access shall contain a corridor, a hallway, or an aisle having a pocket or dead endexceeding 50 ft (15 m) for Use Condition II, Use Condition III, or Use Condition IV and 20 ft (6100 mm) forUse Condition V.

22.2.5.4 Corridor Access.

Every sleeping room shall have a door leading directly to an exit access corridor, unless otherwisepermitted by one of the following:

(1) The requirement of 22.2.5.1 22.2.5.4 shall not apply if there is an exit door opening directly to theoutside from a room at the finished ground level.

(2) One adjacent room, such as a day room, a group activity space, or other common space, shall bepermitted to intervene, and the following also shall apply:

(a) Where sleeping rooms directly adjoin a day room or group activity space that is used for accessto an exit, such sleeping rooms shall be permitted to open directly to the day room or space.

(b) Sleeping rooms permitted to open directly to the day room or space shall be permitted to beseparated in elevation by a one-half story or full story height.

22.2.5.5 Sally Port.

A sally port shall be permitted in a means of egress where there are provisions for continuous andunobstructed travel through the sally port during an emergency egress condition.


Committee: SAF-DET


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This reorganizes the arrangement of means of egress section to provide uniformity betweenoccupancy chapters. It also provides a general pointer back to Section 7.5.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6690-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


16 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All



0 Abstention


481 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 491 of 718

Not Returned

Kelly, John



Affirmative All

Aler, Clay P.

Bollig, Tracy

Collins, Peter J.

DiMascio, Michael

Gaw, Randy

Heffernan, Rick


Lumley, Troy A.

Perry, Robert R.

Poole, Jack

Schultz, Terry

Young, Sichel

Youngberg, Garrick


482 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 492 of 718


22.4.1 General.

Detention and correctional occupancies shall comply with Chapter 11 where located in a specialstructure.


Committee: SAF-DET


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Clarifies that Chapter 11 is intended to apply to all special structures, other than existinghigh-rise buildings.


Ballot Results


16 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Kelly, John



Affirmative All

Aler, Clay P.

Bollig, Tracy

Collins, Peter J.

DiMascio, Michael

Gaw, Randy

Heffernan, Rick


Lumley, Troy A.

Perry, Robert R.

Poole, Jack

Schultz, Terry


483 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 493 of 718

Young, Sichel

Youngberg, Garrick


484 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 494 of 718


22.7.2* Combustible Personal Property in Sleeping Rooms .

A.22.7.2

Personal property provides combustible contents for fire development. Therefore, adequate controls areneeded to limit the quantity and combustibility of the fuels available to burn to reduce the probability ofroom flashover. The provisions of 22.7.4 will not, by themselves, prevent room flashover if personalproperty controls are not provided.

Preventing room flashover with sprinkler protection does not necessarily ensure room tenability, andconsideration should be given to an approved automatic smoke detection system.

22.7.2.1

Books, clothing, and other combustible personal property allowed in sleeping rooms shall be stored inclosable metal lockers or an approved fire-resistant container.

22.7.2.2

In buildings protected throughout with automatic sprinklers in accordance with Section 9.7 , wherecombustible personal property is not obstructed from sprinkler discharge, it shall be permitted to bestored on open shelving or in an approved storage location.


Committee: SAF-DET


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Metal storage lockers and other containers may be used as weapons. This new section providesan alternative storage solution for combustible property in facilities that have automatic sprinklerprotection to mitigate the security issue of storage containers becoming weapons. The committeerecognizes that preventing room flashover does not address tenability requirements.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6681-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


16 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

10 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Kelly, John




485 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 495 of 718

Affirmative All

Bollig, Tracy

DiMascio, Michael

Heffernan, Rick


Lumley, Troy A.

Perry, Robert R.

Poole, Jack

Schultz, Terry

Young, Sichel

Youngberg, Garrick


Aler, Clay P.

Recommend the word "it" be replaced with "such property"

Collins, Peter J.

Proposed New Language: (Item #1) 22.7.2* Combustible Personal Property in Sleeping Rooms. Books, clothing,and other combustible personal property shall be stored in a method that is acceptable to the facilityadministration. Justification: (Item #1) The committee is attempting to address the issue of metal lockers and otherstorage containers being used to fabricate weapons. The goal is to minimize the number of potential weapons byproviding flexibility in the storage of combustible personal property. The proposed language allows facilityadministrators to control both the materials used in the construction of storage units and the quantity ofcombustible personal property allowed in the sleeping rooms. Delete the following new language in annex note22.7.2: (Item #2) A.22.7.2 Preventing room flashover with sprinkler protection does not necessarily ensure roomtenability, and consideration should be given to an approved automatic smoke detection system. Justification:(Item #2) The new annex language suggests using smoke detectors to help ensure room tenability. This newlanguage is outside the scope of the weapons discussion. In addition, the use of smoke detectors in inmatesleeping rooms is addressed in section 22.3.4. Delete the following new language from 22.7.2.2: (Item #3)22.7.2.2 In buildings protected throughout with automatic sprinklers in accordance with Section 9.7, wherecombustible personal property is not obstructed from sprinkler discharge, it shall be permitted to be stored onopen shelving or in an approved storage location. Justification: (Item #3) All new detention and corrections arerequired to be protected by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system. Obstructions to sprinklerdischarge are addressed in NFPA 13. The proposed requirements in section 22.7.2.2 are already addressed.

Gaw, Randy

Simplify 22.7.2 by deleting 22.7.2.2 and renumbering 22.7.2.1 as 22.7.2. Reworded 22.7.2 to read: “Books,clothing and other combustible personal property allowed in sleeping rooms shall be stored in a methodacceptable to the facility administration.” Justification: The proposed wording provides facility management theopportunity and responsibility to limit both the quantity of combustibles and the acceptable method of storage.Current wording requiring a metal or approved fire-resistant container, while concise and easily understood, wasoverly restrictive and troublesome for facility management because of the possibility of weapons production.Proposed wording also permits use of new products or technologies in future. New sentence in A-22.7.2 regardingroom flashover, sprinkler protection and room tenability, suggests consideration of an approved automatic smokedetection system. Smoke detection systems are covered in 22.3.4.4 which should be referenced.


486 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 496 of 718



23.2.5.1 General.

See also Arrangement of means of egress shall comply with Section 7.5.


A common path of travel shall not exceed 50 ft (15 m), unless otherwise permitted by one of the following:

(1) A common path of travel shall be permitted for the first 100 ft (30 m) in smoke compartmentsprotected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 23.3.5.3.

(2) A common path of travel shall be permitted to exceed 50 ft (15 m) in multilevel residential housingunits in which each floor level, considered separately, has not less than one-half of its individualrequired egress capacity accessible by exit access leading directly out of that level without traversinganother communicating floor level.

(3)

23.2.5.3* Dead-End Corridors.

Existing dead-end corridors are undesirable and shall be altered wherever possible so that exits areaccessible in not less than two different directions from all points in aisles, passageways, and corridors.

23.2.5.4 Corridor Access.

Every sleeping room shall have a door leading directly to an exit access corridor, unless otherwisepermitted by one of the following:

(1) The requirement of 23.2.5.1 23.2.5.4 shall not apply if there is an exit door opening directly to theoutside from a room at the finished ground level.

(2) One adjacent room, such as a day room, a group activity space, or other common space, shall bepermitted to intervene, and the following also shall apply:

(a) Where sleeping rooms directly adjoin a day room or group activity space that is used for accessto an exit, such sleeping rooms shall be permitted to open directly to the day room or space.

(b) Sleeping rooms permitted to open directly to the day room or space shall be permitted to beseparated in elevation by a one-half story or full story height.

23.2.5.5 Sally Port.

A sally port shall be permitted in a means of egress where there are provisions for continuous andunobstructed travel through the sally port during an emergency egress condition.


Committee: SAF-DET


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This reorganizes the arrangement of means of egress section to provide uniformity betweenoccupancy chapters. It also provides a general pointer back to Section 7.5.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6691-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


* Approved existing common paths of travel that exceed 50 ft (15 m) shall be permitted to continue tobe used.


487 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 497 of 718

16 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Kelly, John



Affirmative All

Aler, Clay P.

Bollig, Tracy

Collins, Peter J.

DiMascio, Michael

Gaw, Randy

Heffernan, Rick


Lumley, Troy A.

Perry, Robert R.

Poole, Jack

Schultz, Terry

Young, Sichel

Youngberg, Garrick


488 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 498 of 718


23.4.1 General.

Detention and correctional occupancies shall comply with Chapter 11 where located in a specialstructure.


Committee: SAF-DET


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Clarifies that Chapter 11 is intended to apply to all special structures, other than existinghigh-rise buildings.


Ballot Results


16 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Kelly, John



Affirmative All

Aler, Clay P.

Bollig, Tracy

Collins, Peter J.

DiMascio, Michael

Gaw, Randy

Heffernan, Rick


Lumley, Troy A.

Perry, Robert R.

Poole, Jack

Schultz, Terry


489 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 499 of 718

Young, Sichel

Youngberg, Garrick


490 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 500 of 718


23.7.2* Combustible Personal Property in Sleeping Rooms .

A.23.7.2

Personal property provides combustible contents for fire development. Therefore, adequate controls areneeded to limit the quantity and combustibility of the fuels available to burn to reduce the probability ofroom flashover. The provisions of 23.7.4 will not, by themselves, prevent room flashover if personalproperty controls are not provided.

Preventing room flashover with sprinkler protection does not necessarily ensure room tenability, andconsideration should be given to an approved automatic smoke detection system.

23.7.2.1

Books, clothing, and other combustible personal property allowed in sleeping rooms shall be stored inclosable metal lockers or an approved fire-resistant container.

23.7.2.2

In buildings protected throughout with automatic sprinklers in accordance with Section 9.7 , wherecombustible personal property is not obstructed from sprinkler discharge, it shall be permitted to bestored on open shelving or in an approved storage location.


Committee: SAF-DET


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Metal storage lockers and other containers may be used as weapons. This new section providesan alternative storage solution for combustible property in facilities that have automatic sprinklerprotection to mitigate the security issue of storage containers becoming weapons. The committeerecognizes that preventing room flashover does not address tenability requirements.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6683-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


16 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

10 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Kelly, John




491 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 501 of 718

Affirmative All

Bollig, Tracy

DiMascio, Michael

Heffernan, Rick


Lumley, Troy A.

Perry, Robert R.

Poole, Jack

Schultz, Terry

Young, Sichel

Youngberg, Garrick


Aler, Clay P.

Recommend the word "it" be replaced with "such property"

Collins, Peter J.

Delete the following new language in annex note 23.7.2: (Item #1) A.23.7.2 Preventing room flashover withsprinkler protection does not necessarily ensure room tenability, and consideration should be given to anapproved automatic smoke detection system. Justification: (Item #1) The committee is attempting to address theissue of metal lockers and other storage containers being used to fabricate weapons. The new annex languagesuggests using smoke detectors to help ensure room tenability. This new language is outside the scope of theweapons discussion. In addition, the use of smoke detectors in inmate sleeping rooms is addressed section23.3.4. Proposed New Language 23.7.2.1: (Item #2) Books, clothing, and other combustible personal propertyallowed in non-sprinklered sleeping rooms shall be stored in closable metal lockers or an approved fire-resistantcontainer. Justification: (Item #2) Clarification that the requirement (mirroring the current storage rules) appliesonly to non-sprinklered sleeping rooms. Proposed New Language 23.7.2.2: (Item #3) In buildings protectedthroughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system, books, clothing, and other combustiblepersonal property shall be stored in a method that is acceptable to the facility administration. Justification: (Item#3) The new language is consistent with the proposed storage language in 22.7.2 for buildings protectedthroughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system. The sprinkler obstruction language is notnecessary as this is addressed in NFPA 13. Language addressing sprinkler obstructions was deleted sincesprinkler discharge obstructions are addressed in NFPA 13.

Gaw, Randy

Simplify 23.7.2 by deleting 23.7.2.2 and renumbering 23.7.2.1 as 23.7.2. Reworded 23.7.2 to read: “Books,clothing and other combustible personal property allowed in sleeping rooms shall be stored in a methodacceptable to the facility administration.” Justification: The proposed wording provides facility management theopportunity and responsibility to limit both the quantity of combustibles and the acceptable method of storage.Current wording requiring a metal or approved fire-resistant container, while concise and easily understood, wasoverly restrictive and troublesome for facility management because of the possibility of weapons production.Proposed wording also permits use of new products or technologies in future. New sentence in A-23.7.2 regardingroom flashover, sprinkler protection and room tenability, suggests consideration of an approved automatic smokedetection system. Smoke detection systems are covered in 23.3.4.4 which should be referenced.


492 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 502 of 718


24.1.3.1

Multiple occupancies shall be in accordance with 6.1.14 and 24.1.3 .


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Editorial changes based on correlation between NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.


493 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 503 of 718

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


494 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 504 of 718


24.2.2.3.6

Bars, grilles, grates, or similar devices shall be permitted to be installed on windows, doors, or windowwells used for means of escape, provided that all the following criteria are met:

(1) The device is equipped with approved release mechanisms that are openable from the insidewithout the use of a key or special knowledge or effort.

(2) The building is equipped with smoke alarms installed in accordance with 22.3.3 .

(3) The device does not conceal the location of the means of escape from emergency rescuepersonnel.

(4) The device does not reduce the size of the opening as required by 24.2.2.3.3 .


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

NFPA 5000 contains language on security bars. This language should have been retainedin NFPA 101.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel


495 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 505 of 718

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


496 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 506 of 718


24.2.4.8

All locking devices that impede or prohibit egress or that cannot be easily disengaged shall beprohibited.


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.


497 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 507 of 718

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


498 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 508 of 718


24.2.8* Grab Bars and Stanchions for Bathtubs, Bathtub-Shower Combinations, and Showers.

24.2.8.1 General.

24.2.8.1.1

New bathtubs, bathtub-shower combinations, and showers shall be provided with grab bars or stanchionsunless otherwise permitted by 24.2.8.1.2.

24.2.8.1.2*

Grab bars or stanchions shall not be required in showers where the transition from the room floor to theshower floor does not exceed 0.5 in. (13 mm) in height and all shower surfaces are slip resistant whenwet.

24.2.8.1.3

Where provided, grab bars or stanchions shall comply with 24.2.8.2 through 24.2.8.4.

24.2.8.1.4

All dimensions shall be measured to the centerline of the grab bar or stanchion unless otherwise stated.

24.2.8.2* Vertical Grab Bar or Pole Stanchion .

A vertical grab bar shall be provided on the control end wall or the end wall opposite the control end wallof the bathtub or bathtub-shower combination in accordance with 24.2.8.2.1, or shall be provided as avertical pole stanchion in accordance with 24.2.8.2.3. For showers, either a vertical grab bar that is usableby a person stepping into and out of the shower enclosure in accordance with 24.2.8.2.2, or a verticalpole stanchion in accordance with 24.2.8.2.3, shall be provided.

24.2.8.2.1* Bathtub End Wall Vertical Grab Bars.

End wall vertical grab bars for bathtubs shall comply with all of the following:

(1) Vertical grab bars shall have a length of not less than 36 in. (914 mm).

(2) Vertical grab bars shall be located between 24 in. (610 mm) and 27 in. (686 mm) above the finishedfloor, measured to the lower end.

(3) Vertical grab bars shall be installed at the end that is least obstructed for entry and egress.

(4) Vertical grab bars shall be located between 9 in. (228 mm) and 12 in. (305 mm) from the open entryand egress access side of the bathtub or bathtub-shower combination, measured horizontally fromthe exterior plane of the bathtub or bathtub-shower combination.

24.2.8.2.2 Shower Grab Bars.

Vertical grab bars for showers shall comply with all of the following:

(1) Vertical grab bars shall have a length of not less than 24 in. (610 mm).

(2) Vertical grab bars shall be located between 36 in. (914 mm) and 39 in. (991 mm) above the finishedfloor, measured to the lower end.

(3) Vertical grab bars shall be located within 30 in. (760 mm), measured horizontally, of the vertical planeof the control end wall of the shower.

24.2.8.2.3* Vertical Poles Stanchions .

Vertical, pole-type grab bars stanchions shall be fixed to the floor or to the bathtub and either the roomceiling or an adjacent wall and shall comply with all of the following:

(1) Poles Stanchions shall be located within 6 in. (150 mm), measured horizontally, of the outside orouter edge of the bathtub, bathtub-shower combination, or shower.

(2) Poles Stanchions shall be located within 30 in. (760 mm), measured horizontally, of the vertical planeof the control end wall of a bathtub or bathtub-shower combination.

24.2.8.3 Back Wall Non-Access Side Grab Bar or Horizontal Stanchion .


499 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 509 of 718

For bathtubs and bathtub-shower combinations bounded on two or three sides by walls , a diagonal grabbar in accordance with 24.2.8.3.1, or a horizontal grab bar in accordance with 24.2.8.3.2, or a horizontalstanchion in accordance with 24.2.8.3.3 shall be provided on the back wall at the non-access side of thebathtub .

24.2.8.3.1* Back Wall Non-Access Side Diagonal Grab Bars.

Diagonal grab bars shall comply with all of the following:

(1) Diagonal grab bars shall have a length of not less than 24 in. (600 mm).

(2) Diagonal grab bars shall be located so the higher end is closest to the control end wall.

(3) Higher ends of diagonal grab bars shall be located a maximum of 12 in. (305 mm) from the controlend wall.

(4) Higher ends of diagonal grab bars shall be located 25 in. (635 mm) minimum and 27 in. (685 mm)maximum above the rim of the bathtub.

(5) Lower ends of diagonal grab bars shall be located 8 in. (203 mm) minimum and 10 in. (254 mm)maximum above the rim of the bathtub.

24.2.8.3.2 Back Wall Non-Access Side Horizontal Grab Bars.

Horizontal grab bars shall comply with all of the following:

(1) Horizontal grab bars shall be located 8 in. (205 mm) minimum and 10 in. (255 mm) maximum abovethe bathtub rim.

(2) Horizontal grab bars shall be located so one end is 12 in. (305 mm) maximum from the control endwall and the other end is located 24 in. (610 mm) maximum from the opposite, or head, end of thebathtub.

24.2.8.3.3 Non-Access Side Horizontal Stanchions.

Non-access side horizontal stanchions, extending full length and fixed between end walls of bathtub,shall be located 8 in. (205 mm) minimum and 10 in. (255 mm) maximum above the bathtub rim.

24.2.8.4* Grab Bar and Stanchion Details.

24.2.8.4.1

Grab bars and stanchions shall be circular in cross section with a minimum diameter of 11⁄4 in. (32 mm)and a maximum diameter of 2 in. (51 mm).

24.2.8.4.2

Where attached adjacent to a wall surface or water control , grab bars and stanchions shall provide aclearance for hand grasp of 11⁄2 in. (38 mm) minimum.

24.2.8.4.3

Grab bars and stanchions shall be designed and constructed to maintain, throughout their service lifeand with the effects of water, the structural loading conditions in accordance with the building code.


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This is a general updating of the provisions adopted for NFPA 101-2018 based on expert meetingsand (non-NFPA) model code change deliberations in Canada, the USA and elsewhere related tobaths and showers. There is a global substitution of "stanchions" where "poles" were previouslyused (with a full explanation of this provided with an accompanying Public Input for a new definitionof "stanchion."

The requirements have also been stated in greater performance language so that there is reducedreference to walls as some bathtubs do not have back walls but they still need, and can incorporate,grab bars and stanchions on the non-access side.

There is a significant change, driven by discoveries (in hotel guest rooms) of serious corrosion and


500 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 510 of 718

mounting wall deterioration in conventional grab bar fixings to walls due to water entry andentrapment behind many conventional grab bar cover plates. In some cases the grab bar has failedstructurally by coming off the wall with much less than the prescribed 250 pound loading.

Otherwise, the package of requirements is the same as originally adopted in that two points ofcontrol for users' hands are required for bathtubs and one such point of control is required fordedicated showers (where one does not need assistance in sitting down and rising from a seatedposition on the bottom of a tub. Thus there is still parity with the handrail requirements for stairswhere one or two handrails are required to provide essential points of control.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6731-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.

Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake


501 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 511 of 718



Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


Buuck, Daniel

The term "stanchion" is problematic. Merriam-Webster defines it as an *upright* bar, post, or support (as for a roofor a ship's deck). The proposed use of "horizontal stanchion" in Section 24.2.8.3 will cause confusion.


This requirement is far, far afield from safety to life from fire. It invades the privacy of a single-family homeownerwho, in the vast majority of cases, doesn't need or want this extensive system of support bars. The Fair HousingAct already requires wall reinforcements so that support bars can be installed if needed by the homeowner ortenant.

Spangler, Kevin

Agree with Alfred's comment. This section should be relocated in the chapters pertaining to PUBLIC safety, suchas hotels, motels and dormitories. It should not be part of the single family chapter.


502 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 512 of 718


24.3.5.1*

All new one- and two-family dwellings shall be protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinklersystem in accordance with 24.3.5.2.

A.24.3.5.1

Where an automatic sprinkler system is not provided based upon a jurisdictional amendment in newone- and two-family dwellings, a disclosure statement should be provided to home buyers stating anautomatic sprinkler system was not installed according to the national model codes or standards.


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Home buyers should be aware that a sprinkler system was not installed. The process ofproviding the disclosure should be up the jurisdiction.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6903-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee


503 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 513 of 718

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.



Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


Asp, Roland A.

I am voting affirmative on FR-6903. I do however believe that the disclosure statement should be a requirementand would be better in the the body of the standard.


Mayl, Eric N.

The new Annex language makes a political statement and does not further public safety.


504 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 514 of 718


26.1.3.1

Multiple occupancies shall be in accordance with 6.1.14 and 26.1.3 .


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.


505 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 515 of 718

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


506 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 516 of 718


26.2.2 Interior Stairways.

26.2.2.1

Interior stairways, other than those in accordance with 26.2.2.2 26.2.2.4 or 26.2.2.3 26.2.2.5 , shallcomply with 7.2.2.5.3 and shall be enclosed by fire barriers having a minimum 1⁄2-hour fire resistancerating, with all openings protected with smoke-actuated automatic-closing or self-closing doors having afire resistance comparable to that required for the enclosure .

26.2.2.2

Openings within fire barriers required by 26.2.2.1 shall be protected with smoke-actuated automatic-closing or self-closing doors having a fire resistance comparable to that required for the enclosure.

26.2.2.3

Interior stairways shall comply with 7.2.2.5.3 .

26.2.2.4

Where an interior stair connects the street floor with the story next above or below only, but not with both,the interior stair shall be required to be enclosed only on the street floor.

26.2.2.5

Stairways shall be permitted to be unenclosed in accordance with 26.3.1.1.2 and 26.3.1.1.3.

26.2.2.6

Winders in accordance with 7.2.2.2.4 shall be permitted.


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Editorial revisions to create consistency with the manual of style (one requirement persection) and with NFPA 5000.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6939-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David


507 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 517 of 718

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


508 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 518 of 718


26.4 Reserved Special Structures .

Board and care facilities shall comply with Chapter 11 where located in a special structure.


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: User friendly pointer to Chapter 11 as requested by the FUN TC.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.


509 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 519 of 718

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


510 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 520 of 718



28.2.5.1

Access to all required exits Means of egress shall be arranged in accordance with Section 7.5 , asmodified by 28.2.5.1.1 and 28.2.5.1.2.

28.2.5.1.1

Means of egress shall be arranged in accordance with Section 7.5 .

28.2.5.1.2

The distance between exits addressed by 7.5.1.3 shall not apply to common nonlooped exit accesscorridors in buildings that have corridor doors from the guest room or guest suite that are arranged suchthat the exits are located in opposite directions from such doors.

28.2.5.2

Limitations on common path of travel shall be in accordance with 28.2.5.2.1 or 28.2.5.2.2 .

28.2.5.2.1

In buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordancewith 28.3.5, common path of travel shall not exceed 50 ft (15 m); travel within a guest room or guest suiteshall not be included when determining common path of travel) within a guest room or guest suite shallnot be included when determining common path of travel .

28.2.5.2.2

In buildings not protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system inaccordance with 28.3.5, common paths of travel shall not exceed 35 ft (10.7 m); , which does not includetravel within a guest room or guest suite shall not be included when calculating common path of travel.

28.2.5.2.3

travel Travel within a guest room or guest suite shall not be included when calculating common path oftravel.

28.2.5.3

Dead-end corridors shall be permitted in accordance with 28.2.5.3.1 or 28.2.5.3.2 .

28.2.5.3.1

In buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordancewith 28.3.5, dead-end corridors shall not exceed 50 ft (15 m).

28.2.5.3.2

In buildings other than those complying with 28.2.5.3.1, dead-end corridors shall not exceed 35 ft(10.7 m).

28.2.5.4

Any guest room or any guest suite of rooms in excess of 2000 ft2 (185 m2) shall be provided with not lessthan two exit access doors remotely located from each other.



Chapter_28_revision_of_arrangement_of_MOE.docx For staff use


Committee: SAF-RES



511 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 521 of 718

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Rearrangement of section based on PI 157 per FUN and Correlating Committee request.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin


512 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 522 of 718

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


513 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 523 of 718


28.3.4.3 Notification.

28.3.4.3.1*

Occupant notification shall be provided automatically in accordance with 9.6.3.

28.3.4.3.2

In hotels and dormitories that are required by 28.3.4 to have a fire alarm system, the audible alarmnotification signal provided in sleeping rooms of guest rooms or guest suites that is activated by the firealarm system shall be a 520 Hz low-frequency signal in accordance with 9.6.2.10.3 .

28.3.4.3.3

Positive alarm sequence in accordance with 9.6.3.5 shall be permitted.

28.3.4.3.4*

Guest rooms and guest suites specifically required and equipped to accommodate hearing-impairedindividuals shall be provided with a visible notification appliance.

28.3.4.3.5

In occupiable areas, other than guest rooms and guest suites, visible notification appliances shall beprovided.

28.3.4.3.6

Annunciation and annunciation zoning in accordance with 9.6.8 shall be provided in buildings three ormore stories in height or having more than 50 guest rooms or guest suites. Annunciation shall be providedat a location readily accessible from the primary point of entry for emergency response personnel.

28.3.4.3.7

Emergency forces notification shall be provided in accordance with 9.6.4.


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision increases the waking effectiveness of high risk segments of the population by requiringthe 520 Hz low frequency audible fire alarm signal in sleeping rooms within hotels and dormitoriesthat are required to have a fire alarm system. The reason this is necessary is because NFPA 72stipulates both the 520 Hz and 3 KHz signal in the sleeping rooms of hotels, dormitories andapartment building bedrooms when smoke alarms are installed in the sleeping room. Specifically,Chapter 18 of NFPA 72 requires audible notification appliances (horns, speakers or smoke detectorswith an integral sounder bases) to produce the 520 Hz low frequency signal in all sleeping rooms ofbuildings with a protected premises fire alarm system. Whereas Chapter 29 of NFPA 72 only requiressmoke alarms to produce the 520 Hz low frequency signal for people with hearing loss or providedvoluntarily for those with hearing loss.

The different requirements within NFPA 72 present a life safety issue because peer-reviewedresearch has concluded the wakening effectiveness of the 520 Hz low frequency is superior to 3 KHzaudible alarm signal awakening high risk segments of the population. Peer-reviewed research hasconcluded the 520 Hz low frequency is six times more effective than the standard 3 KHz signal atwaking high risk segments of the population (people over 65, people who are hard of hearing, schoolage children and people who are alcohol impaired). The standard 3 KHz audible alarm signal hasbeen used in most fire alarm horns and smoke alarms for the past 30 years. The low frequency signalneeds to be provided in areas intended for sleeping to protect people over 65, people who are hard ofhearing, school age children and people who are alcohol impaired.


514 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 524 of 718

This does not require the low frequency technology in buildings without a fire alarm system becausethere are no smoke alarms currently available with an integral sounder capable of producing the lowfrequency signal. However, it does not prohibit their installation if the product becomes available inthe future. This does not require the low frequency signal in sleeping areas within hotels anddormitories with a fire alarm system is because there are numerous manufacturers of systemconnected smoke detectors with an integral sounder that produces the 520 Hz low frequency signal.

There are several product solutions currently available in the market capable of providing the 520 Hzlow frequency signal.

1. Fire alarm system horns and horn/strobes

2. Smoke detectors with integral sounder bases

3. Speakers connected to an in-building fire alarm Emergency Voice Alarm Communication (EVAC)system

Peer-Reviewed Research:

Ian R. Thomas and Dorothy Bruck, Waking Effectiveness of Alarms for Adults Who Are Hard ofHearing (Melbourne, Australia: Victoria University), National Fire Protection Association, 2007

ResponseMessage:

FR-6885-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.


515 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 525 of 718

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


516 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 526 of 718


28.3.4.6* Smoke Alarms.

Smoke alarms shall be installed in accordance with 9.6.2.10 in every guest room and every living areaand sleeping room within a guest suite.

28.3.4.6.1

In hotels and dormitories that are required by 28.3.4 to have a fire alarm system, the audible alarmnotification signal provided in sleeping rooms of guest rooms or guest suites that is activated by smokealarms shall be a 520 Hz low-frequency signal in accordance with 9.6.2.10.3 .


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:









Ian R. Thomas and Dorothy Bruck, Waking Effectiveness of Alarms for Adults Who Are Hard of


517 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 527 of 718

Hearing (Melbourne, Australia: Victoria University), National Fire Protection Association, 2007

ResponseMessage:

FR-6886-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake




518 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 528 of 718

Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


519 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 529 of 718


28.3.4.7.5

Where carbon monoxide detectors are installed in accordance with 28.3.4.7.4(1) 28.3.4.7.4 , the alarmsignal shall be automatically transmitted to an approved on-site location or to an off-premises location inaccordance with NFPA 720 NFPA 72 .


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: see


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.


520 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 530 of 718

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


521 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 531 of 718


28.3.5.1

All buildings, other than those complying with 28.3.5.2 , shall be protected throughout by an approved,supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 28.3.5.3.


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.


522 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 532 of 718

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


523 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 533 of 718


28.3.5.6

Listed quick-response or listed residential sprinklers shall be used throughout guest rooms and guestroom suites.


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This section is redundant with both NFPA 13 and NFPA 13R. The redundancy has the potential tocause confusion because quick response sprinklers are not treated the same by NFPA 13 and NFPA13R. Rather than have NFPA 101 try to address the different ways to use quick response sprinklers,it is better to simply delete any reference to any type of sprinkler within NFPA 101 and send the userto NFPA 13 or NFPA 13R for the decision as to which type of sprinklers to select.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6896-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.


524 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 534 of 718

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


525 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 535 of 718


28.4 Special Provisions.

28.4.1 High-Rise Buildings Special Structures .

Hotels and dormitories shall comply with Chapter 11 where located in a special structure.

28.4.1.1

High-rise buildings shall comply with Section 11.8 .

28.4.1.2*

Emergency action plans in accordance with Section 4.8 shall be provided and shall include all of thefollowing:

Egress procedures

Methods

Preferred evacuation routes for each event, including appropriate use of elevators

A.28.4.1.2

See 4.8.2.1 (4).

28.4.2 Alcohol-Based Hand-Rub Dispensers.

Alcohol-based hand-rub dispensers in accordance with 8.7.3.3 shall be permitted.


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.


526 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 536 of 718

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


527 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 537 of 718



29.2.5.1

Access to all required exits shall be in accordance with Section 7.5.

29.2.5.2 Reserved.

Limitations on common path of travel shall be in accordance with 29.2.5.2.2 or 29.2.5.2.3 .

29.2.5.2.1

In buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordancewith 29.3.5, common paths of travel shall not exceed 50 ft (15 m).

29.2.5.2.2

In buildings not protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system inaccordance with 29.3.5, common paths of travel shall not exceed 35 ft (10.7 m).

29.2.5.2.3

Travel within a guest room or guest suite shall not be included when calculating common path of travel.

29.2.5.3

In buildings not protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system inaccordance with 29.3.5 , common paths of travel shall not exceed 35 ft (10.7 m); travel within a guestroom or guest suite shall not be included when calculating common path of travel.

29.2.5.4

In buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordancewith 29.3.5 , common path of travel shall not exceed 50 ft (15 m); travel within a guest room or guestsuite shall not be included when determining common path of travel.

29.2.5.3

Dead-end corridors shall not exceed 50 ft (15 m).





Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All


528 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 538 of 718



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


529 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 539 of 718


29.3.4.6 Carbon Monoxide Alarms and Carbon Monoxide Detection Systems.

29.3.4.6.1

Carbon monoxide alarms or carbon monoxide detectors in accordance with Section 9.12 and 29.3.4.6shall be provided in existing hotels and dormitories where either of the following conditions exists:

(1) Guest rooms or guest suites with communicating attached garages, unless otherwise exemptedby 29.3.4.6.3

(2) Guest rooms or guest suites containing a permanently installed fuel-burning appliance or fuel-burning fireplace

29.3.4.6.2

Where required by 29.3.4.6.1 , carbon monoxide alarms or carbon monoxide detectors shall beinstalled in the following locations:

(1) Outside of each separate guest room or guest suite sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of thesleeping rooms

(2) On every occupiable level of a guest room and guest suite

29.3.4.6.3

Carbon monoxide alarms and carbon monoxide detectors as specified in 29.3.4.6.1 (1) shall not berequired in the following locations:

(1) In garages

(2) Within guest rooms or guest suites with communicating attached garages that are open parkingstructures as defined by the building code

(3) Within guest rooms or guest suites with communicating attached garages that are mechanicallyventilated in accordance with the mechanical code

29.3.4.6.4

Where fuel-burning appliances or fuel-burning fireplaces are installed outside guest rooms or guestsuites, carbon monoxide detectors shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s publishedinstructions in the locations specified as follows:

(1) On the ceilings of rooms containing permanently installed fuel-burning appliances or fuel-burningfireplaces

(2) Centrally located within occupiable spaces served by the first supply air register from apermanently installed, fuel-burning HVAC system

(3) Centrally located within occupiable spaces adjacent to a communicating attached garage

29.3.4.6.5

Where carbon monoxide detectors are installed in accordance with 29.3.4.6.4 , the alarm signal shallbe automatically transmitted to an approved on-site location or to an off-premises location in accordancewith NFPA 72 .


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The addition of these proposed sections would save countless lives and prevent needless injuries toguests of existing hotels and occupants of existing dormitories.


530 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 540 of 718

Chapter 28, Section 28.3.4.7 mandates the installation of carbon monoxide detectors or alarms in newhotels and dormitories where there is potential risk for accidental CO poisoning from known sources,such as fuel-burning appliances and vehicle exhaust. There is equivalent risk for such exposures inexisting hotels and dormitories. The risk of CO poisoning is likely higher in an existing building due toaging fuel-burning appliances and out of date construction.

On April 16, 2013, my parents died of CO poisoning in a hotel room while on vacation. On June 8,2013, an 11 year old boy died of CO poisoning in the same room and his mother was permanentlyinjured as she lay unconscious on the bathroom floor for over 14 hours until they were both found.The room contained a gas fireplace and was located directly above a gas pool heater with a severelycorroded exhaust pipe that terminated in a rusted out inoperable exhaust fan. The hotel was 13 yearsold at the time and the pool heater exhaust system was original to the building. The pool heater wasmoved to the hotel from another location by unlicensed hotel maintenance workers. Two days prior tomy parents checking in it had been serviced by a repairman who was not commercially licensed.There were no CO alarms in the room and not one in the entire building. Investigators originallythought my parents died of simultaneous heart attacks. They decided to wait 4-6 weeks for results oftoxicology testing to see if it might be CO poisoning. Some of them thought the combustible gasdetector was a carbon monoxide detector, and some of them thought the smoke alarm was a carbonmonoxide alarm. No one bothered to check. After the 11 year old boy and his mom were found, it tooka HazMat team to determine what a simple carbon monoxide alarm could have immediately alertedto, weeks earlier. What could and should have been only a simple building evacuation insteadresulted in the loss of three innocent lives.

This was not an isolated event. Attached is a spreadsheet listing dozens of similar incidents and apublished study documenting the need for CO detection systems in all hotels.

The risk of injury and death due to carbon monoxide poisoning is undisputed. The lifesaving functionof carbon monoxide alarms and detection systems is undisputed. People are particularly vulnerable tothe effects of CO poisoning when they are asleep, the primary purpose of an occupant being in a hotelor dormitory.

CO detection requirements should be the same for new and existing hotels and dormitories. It is notsafe to sleep in any building where there is potential for CO poisoning from a known source withoutthe protection of an appropriate CO alarm system.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6732-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


531 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 541 of 718

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.

Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.



While I have no objection to this requirement for NEW hotels and dorms, requiring the retrofit of a CO detectionSYSTEM with central office or proprietary supervision is unreasonable for an existing facility. CO alarms areintended to alert occupants and that objective can be accomplished using single station devices IN EXISTINGFACILITIES.


532 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 542 of 718

First Revision No. 6935-NFPA 101-2018 [ Sections 30.2.3.2, 30.2.3.3 ]

30.2.3.2

Street floor exits shall be sufficient for sized to accommodate the occupant load of the street floor plus therequired capacity of stairs and ramps discharging onto the street floor.

30.2.3.3

Corridors with a required capacity of more than 50 persons, as defined in Section 7.3, shall be ofsufficient width sized to accommodate the required occupant load but have a width of not less than 44 in.(1120 mm).


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.


533 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 543 of 718

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


534 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 544 of 718



30.2.5.1

Access to all required exits shall be in accordance with Section 7.5 , as modified by 30.2.5.2 Means ofegress shall be in accordance with 30.2.5.1.1 and 30.2.5.1.2 .

30.2.5.1.1

Means of egress shall be in accordance with Section 7.5 .

30.2.5.1.2

The distance between exits addressed by 7.5.1.3 shall not apply to nonlooped exit access corridors inbuildings that have corridor doors from the dwelling units that are arranged such that the exits are locatedin opposite directions from such doors.

30.2.5.2

Common path of travel shall comply with 30.2.5.2.1 or 30.2.5.3.2 30.2.5.2.2 .

30.2.5.2.1

No common path of travel shall exceed 35 ft (10.7 m) in buildings not protected throughout by anapproved, supervised automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with 30.3.5 . Travel within adwelling unit shall not be included when calculating common path of travel.

30.2.5.2.1

No common path of travel shall exceed 50 ft (15 m) in In buildings protected throughout by an approved,supervised automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with 30.3.5, common path of travel shallnot exceed 50 ft (15 m) . Travel within a dwelling unit shall not be included when determining commonpath of travel.

30.2.5.2.2

In buildings other than those complying with 30.2.5.2.2, common path of travel shall not exceed 35 ft(10.7 m).

30.2.5.2.3

Travel within a dwelling unit shall not be included when determining common path of travel.

30.2.5.3

Dead-end corridors shall be limited in accordance with either 30.2.5.3.1 or 30.2.5.4.2 30.2.5.3.2 .

30.2.5.3.1

Dead-end corridors shall not exceed 35 ft (10.7 m) in buildings not protected throughout by an approvedautomatic sprinkler system in accordance with 30.3.5 .

30.2.5.3.1

Dead-end corridors shall not exceed 50 ft (15 m) in In buildings protected throughout by an approved,supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 30.3.5, dead-end corridors shall not exceed50 ft (15 m) .

30.2.5.3.2

In buildings other than those complying with 30.2.5.3.1 , dead-end corridors shall not exceed 35 ft(10.7 m).



Chapter_30._revision_of_arrangement_of_MOE.docx For staff use



535 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 545 of 718

Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake




536 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 546 of 718

Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


537 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 547 of 718


30.3.4.3 Notification.

30.3.4.3.1

Occupant notification shall be provided automatically in accordance with Section 9.6, and both of thefollowing shall also apply:

(1) Visible signals shall be installed in units designed for the hearing impaired.

(2) Positive alarm sequence in accordance with 9.6.3.4 9.6.3.5 shall be permitted.

30.3.4.3.2

In apartment buildings that are required by 30.3.4.1 to have a fire alarm system, the audible alarmnotification signal provided in sleeping rooms of dwelling units that is activated by the fire alarm systemshall be a 520 Hz low-frequency signal in accordance with 9.6.3.9 .

30.3.4.3.3

Annunciation, and annunciation zoning, in accordance with 9.6.7 9.6.8 shall be provided, unless thebuilding complies with either 30.3.4.3.3 30.3.4.3.4 or 30.3.4.3.4 30.3.4.3.5 . Annunciation shall beprovided at a location readily accessible from the primary point of entry for emergency responsepersonnel.

30.3.4.3.4

Annunciation, and annunciation zoning, shall not be required in buildings two or fewer stories in heightand having not more than 50 dwelling units.

30.3.4.3.5

Annunciation, and annunciation zoning, shall not be required in buildings four or fewer stories in heightcontaining not more than 16 dwelling units and protected throughout by an approved, supervisedautomatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with 30.3.5.1.

30.3.4.3.6

Emergency forces notification shall be accomplished in accordance with 9.6.4.


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


The different requirements within NFPA 72 present a life safety issue because peer-reviewedresearch has concluded the wakening effectiveness of the 520 Hz low frequency is superior to 3 KHzaudible alarm signal awakening high risk segments of the population. Peer-reviewed research hasconcluded the 520 Hz low frequency is six times more effective than the standard 3 KHz signal atwaking high risk segments of the population (people over 65, people who are hard of hearing, schoolage children and people who are alcohol impaired). The standard 3 KHz audible alarm signal has


538 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 548 of 718

been used in most fire alarm horns and smoke alarms for the past 30 years. The low frequency signalneeds to be provided in areas intended for sleeping to protect people over 65, people who are hard ofhearing, school age children and people who are alcohol impaired.








ResponseMessage:

FR-6891-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.


539 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 549 of 718

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


540 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 550 of 718


30.3.4.5* Smoke Alarms.

Smoke alarms shall be installed in accordance with 9.6.2.10 in every sleeping area, outside everysleeping area in the immediate vicinity of the bedrooms, and on all levels of the dwelling unit, includingbasements.

30.3.4.5.1

In apartment buildings that are required by 30.3.4 to have a fire alarm system, the audible alarmnotification signal provided in sleeping rooms that is activated by smoke alarms shall be a 520 Hz low-frequency signal in accordance with 9.6.2.10.3 .


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:










541 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 551 of 718


ResponseMessage:

FR-6892-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake




542 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 552 of 718

Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


543 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 553 of 718


30.3.4.6.5

Where carbon monoxide detectors are installed in accordance with 30.3.4.6.4, the alarm signal shall beautomatically transmitted to an approved on-site location or to an off-premises location in accordance withNFPA 720 NFPA 72 .


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: see


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.


544 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 554 of 718

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


545 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 555 of 718

First Revision No. 6893-NFPA 101-2018 [ Section No. 30.3.5.2 [Excluding any Sub-

Sections] ]

Where an automatic sprinkler system is installed, either for total or partial building coverage, the systemshall be in accordance with Section 9.7, as modified by 30.3.5.4. In apartment buildings up to andincluding four stories in height, that are located in buildings not exceeding 60 ft (18.3 m) in height abovegrade plane, systems in accordance with NFPA 13R shall be permitted.


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This section contradicts the previous section that requires sprinklers throughout. Partialsystems are not appropriate for residential occupancies.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6893-NFPA 101-2018

Public Input No. 58-NFPA 101-2018 [Section No. 30.3.5.2 [Excluding any Sub-Sections]]

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.


546 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 556 of 718

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


547 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 557 of 718


30.3.5.4*

In buildings sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13 bathrooms not greater than 55 ft 2 (5.1 m 2 ) inindividual dwelling units shall not be required to be sprinklered.

A.30.3.5.4

The provision of 30.3.5.4 differs from NFPA 13 because fire data shows that in apartment fireswhere sprinklers were present, bathrooms were the area of origin in 1 percent of the total fires, andresulted in no civilian deaths, civilian injuries, or property loss.


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

NFPA 13 covers this subject in a very similar way, but with two additional requirements. In addition tothe size of the bathroom, the walls and ceilings need to be finished with non-combustible or limitedcombustible materials and there needs to be minimal material installed behind tub and showerenclosures. These are important additions that have not been required by NFPA 101 in the past, butshould be in order to limit the spread of a fire starting in an unsprinklered bathroom. Without theseprovisions in place, there is a chance for the fire in an unsprinklered bathroom to spread into aconcealed space and continue throughout the building. Deleting the section altogether allows it to bemore appropriately handled in the referenced standard (NFPA 13).

ResponseMessage:

FR-6894-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.


548 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 558 of 718

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.



Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


Mayl, Eric N.

Commentary and Annex language should be provided to clearly indicate that the NFPA 13 permissive to omitsprinklers in specific instances is recognized and allowed under NFPA 101.


549 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 559 of 718


30.3.5.6

Listed quick-response or listed residential sprinklers shall be used throughout all dwelling units.


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This section is redundant with both NFPA 13 and NFPA 13R. The redundancy has the potential tocause confusion because quick response sprinklers are not treated the same by NFPA 13 and NFPA13R. Rather than have NFPA 101 try to address the different ways to use quick response sprinklers,it is better to simply delete any reference to any type of sprinkler within NFPA 101 and send the userto NFPA 13 or NFPA 13R for the decision as to which type of sprinklers to select.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6895-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.


550 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 560 of 718

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


551 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 561 of 718


30.4 Special Provisions.


Apartments shall comply with Chapter 11 where located in a special structure.

30.4.2 High-Rise Buildings.

30.4.2.1

High-rise buildings shall comply with Section 11.8. The provisions of 30.3.5.3 and 30.3.4.5 shall bepermitted.

30.4.2.2*

Emergency action plans in accordance with Section 4.8 shall be provided and shall include all of thefollowing:

(1) Egress procedures

(2) Methods

(3) Preferred evacuation routes for each event, including appropriate use of elevators

30.4.3 Alcohol-Based Hand-Rub Dispensers.

Alcohol-based hand-rub dispensers in accordance with 8.7.3.3 shall be permitted.


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.


552 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 562 of 718

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


553 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 563 of 718


30.7.5 Valet Trash Collection Services.

30.7.5.1

Combustible trash or recyclable materials in corridors or on egress balconies awaiting scheduled valettrash collection shall be placed completely inside a container that does not exceed a capacity of 15 gal(60 L) and is equipped with a tight-fitting lid.

30.7.5.2

Containers and lids shall be constructed entirely of noncombustible materials or materials that meet a

peak rate of heat release not exceeding 300 kW/m 2 when tested in accordance with ASTM E1354,Standard Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products Using an

Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter , at an incident heat flux of 50 kW/m 2 in the horizontal orientation.

30.7.5.3

Containers shall not occupy a corridor for a single period exceeding 18 hours and shall not obstruct theminimum egress width required by 30.2.3 .


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: see pi 4


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All


554 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 564 of 718

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


555 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 565 of 718



31.2.5.1


31.2.5.2 Reserved.

31.2.5.2

Common path of travel shall comply with 31.2.5.2.1 or 31.2.5.3.2 31.2.5.2.2 .

31.2.5.2.1

No common path of travel shall exceed 35 ft (10.7 m) in buildings not protected throughout by anapproved, supervised automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with 31.3.5 . Travel within adwelling unit shall not be included when calculating common path of travel.

31.2.5.2.1

No common path of travel shall exceed 50 ft (15 m) in In buildings protected throughout by an approved,supervised automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with 31.3.5, common path of travel shallnot exceed 50 ft (15 m) . Travel within a dwelling unit shall not be included when calculating common pathof travel.

31.2.5.2.2

In buildings other than those complying with 31.2.5.3.2, common path of travel shall not exceed 35 ft(10.7 m).

31.2.5.2.3

Travel within a dwelling unit shall not be included when calculating common path of travel.

31.2.5.3






Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



556 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 566 of 718


0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


557 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 567 of 718


31.3.5.12.1*

All high-rise buildings, other than those meeting 31.3.5.12.2 or 31.3.5.12.3 , shall be protected throughoutby an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 31.3.5.2 within 12 years of theadoption of this Code .

A.31.3.5.12.1

A 12-year time frame has been developed to encourage building owners to plan for the design andinstallation of a fire sprinkler system. The time frame is not intended for building owners to wait 11years and then try and get the work done in the last year. One method for getting a full sprinklersystem installed over time is to get the water supply in place and put the sprinkler system in thecommon portions of the building first. Then, as building spaces are renovated and tenants turn over,the sprinkler system can be extended into those spaces.

In a building undergoing such sprinkler system installed over time, the sprinkler system will only coverportions of the building during the intervening years. While this is less than ideal, it is acceptable underthis Code to have such a partial system as long as there is a plan to finish the full system design andinstallation within the time frame established under the adoption of this Code . During the time that thebuilding is partially sprinklered, the portions of the sprinkler system that are finished need to beinspected, tested, and maintained in operational condition.

One method that has been used to plan for the eventual installation of a full sprinkler system has beento install sprinklers in the corridors with one additional sprinkler into each opening off of the corridor inaccordance with Option 3 of 31.3.5.9. If the system in the corridor is sized to accommodate theextension of the system eventually into all of the dwelling units and the penetration into the dwellingunit for the single sprinkler into the unit is sized properly to support the eventual extension of thesystem into the unit, then such a partial system can serve to meet this Code as long as there is anapproved plan for finishing the full sprinkler system within the time frame established by the adoptionof this Code . It should be noted that during the time that the partial sprinkler system is in place, thebuilding meets Option 3 of this Code , which basically treats the building as “unsprinklered” in terms ofthe sprinkler trade-offs for provisions such as arrangements of egress and interior floor finish. Fullcredit for a sprinklered building can only be obtained when the sprinkler system is extended throughoutthe building in accordance with Option 4.


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The option for providing an ELSS has been removed to prevent partial sprinkler systems frombeing installed. The option to perform a full performance based design is still available. The 12year time limit gives building owners a reasonable amount of time to upgrade their buildings.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6736-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters


558 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 568 of 718

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


559 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 569 of 718

First Revision No. 6897-NFPA 101-2018 [ Sections 31.3.5.12.3, 31.3.5.12.4 ]

31.3.5.12.3*

An automatic sprinkler system shall not be required in buildings having an approved, engineered lifesafety system in accordance with 31.3.5.12.4 .

A.31.3.5.12.3

This system might consist of a combination of any or all of the following systems:


Smoke detection alarms

Smoke control

Compartmentation or other approved systems, or both

31.3.5.12.4

Where required by 31.3.5.12.3 , an engineered life safety system shall be developed by a registeredprofessional engineer experienced in fire and life safety system design, shall be approved by theauthority having jurisdiction, and shall include any or all of the following:


Smoke detection systems

Smoke control systems

Compartmentation

Other approved systems


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The concept of permitting an engineered life safety system as an alternative to a fully sprinkleredhigh-rise apartment building was merely copied from the Existing Business Occupancy Chapter(Section 39.4.2.1) several Code cycles ago to offset the resistance to the installation of sprinklerswithin the individual dwelling units by building owners and tenant associations. The premise appearsto have been since the engineered life safety system was acceptable for an existing high-rise office, itmust also be acceptable for an existing high-rise apartment building. Unfortunately, this is not true.Other than both occupancies occurring in a high-rise building, the way the occupants occupy them areradically dissimilar. While occupants of an office building are awake, alert, and participate inevacuation/ relocation drills, residential occupants are asleep, ill, intoxicated, aged, infirm, or sufferingfrom a wide range of long term health and/or mobility impairments. NFPA’s Home Structure Firereport, dated September 2017 reports that 24-percent of residential fatalities result from fires withinliving rooms, family rooms, and dens and 23-percent of residential fatalities result from fires in thebedroom. Also note that cooking fires within the residence account for 47-percent of the fires. Giventhat residential fires occur most frequently within the dwelling unit, omission of sprinklers withindwelling units of an apartment building is unacceptable. The ELSS option was removed for existinghigh rise buildings. Existing high rises have two options- provide sprinklers or perform a performancebased design.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6897-NFPA 101-2018


560 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 570 of 718

Public Input No. 472-NFPA 101-2018 [Sections 31.3.5.12.3, 31.3.5.12.4]


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


561 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 571 of 718


Mayl, Eric N.

Annex or commentary language should be provided to clearly show the committee's intent is to require sprinklersor a complete performance based design.



What evidence has been provided to show that lives are being lost in EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDINGS thathave engineered life safety systems as described in 31.3.5.12.4? Arbitrarily requiring such buildings to beretrofitted with full sprinkler protection is just that . . . arbitrary.


562 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 572 of 718


31.7.5 Valet Trash Collection Services.

31.7.5.1

Combustible trash or recyclable materials in corridors or on egress balconies awaiting scheduled valettrash collection shall be permitted in accordance with 31.7.5.2 through 31.7.5.5 .

31.7.5.2

Containers shall not obstruct the minimum egress width required by 31.2.3 .

31.7.5.3

Combustible trash or recyclable material shall be placed completely inside a container that does notexceed a capacity of 15 gal (60 L) and is equipped with a tight-fitting lid.

31.7.5.4

Containers shall be constructed entirely of noncombustible materials or materials that meet a peak rate

of heat release not exceeding 300 kW/m 2 when tested in accordance with ASTM E1354, StandardTest Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products Using an Oxygen

Consumption Calorimeter , at an incident heat flux of 50 kW/m 2 in the horizontal orientation.

31.7.5.5

Containers shall not occupy a corridor for a single period exceeding 18 hours.


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Many apartment homes make use of valet trash services. This provides guidelines forenforcers and building owners to regulate an already ongoing service.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6898-NFPA 101-2018

Public Input No. 133-NFPA 101-2018 [Section No. 31.5]

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.


563 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 573 of 718

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


564 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 574 of 718


32.1.1.3 General.

The provisions of Chapter 4, General, shall apply.

32.1.1.4 Reserved Additions, Conversions, Modernization, Renovation, and Construction Operations .

Repairs, renovations, modifications, additions, and reconstruction of a residential board and careoccupancy, and changes of use, including change of occupancy classification to a residential board andcare occupancy, or correction of a damaged or unsafe portion of the building containing the residentialboard and care occupancy, shall comply with one of the following:

(1) Provisions of this chapter

(2) Provisions of Chapter 43

32.1.1.5 Chapter Sections.

This chapter is divided into five three sections as follows:

(1) Section 32.1 — General Requirements

(2) Section 32.2 — Small Facilities (that is, sleeping accommodations for not more than 16 residents)

(3) Section 32.3 — Large Facilities (that is, sleeping accommodations for more than 16 residents)

Section 32.4 — Suitability of an Apartment Building to House a Board and Care Occupancy(Sections 32.5 and 32.6 are reserved.)

Section 32.7 — Operating Features


Committee: SAF-BCF


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Editorial clean up to correlate with NFPA 5000.


Ballot Results


23 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

18 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Jones, Adam C.

McDermott, Randy S.

Mills, David E.


565 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 575 of 718


Affirmative All

Allen, Scott D.

Asp, Roland A.

Beebe, Chad E.

Bellamy, Tracey D.

Bradley, Harry L.

Day, Richard L.

Eaddy, Rebekah L.

Farraher, Martin J.

Heaney, Steven

Larrimer, Peter A.

Larson, Mark

Rickard, John A.

Rierson, Carter J.

Roth, Heather

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Talley, Joshua



566 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 576 of 718


32.1.7 Reserved.



Committee: SAF-BCF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This serves as a user-friendly pointer to the Ch 11 requirements for special structures. Thiswas a request from the TC on FUN.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6781-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


23 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

18 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Jones, Adam C.

McDermott, Randy S.

Mills, David E.


Affirmative All

Allen, Scott D.

Asp, Roland A.

Beebe, Chad E.

Bellamy, Tracey D.

Bradley, Harry L.

Day, Richard L.

Eaddy, Rebekah L.

Farraher, Martin J.

Heaney, Steven


567 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 577 of 718

Larrimer, Peter A.

Larson, Mark

Rickard, John A.

Rierson, Carter J.

Roth, Heather

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Talley, Joshua



568 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 578 of 718


32.2.3.2.3 Reserved Medical Gas .

Areas where medical gas is stored or administered and the operation, testing, and maintenance ofmedical gases shall be in accordance with NFPA 99 .


Committee: SAF-BCF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Some oxygen suppliers are decreasing the frequency of their drop offs, wanting to supply monthsworth of oxygen at a time. This leads to large quantities of tanks being stored in facilities. NFPA99 should be followed for medical gas storage.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6724-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


23 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

16 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Jones, Adam C.

McDermott, Randy S.

Mills, David E.


Affirmative All

Allen, Scott D.

Asp, Roland A.

Beebe, Chad E.

Bellamy, Tracey D.

Bradley, Harry L.

Day, Richard L.

Farraher, Martin J.

Heaney, Steven


569 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 579 of 718

Larson, Mark

Rickard, John A.

Rierson, Carter J.

Roth, Heather

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Talley, Joshua



Eaddy, Rebekah L.

We should proceed with caution regarding this revision as NFPA 99 is on the same cycle as NFPA 101. We havenot seen a draft copy of NFPA 99 - 2021.


Larrimer, Peter A.

Mandating compliance with NFPA 99 for storage of oxygen can be onerous for a small board and care facility.Liquid oxygen storage requirements will be a significant burden compared to what is permitted now. NFPA 99requires portable containers to be refilled outdoors or in a space with a noncombustible floor. Is that necessary fora very small board and care? While it may be a good idea, I think the committee needs to look at the requirementsclosely before mandating them for small board and care facilities. The justification that a month’s worth of oxygenbeing left is a case where it might be appropriate, but that it not often the case.


570 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 580 of 718


32.3.2.5 Arrangement of Means of Egress.

32.3.2.5.1


32.3.2.5.2

Common paths of travel shall not exceed 75 ft (23 m).

32.3.2.5.3 Reserved.

32.3.2.5.3

Dead-end corridors shall not exceed 30 ft (9.1 m).

32.3.2.5.4

Any room, or any suite of rooms, exceeding 2000 ft2 (185 m2) shall be provided with not less than two exitaccess doors located remotely from each other.



101_Chapter_32_Arragement_of_MOE_revision.docx For staff use


Committee: SAF-BCF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

In response to PI 157 and the Correlating Committee's direction, the arrangement of meansof egress section has been reorganized.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6779-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


23 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

18 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Jones, Adam C.

McDermott, Randy S.

Mills, David E.


571 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 581 of 718


Affirmative All

Allen, Scott D.

Asp, Roland A.

Beebe, Chad E.

Bellamy, Tracey D.

Bradley, Harry L.

Day, Richard L.

Eaddy, Rebekah L.

Farraher, Martin J.

Heaney, Steven

Larrimer, Peter A.

Larson, Mark

Rickard, John A.

Rierson, Carter J.

Roth, Heather

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Talley, Joshua



572 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 582 of 718


32.3.3.2.4

Areas where medical gas is stored or administered and the operation, testing, and maintenance ofmedical gases shall be in accordance with NFPA 99 .


Committee: SAF-BCF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Excessive quantities of medical gas storage have been reported, even in small facilities,leading to unsafe conditions.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6723-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


23 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

17 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Jones, Adam C.

McDermott, Randy S.

Mills, David E.


Affirmative All

Allen, Scott D.

Asp, Roland A.

Beebe, Chad E.

Bellamy, Tracey D.

Bradley, Harry L.

Day, Richard L.

Farraher, Martin J.

Heaney, Steven

Larrimer, Peter A.


573 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 583 of 718

Larson, Mark

Rickard, John A.

Rierson, Carter J.

Roth, Heather

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Talley, Joshua



Eaddy, Rebekah L.



574 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 584 of 718

First Revision No. 6698-NFPA 101-2018 [ Sections 32.3.3.4.7, 32.3.3.4.8 ]

32.3.3.4.7 Smoke Alarms.

Approved smoke alarms shall be installed in accordance with 9.6.2.10 inside every sleeping room,outside every sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of the bedrooms, and on all levels within a residentunit.

32.3.3.4.7.1

Approved smoke alarms shall be installed in accordance with 9.6.2.10 inside every sleeping room, outsideevery sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of the bedrooms, and on all levels within a resident unit.

32.3.3.4.7.2

Smoke alarms shall not be required to be installed in locations where smoke detection is otherwiserequired per 32.3.3.4.8 .

32.3.3.4.8 Smoke Detection Systems.

32.3.3.4.8.1

Corridors and spaces open to the corridors, other than those meeting the requirement of 32.3.3.4.8.3,shall be provided with smoke detectors that comply with NFPA 72 and are arranged to initiate an alarmthat is audible in all sleeping areas.

32.3.3.4.8.2 Reserved.

32.3.3.4.8.3

Smoke detection systems shall not be required in unenclosed corridors, passageways, balconies,colonnades, or other arrangements with one or more sides along the long dimension fully or extensivelyopen to the exterior at all times.


Committee: SAF-BCF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The existing section may have required smoke alarms and smoke detection in the same spaces.The new language clarifies that where smoke detectors are installed, smoke alarms are not alsorequired.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6698-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


23 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

18 Affirmative All



0 Abstention


575 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 585 of 718

Not Returned


Jones, Adam C.

McDermott, Randy S.

Mills, David E.


Affirmative All

Allen, Scott D.

Asp, Roland A.

Beebe, Chad E.

Bellamy, Tracey D.

Bradley, Harry L.

Day, Richard L.

Eaddy, Rebekah L.

Farraher, Martin J.

Heaney, Steven

Larrimer, Peter A.

Larson, Mark

Rickard, John A.

Rierson, Carter J.

Roth, Heather

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Talley, Joshua



576 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 586 of 718


32.3.3.4.9 Carbon Monoxide Alarms and Carbon Monoxide Detection Systems .

32.3.3.4.9.1

Carbon monoxide alarms or carbon monoxide detectors in accordance with Section 9.12 and 32.3.3.4.9shall be provided in new large board and care facilities where either where any of the following conditionsexists exist :

(1) Where large board and care facilities have communicating attached garages, unless otherwiseexempted by 32.3.3.4.9.3

(2) Where sleeping rooms or sleeping room suites contain fuel-burning appliances or fuel-burningfireplaces are in the facility

32.3.3.4.9.2

Where required by 32.3.3.4.9.1, carbon monoxide alarms or carbon monoxide detectors shall be installedin all of the following locations:

Outside each separate sleeping room area in the immediate vicinity of the sleeping rooms

(1) Within sleeping rooms containing fuel-burning appliances or fuel-burning fireplaces, unlessotherwise exempted by 32.3.3.4.9.4

(2) Centrally located within occupiable spaces served by the first supply air register from a fuel-burningHVAC system

(3) On every occupiable level of a sleeping room and sleeping room suite

(4) Centrally located within Within adjacent communicating occupiable spaces adjacent toa an communicating attached garage, unless otherwise exempted by 32.3.3.4.9.3

32.3.3.4.9.3

Carbon monoxide alarms and carbon monoxide detectors as specified in 32.3.3.4.9.1(1) shall not berequired in the following locations:

(1) In garages

(2) Within facilities with communicating attached garages that are open parking structures as defined bythe building code

(3) Within facilities with communicating attached garages that are mechanically ventilated in accordancewith the mechanical code

32.3.3.4.9.4

Where fuel-burning appliances or fuel-burning fireplaces are installed outside sleeping rooms, carbonmonoxide alarms or carbon monoxide detectors shall be installed in the locations specified asfollows: Within resident units containing fuel-burning appliances or fuel-burning fireplaces, carbonmonoxide alarms shall be permitted to be used.

Within rooms containing fuel-burning appliances or fuel-burning fireplaces

Centrally located within occupiable spaces served by the first supply air register from a fuel-burningHVAC system


Committee: SAF-BCF


Committee Statement

Committee CO alarms currently being used and required in areas the are not listed for. are only listed for


577 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 587 of 718

Statement: household use where CO detection devices are listed for commercial use. This revision adds anoption for using CO alarms or detectors in residential units, which is a new term being introducedthis cycle.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6773-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


23 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

16 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Jones, Adam C.

McDermott, Randy S.

Mills, David E.


Affirmative All

Allen, Scott D.

Asp, Roland A.

Beebe, Chad E.

Bellamy, Tracey D.

Bradley, Harry L.

Day, Richard L.

Eaddy, Rebekah L.

Heaney, Steven

Larrimer, Peter A.

Rickard, John A.

Rierson, Carter J.

Roth, Heather

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Talley, Joshua



Farraher, Martin J.

The change made to 32.3.3.4.9.4 will jeopardize life safety by reducing the waking effectiveness of occupantsbecause CO alarms or CO detectors are not required to be installed in the immediate vicinity of the sleeping room.The change made to 32.3.3.4.9.2 removed the requirement for CO detection to be installed in the immediate


578 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 588 of 718

vicinity of the sleeping room thereby reducing the waking effectiveness of occupants. The change made to32.3.3.4.9.2 would prohibit CO alarms from installed inside dwelling units that are attached to a communicatinggarage even though this is in accordance with their ANSI/UL 2034 listing.

Larson, Mark

The change made to 32.3.3.4.9.4 will jeopardize life safety by reducing the waking effectiveness of occupantsbecause CO alarms or CO detectors are not required to be installed in the immediate vicinity of the sleeping room.The change to 32.3.3.4.9.2 does the same thing. The change made to 32.3.3.4.9.2 would prohibit CO alarms frombeing installed inside dwelling units that are attached to a communicating garage even though this is accordancewith their ANSI/UL 2034 listing.


579 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 589 of 718


32.3.3.6.7

Doors protecting corridor openings shall be self-latching and provided with positive latching hardware.


Committee: SAF-BCF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The current language could be read to allow resident room doors that are not self-latching. Thisappears to be an oversight. The proposed language matches that in Chapter 18.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6702-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


23 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

17 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Jones, Adam C.

McDermott, Randy S.

Mills, David E.


Affirmative All

Allen, Scott D.

Asp, Roland A.

Beebe, Chad E.

Bellamy, Tracey D.

Bradley, Harry L.

Day, Richard L.

Eaddy, Rebekah L.

Farraher, Martin J.


580 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 590 of 718

Heaney, Steven

Larrimer, Peter A.

Larson, Mark

Rickard, John A.

Rierson, Carter J.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Talley, Joshua



Roth, Heather

Clears up an oversight.


581 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 591 of 718


32.3.4.1 High-Rise Buildings.

High-rise buildings shall comply with Section 11.8 .


Committee: SAF-BCF


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: All special structures need to comply with Chapter 11. A pointer was provided in 32.1.7.


Ballot Results


23 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

18 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Jones, Adam C.

McDermott, Randy S.

Mills, David E.


Affirmative All

Allen, Scott D.

Asp, Roland A.

Beebe, Chad E.

Bellamy, Tracey D.

Bradley, Harry L.

Day, Richard L.

Eaddy, Rebekah L.

Farraher, Martin J.

Heaney, Steven

Larrimer, Peter A.

Larson, Mark


582 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 592 of 718

Rickard, John A.

Rierson, Carter J.

Roth, Heather

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Talley, Joshua



583 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 593 of 718


32.7.1.1*

The administration of every residential board and care facility shall have, in effect and available to allsupervisory personnel, written copies of a plan for protecting all persons in the event of fire, for keepingpersons in place, for evacuating persons to areas of refuge, and for evacuating persons from the buildingwhen necessary.

A.32.7.1.1

Where residents require evacuation or relocation assistance, the plan should address the specificneeds for each resident, and adequate staffing should be provided as necessary to implement theplan.


Committee: SAF-BCF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The proposed text is submitted on behalf of the Aging in Place Task Group. The added text, inconjunction with 32.7.1.2, clarifies that residential board and care facilities must plan for eachresident’s specific needs and also ensure that an adequate number of staff are available to carryout the plan.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6775-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


23 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

17 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Jones, Adam C.

McDermott, Randy S.

Mills, David E.


Affirmative All


584 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 594 of 718

Allen, Scott D.

Asp, Roland A.

Beebe, Chad E.

Bellamy, Tracey D.

Bradley, Harry L.

Day, Richard L.

Eaddy, Rebekah L.

Farraher, Martin J.

Heaney, Steven

Larrimer, Peter A.

Larson, Mark

Rickard, John A.

Rierson, Carter J.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Talley, Joshua



Roth, Heather

Every resident has different needs and those needs are to be accounted for.


585 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 595 of 718


32.7.3.6

Residents who cannot meaningfully assist in their own evacuation or who have special health problemsshall not be required to actively participate in the drill. Section 18.7 shall apply in such instances.


Committee: SAF-BCF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

There is no reason to reference Chapter 18. The operating features of Chapter 32 should standon their own as they do in Chapter 33. This requirement was necessary when this chapterreferenced evacuation capabilities. Now that it's been updated, this section is unnecessary.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6776-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


23 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

17 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Jones, Adam C.

McDermott, Randy S.

Mills, David E.


Affirmative All

Allen, Scott D.

Asp, Roland A.

Beebe, Chad E.

Bellamy, Tracey D.

Bradley, Harry L.

Day, Richard L.

Eaddy, Rebekah L.


586 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 596 of 718

Farraher, Martin J.

Heaney, Steven

Larrimer, Peter A.

Larson, Mark

Rickard, John A.

Rierson, Carter J.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Talley, Joshua



Roth, Heather

Each chapter should be it's own stand alone document.


587 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 597 of 718


33.1.9



Committee: SAF-BCF


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: This serves as a user-friendly pointer to Chapter 11 as suggested by the TC on FUN.


Ballot Results


23 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

18 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Jones, Adam C.

McDermott, Randy S.

Mills, David E.


Affirmative All

Allen, Scott D.

Asp, Roland A.

Beebe, Chad E.

Bellamy, Tracey D.

Bradley, Harry L.

Day, Richard L.

Eaddy, Rebekah L.

Farraher, Martin J.

Heaney, Steven

Larrimer, Peter A.

Larson, Mark


588 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 598 of 718

Rickard, John A.

Rierson, Carter J.

Roth, Heather

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Talley, Joshua



589 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 599 of 718


33.2.3.2.6 Medical Gas.

Medical gas storage shall be in accordance with Section 8.7 and the provisions of NFPA 99applicable to operation, maintenance, and testing.


Committee: SAF-BCF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Medical gas storage is covered in NFPA 99 and section 8.7. Some facilities have reportedrequests to store large quantities of medical gas.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6725-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


23 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

16 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Jones, Adam C.

McDermott, Randy S.

Mills, David E.


Affirmative All

Allen, Scott D.

Asp, Roland A.

Beebe, Chad E.

Bellamy, Tracey D.

Bradley, Harry L.

Day, Richard L.

Farraher, Martin J.

Heaney, Steven

Larson, Mark


590 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 600 of 718

Rickard, John A.

Rierson, Carter J.

Roth, Heather

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Talley, Joshua



Eaddy, Rebekah L.



Larrimer, Peter A.

The committee statements reads: “Medical gas storage is covered in NFPA 99 and section 8.7. Some facilitieshave reported requests to store large quantities of medical gas.” However, the new requirement doesn’t mandatestorage in accordance with NFPA 99 nor does Section 8.7 reference NFPA 99. NFPA 99 requires liquid oxygenportable containers to be refilled outdoors or in a space with a noncombustible floor. Is that necessary for anexisting small board and care? This would require it to be done outdoors for many facilities of Type V construction.The committee should review the requirements in NFPA 99 closely before mandating all of operation,maintenance and testing requirements of NFPA 99 for small board and care facilities. I am not sure this addsanything to the document and could create enforcement problems.


591 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 601 of 718


33.3.3.2.4 Medical Gas.

Areas where medical gas is stored or administered and the operation, testing, and maintenance ofmedical gases shall be in accordance with NFPA 99.


Committee: SAF-BCF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Areas where medical gas is stored or administered, and the operation, testing, andmaintenance of medical gases shall be in accordance with NFPA 99.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6726-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


23 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

16 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Jones, Adam C.

McDermott, Randy S.

Mills, David E.


Affirmative All

Allen, Scott D.

Asp, Roland A.

Beebe, Chad E.

Bellamy, Tracey D.

Bradley, Harry L.

Day, Richard L.

Farraher, Martin J.

Heaney, Steven

Larson, Mark


592 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 602 of 718

Rickard, John A.

Rierson, Carter J.

Roth, Heather

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Talley, Joshua



Eaddy, Rebekah L.



Larrimer, Peter A.

The retroactive requirement to meet the storage provisions of NFPA 99 for existing large board and care facilitieswill require some storage rooms to be upgraded. For instance, where liquid oxygen containers are stored, a onehour rated enclosure along with ventilation will be required retroactively. Even healthcare occupancies do notmandate the storage provisions of NFPA 99 retroactively.


593 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 603 of 718


33.3.3.5.7 Portable Fire Extinguishers.

Portable fire extinguishers shall be provided in accordance with Section 9.9 shall be provided nearhazardous areas .


Committee: SAF-BCF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This is consistent with other fire code requirements and the requirements for new board andcare facilities.



Ballot Results


23 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

18 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Jones, Adam C.

McDermott, Randy S.

Mills, David E.


Affirmative All

Allen, Scott D.

Asp, Roland A.

Beebe, Chad E.

Bellamy, Tracey D.

Bradley, Harry L.

Day, Richard L.

Eaddy, Rebekah L.

Farraher, Martin J.


594 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 604 of 718

Heaney, Steven

Larrimer, Peter A.

Larson, Mark

Rickard, John A.

Rierson, Carter J.

Roth, Heather

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Talley, Joshua



595 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 605 of 718

First Revision No. 6713-NFPA 101-2018 [ New Section after 33.3.3.6.6.3 ]

33.3.3.6.6.4

In buildings protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordancewith 33.3.3.5 , doors shall be equipped with latches for keeping the doors tightly closed.


Committee: SAF-BCF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

If a building is sprinkler protected throughout, the code exempts the requirement for doors, otherthan doors to hazardous areas, vertical openings, and exit enclosures, to be self or automaticclosing. In addition, there is no requirement in the code for any door to have a latch. This new textwill require a latch for those doors that are not self or automatic closing (including sleeping roomdoors) so that the door can be closed in case of a fire. This is not expected to cause much harm asmost existing facilities do not have doors without some type of lock or latch, but the code is silent onthe issue. This text is taken from 33.3.3.6.4.4(3).

ResponseMessage:

FR-6713-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


23 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

18 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Jones, Adam C.

McDermott, Randy S.

Mills, David E.


Affirmative All

Allen, Scott D.

Asp, Roland A.

Beebe, Chad E.

Bellamy, Tracey D.


596 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 606 of 718

Bradley, Harry L.

Day, Richard L.

Eaddy, Rebekah L.

Farraher, Martin J.

Heaney, Steven

Larrimer, Peter A.

Larson, Mark

Rickard, John A.

Rierson, Carter J.

Roth, Heather

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Talley, Joshua



597 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 607 of 718


33.3.3.8.2*

Where residential cooking equipment is used for food warming or limited cooking, the equipment shall notbe required to be protected in accordance with 9.2.3 , and the presence of the equipment shall notrequire the area to be protected as a hazardous area or limited cooking or where the equipment hasheating elements or burners that have been tested and listed not to allow cooking pan temperature toexceed 662°F (350°C), the equipment shall not be required to be protected in accordance with 9.2.3 ,and the presence of the equipment shall not require the area to be protected as a hazardous area .


Committee: SAF-BCF


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: During the last cycle, this was added to Chapter 32 but was not added to Chapter 33.



Ballot Results


23 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

18 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Jones, Adam C.

McDermott, Randy S.

Mills, David E.


Affirmative All

Allen, Scott D.

Asp, Roland A.

Beebe, Chad E.

Bellamy, Tracey D.

Bradley, Harry L.

Day, Richard L.


598 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 608 of 718

Eaddy, Rebekah L.

Farraher, Martin J.

Heaney, Steven

Larrimer, Peter A.

Larson, Mark

Rickard, John A.

Rierson, Carter J.

Roth, Heather

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Talley, Joshua



599 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 609 of 718


33.7.1.1*

The administration of every residential board and care facility shall have, in effect and available to allsupervisory personnel, written copies of a plan for protecting all persons in the event of fire, for keepingpersons in place, for evacuating persons to areas of refuge, and for evacuating persons from the buildingwhen necessary.

A.33.7.1.1

Where residents require evacuation or relocation assistance, the plan should address the specificneeds for each resident and, adequate staffing should be provided as necessary to implement theplan.


Committee: SAF-BCF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The proposed text is submitted on behalf of the Aging in Place Task Group. The added text, inconjunction with 33.7.1.2, clarifies that residential board and care facilities must plan for eachresident’s specific needs and also ensure that an adequate number of staff are available to carry outthe plan. This revision does not intend for staff to evacuate everyone for themselves. It may requirethe assistance of first responders.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6778-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


23 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

18 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Jones, Adam C.

McDermott, Randy S.

Mills, David E.



600 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 610 of 718

Affirmative All

Allen, Scott D.

Asp, Roland A.

Beebe, Chad E.

Bellamy, Tracey D.

Bradley, Harry L.

Day, Richard L.

Eaddy, Rebekah L.

Farraher, Martin J.

Heaney, Steven

Larrimer, Peter A.

Larson, Mark

Rickard, John A.

Rierson, Carter J.

Roth, Heather

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Talley, Joshua



601 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 611 of 718


36.2.2.2.2*

Locks complying with 7.2.1.5.5 7.2.1.5.6 shall be permitted only on exterior, principal entrance/exit doors.


Committee: SAF-MER


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The Committee is adding the term 'exterior' in response to the changes made to 7.2.1.5.5.1. Addingthe term 'exterior' retains the permission of key-operated locks to only exterior principle entrance/exitdoors. Expanding the application to interior doors could potentially permit the use of multiple keys toget out of a building. There are other provisions in the Code today that permit door locking in theingress direction should occupants of a tenant space need additional security. The intent of theCommittee has always been to permit this concept on the main (principle) exit doors as these are thedoors needed for the mercantile to operate and will be unlocked during occupancy.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6685-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Burrus, William J.

Jackson, Ricky R.

Vosicky, John

Yonkers, Ernest D.

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Berezowski, Andrew G.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Cole, Anthony W.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Derr, Kevin L.

Dodge, David A.


602 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 612 of 718

Donovan, Scott

Frable, David W.

Freels, Douglas R.

Gauvin, Daniel J.

Gumkowski, Anthony C.

Humble, Jonathan

Martin, Jeff

Mourao, Bridget

Murdock, Amy J.

Rice, Sarah A.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Smith, James B.

Stocker, Warren G.

Tidwell, J. L. (Jim)


Bellamy, Tracey D.

If the intent is to limit the use of such locking arrangements to a single door within the path of egress, thelimitation of having it only at an exterior door would preclude the use of such an arrangement on a single door thathappened to not be on the exterior wall, such as might occur with a vestibule arrangement.


603 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 613 of 718


36.2.5.1


36.2.5.2

Common paths of travel shall be limited by any of the following:

(1) Common paths of travel shall not exceed 75 ft (23 m) in mercantile occupancies classified as low orordinary hazard.

(2) Common paths of travel shall not exceed 100 ft (30 m) in mercantile occupancies classified as low orordinary hazard where the building is protected throughout by an approved, supervised automaticsprinkler system in accordance with 9.7.1.1(1).

(3) Common paths of travel shall not be permitted in mercantile occupancies classified as high hazard.

36.2.5.3

Dead-end corridors shall comply with 36.2.5.2.1 36.2.5.3.1 or 36.2.5.2.2 36.2.5.3.2.

36.2.5.3.1

In buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordancewith 9.7.1.1(1), dead-end corridors shall not exceed 50 ft (15 m).

36.2.5.3.2

In all buildings not complying with 36.2.5.2.1 36.2.5.3.1, dead-end corridors shall not exceed 20 ft(6100 mm).



MER_arrangement_XX.2.5_reorg.docx See page 1 for Chapter 36 changes --for staff use


Committee: SAF-MER


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Response to Correlating Committee minutes action item 7(a)(i).


Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



0 Abstention


604 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 614 of 718

Not Returned

Burrus, William J.

Jackson, Ricky R.

Vosicky, John

Yonkers, Ernest D.

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Bellamy, Tracey D.


Bush, Kenneth E.

Cole, Anthony W.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Derr, Kevin L.

Dodge, David A.

Donovan, Scott

Frable, David W.

Freels, Douglas R.

Gauvin, Daniel J.


Humble, Jonathan

Martin, Jeff

Mourao, Bridget

Murdock, Amy J.

Rice, Sarah A.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Smith, James B.

Stocker, Warren G.



605 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 615 of 718


36.3.4.3.2 Emergency Forces Notification.

Emergency forces notification shall be provided and shall include notifying both of the following:

(1) Fire department in accordance with 9.6.4

(2) Local Approved, local emergency organization, if provided


Committee: SAF-MER


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Added the term "Approved" for consistency with sections 36.4.4.7.3.3 and 36.4.5.4.4




Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Burrus, William J.

Jackson, Ricky R.

Vosicky, John

Yonkers, Ernest D.

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Bellamy, Tracey D.


Bush, Kenneth E.

Cole, Anthony W.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Derr, Kevin L.


606 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 616 of 718

Dodge, David A.

Donovan, Scott

Frable, David W.

Freels, Douglas R.

Gauvin, Daniel J.


Humble, Jonathan

Martin, Jeff

Mourao, Bridget

Murdock, Amy J.

Rice, Sarah A.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Smith, James B.

Stocker, Warren G.



607 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 617 of 718


37.2.2.2.2*



Committee: SAF-MER


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The Committee is adding the term 'exterior' in response to the changes made to 7.2.1.5.5.1. Addingthe term 'exterior' retains the permission of key-operated locks to only exterior principle entrance/exitdoors. Expanding the application to interior doors could potentially permit the use of multiple keys toget out of a building. There are other provisions in the Code today that permit door locking in theingress direction should occupants of a tenant space need additional security. The intent of theCommittee has always been to permit this concept on the main (principle) exit doors as these are thedoors needed for the mercantile to operate and will be unlocked during occupancy.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6787-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Burrus, William J.

Jackson, Ricky R.

Vosicky, John

Yonkers, Ernest D.

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.


Bush, Kenneth E.

Cole, Anthony W.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Derr, Kevin L.

Dodge, David A.


608 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 618 of 718

Donovan, Scott

Frable, David W.

Freels, Douglas R.

Gauvin, Daniel J.


Humble, Jonathan

Martin, Jeff

Mourao, Bridget

Murdock, Amy J.

Rice, Sarah A.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Smith, James B.

Stocker, Warren G.



Bellamy, Tracey D.



609 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 619 of 718


37.2.5.1


37.2.5.2*

Common paths of travel shall be limited in accordance with 37.2.5.3.1 37.2.5.2.1 or 37.2.5.3.2 37.2.5.2.2.

37.2.5.2.1

In buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordancewith 9.7.1.1(1), common paths of travel shall not exceed 100 ft (30 m).

37.2.5.2.2

In buildings not complying with 37.2.5.3.1 37.2.5.2.1, common paths of travel shall not exceed 75 ft(23 m).

37.2.5.3*




MER_arrangement_XX.2.5_reorg.docx See page 3 for Chapter 37 changes -for staff use


Committee: SAF-MER


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Burrus, William J.

Jackson, Ricky R.

Vosicky, John

Yonkers, Ernest D.


610 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 620 of 718

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Bellamy, Tracey D.


Bush, Kenneth E.

Cole, Anthony W.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Derr, Kevin L.

Dodge, David A.

Donovan, Scott

Frable, David W.

Freels, Douglas R.

Gauvin, Daniel J.


Humble, Jonathan

Martin, Jeff

Mourao, Bridget

Murdock, Amy J.

Rice, Sarah A.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Smith, James B.

Stocker, Warren G.



611 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 621 of 718


37.3.4.3.2 Emergency Forces Notification.

Emergency forces notification shall be provided and shall include notifying both of the following:

(1) Fire department in accordance with 9.6.4

(2) Local Approved, local emergency organization, if provided


Committee: SAF-MER


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Added the term "Approved" for consistency with sections 37.4.4.7.3.3 and 37.4.5.4.4.




Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Burrus, William J.

Jackson, Ricky R.

Vosicky, John

Yonkers, Ernest D.

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Bellamy, Tracey D.


Bush, Kenneth E.

Cole, Anthony W.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Derr, Kevin L.


612 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 622 of 718

Dodge, David A.

Donovan, Scott

Frable, David W.

Freels, Douglas R.

Gauvin, Daniel J.


Humble, Jonathan

Martin, Jeff

Mourao, Bridget

Murdock, Amy J.

Rice, Sarah A.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Smith, James B.

Stocker, Warren G.



613 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 623 of 718


38.2.2.2.3*



Committee: SAF-MER


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The Committee is adding the term 'exterior' in response to the changes made to 7.2.1.5.5.1. Addingthe term 'exterior' retains the permission of key-operated locks to only exterior principle entrance/exitdoors. Expanding the application to interior doors could potentially permit the use of multiple keys toget out of a building. There are other provisions in the Code today that permit door locking in theingress direction should occupants of a tenant space need additional security. The intent of theCommittee has always been to permit this concept on the main (principle) exit doors as these are thedoors needed for the business to operate and will be unlocked during occupancy.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6682-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Burrus, William J.

Jackson, Ricky R.

Vosicky, John

Yonkers, Ernest D.

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.


Bush, Kenneth E.

Cole, Anthony W.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Derr, Kevin L.

Dodge, David A.


614 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 624 of 718

Donovan, Scott

Frable, David W.

Freels, Douglas R.

Gauvin, Daniel J.


Humble, Jonathan

Martin, Jeff

Mourao, Bridget

Murdock, Amy J.

Rice, Sarah A.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Smith, James B.

Stocker, Warren G.



Bellamy, Tracey D.



615 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 625 of 718


38.2.5.1


38.2.5.2

Limitations on common path of travel shall be in accordance with 38.2.5.3.1 38.2.5.2.1, 38.2.5.3.238.2.5.2.2, and 38.2.5.3.3 38.2.5.2.3.

38.2.5.2.1

Common path of travel shall not exceed 100 ft (30 m) in a building protected throughout by an approved,supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 9.7.1.1(1).

38.2.5.2.2

Common path of travel shall not exceed 100 ft (30 m) within a single tenant space having an occupantload not exceeding 30 persons.

38.2.5.2.3

In buildings other than those complying with 38.2.5.3.1 38.2.5.2.1 or 38.2.5.3.2 38.2.5.2.2, common pathof travel shall not exceed 75 ft (23 m).

38.2.5.3

Dead-end corridors shall be permitted in accordance with 38.2.5.2.1 38.2.5.3.1 or 38.2.5.2.2 38.2.5.3.2.

38.2.5.3.1

In buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordancewith 9.7.1.1(1), dead-end corridors shall not exceed 50 ft (15 m).

38.2.5.3.2

In buildings other than those complying with 38.2.5.2.1 38.2.5.3.1, dead-end corridors shall not exceed20 ft (6100 mm).





Committee: SAF-MER


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



616 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 626 of 718


0 Abstention

Not Returned

Burrus, William J.

Jackson, Ricky R.

Vosicky, John

Yonkers, Ernest D.

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Bellamy, Tracey D.


Bush, Kenneth E.

Cole, Anthony W.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Derr, Kevin L.

Dodge, David A.

Donovan, Scott

Frable, David W.

Freels, Douglas R.

Gauvin, Daniel J.


Humble, Jonathan

Martin, Jeff

Mourao, Bridget

Murdock, Amy J.

Rice, Sarah A.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Smith, James B.

Stocker, Warren G.



617 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 627 of 718


38.7.3 Portable Fire Extinguisher Training.

Designated employees of business occupancies shall be trained periodically instructed in the to know thelocations and proper use of portable fire extinguishers.


Committee: SAF-MER


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

To provide clarification to the subject section. "Assigned..." is not included as it is implied byusing the term 'designated'.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6695-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Burrus, William J.

Jackson, Ricky R.

Vosicky, John

Yonkers, Ernest D.

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Bellamy, Tracey D.


Bush, Kenneth E.

Cole, Anthony W.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Derr, Kevin L.

Dodge, David A.

Donovan, Scott


618 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 628 of 718

Frable, David W.

Freels, Douglas R.

Gauvin, Daniel J.


Humble, Jonathan

Martin, Jeff

Mourao, Bridget

Murdock, Amy J.

Rice, Sarah A.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Smith, James B.

Stocker, Warren G.



619 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 629 of 718


39.2.2.2.3*



Committee: SAF-MER


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The Committee is adding the term 'exterior' in response to the changes made to 7.2.1.5.5.1. Addingthe term 'exterior' retains the permission of key-operated locks to only exterior principle entrance/exitdoors. Expanding the application to interior doors could potentially permit the use of multiple keys toget out of a building. There are other provisions in the Code today that permit door locking in theingress direction should occupants of a tenant space need additional security. The intent of theCommittee has always been to permit this concept on the main (principle) exit doors as these are thedoors needed for the business to operate and will be unlocked during occupancy.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6684-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Burrus, William J.

Jackson, Ricky R.

Vosicky, John

Yonkers, Ernest D.

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.


Bush, Kenneth E.

Cole, Anthony W.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Derr, Kevin L.

Dodge, David A.


620 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 630 of 718

Donovan, Scott

Frable, David W.

Freels, Douglas R.

Gauvin, Daniel J.


Humble, Jonathan

Martin, Jeff

Mourao, Bridget

Murdock, Amy J.

Rice, Sarah A.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Smith, James B.

Stocker, Warren G.



Bellamy, Tracey D.



621 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 631 of 718


39.2.5.1


39.2.5.2*

Limitations on common path of travel shall be in accordance with 39.2.5.3.1 39.2.5.2.1, 39.2.5.3.239.2.5.2.2, and 39.2.5.3.3 39.2.5.2.3.

39.2.5.2.1

Common path of travel shall not exceed 100 ft (30 m) on a story protected throughout by an approvedautomatic sprinkler system in accordance with 9.7.1.1(1).

39.2.5.2.2

Common path of travel shall not be limited in a single-tenant space with an occupant load not exceeding30 people.

39.2.5.2.3

In buildings other than those complying with 39.2.5.3.1 39.2.5.2.1 or 39.2.5.3.2 39.2.5.2.2, common pathof travel shall not exceed 75 ft (23 m).

39.2.5.3*






Committee: SAF-MER


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Burrus, William J.


622 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 632 of 718

Jackson, Ricky R.

Vosicky, John

Yonkers, Ernest D.

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Bellamy, Tracey D.


Bush, Kenneth E.

Cole, Anthony W.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Derr, Kevin L.

Dodge, David A.

Donovan, Scott

Frable, David W.

Freels, Douglas R.

Gauvin, Daniel J.


Humble, Jonathan

Martin, Jeff

Mourao, Bridget

Murdock, Amy J.

Rice, Sarah A.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Smith, James B.

Stocker, Warren G.



623 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 633 of 718


39.7.3 Portable Fire Extinguisher Training.

Designated employees of business occupancies shall be trained periodically instructed in the to know thelocations and proper use of portable fire extinguishers.


Committee: SAF-MER


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

To provide clarification to the subject section. "Assigned..." is not included as it is implied byusing the term 'designated'.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6786-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Burrus, William J.

Jackson, Ricky R.

Vosicky, John

Yonkers, Ernest D.

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Bellamy, Tracey D.


Bush, Kenneth E.

Cole, Anthony W.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Derr, Kevin L.

Dodge, David A.

Donovan, Scott


624 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 634 of 718

Frable, David W.

Freels, Douglas R.

Gauvin, Daniel J.


Humble, Jonathan

Martin, Jeff

Mourao, Bridget

Murdock, Amy J.

Rice, Sarah A.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Smith, James B.

Stocker, Warren G.



625 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 635 of 718


40.1.7.1

The occupant load factor for industrial use shall be in accordance with Table 40.1.7.1 as follows:

Table 40.1.7.1 Occupant Load Factors

Industrial Use

General and high-hazard industrial 100 9.3

Special-purpose industrial MP MP

MP: The occupant load is the maximum probable number of occupants present at any time.


Committee: SAF-IND


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The use of 'NA' could be misinterpreted to mean that there is no occupant load for special purposeindustrial occupancies, where the intent is that its determined not by a calculation but by themaximum probable number of occupants present at any time. See also a similar change proposedfor storage occupancies.

NOTE TO CORRELATING COMMITTEE: Please move this requirement to Table 7.3.1.2 byupdating the row for special-purpose industrial use as well as the acronym at the bottom of Table7.3.1.2.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6807-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.


626 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 636 of 718

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


627 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 637 of 718


40.2.5.1 General.

Means of egress, arranged in accordance with Section 7.5, shall not exceed that provided by Table40.2.5.1, unless otherwise permitted by the fire code .

Table 40.2.5.1 Arrangement of Means of Egress

Level of Protection

GeneralIndustrial

Occupancy

Special-PurposeIndustrial

Occupancy High-HazardIndustrial

Occupancyft m ft m

Dead-End Corridor

Protected throughout by an approved,supervised automatic sprinkler system inaccordance with 9.7.1.1(1)

50 15 50 15Prohibited, except aspermitted by 7.11.4

Not protected throughout by anapproved, supervised automaticsprinkler system in accordance with9.7.1.1(1)


Common Path of Travel






Committee: SAF-IND


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Currently, there are potential conflicts between NFPA 101 and codes such as NFPA 1, NFPA 5000and NFPA 400 where protection levels are utilized in areas that exceed the MAQs. This addedreference to the fire code helps to eliminate the conflict and provide users with a pointer to the firecode should any of the provisions in Table 40.2.5.1 be further modified there. The intent is not forNFPA 101 to be more restrictive in regulating arrangement of means of egress is areas withhazardous materials.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6810-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



628 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 638 of 718


0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


629 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 639 of 718


40.2.6.1

Travel distance, measured in accordance with Section 7.6, shall not exceed that provided by Table40.2.6.1 except as otherwise permitted by 40.2.6.2 or the fire code .

Table 40.2.6.1 Maximum Travel Distance to Exits

Level of Protection

GeneralIndustrial

Occupancy

Special-PurposeIndustrial

Occupancy

High-HazardIndustrial

Occupancy

ft m ft m ft m

Protected throughout by an approved,supervised automatic sprinkler systemin accordance with 9.7.1.1(1)

250† * 76† * 400 122 75 23


200 61 300 91 NP NP

NP: Not permitted.

† * In one-story buildings, a travel distance of 400 ft (122 m) is permitted, provided that a performance-based analysis demonstrates that safe egress can be accomplished.


Committee: SAF-IND


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Currently, there are potential conflicts between NFPA 101 and codes such as NFPA 1, NFPA 5000and NFPA 400 where protection levels are utilized in areas that exceed the MAQs. This addedreference to the fire code helps to eliminate the conflict and provide users with a pointer to the firecode should any of the provisions in Table 40.2.6.1 be further modified there. The intent is not forNFPA 101 to be more restrictive in regulating arrangement of means of egress is areas withhazardous materials.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6811-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan


630 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 640 of 718

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


631 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 641 of 718


40.6.2.4

Where dwarf, or “smash,” egress doors are provided in doors that accommodate aircraft, such doors shallbe permitted for compliance with 40.6.2.1 through 40.6.2.3.


Committee: SAF-IND


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The term dwarf and smash doors are outdated. The intent of the provision is to regulate egressdoors within large hangar doors that accommodate aircraft.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6805-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron


632 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 642 of 718

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


633 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 643 of 718


42.1.7 Occupant Load.

The occupant load, in number of persons for whom means of egress and other provisions are required,shall be determined on the basis of the occupant load factors of Table 7.3.1.2 that are characteristic ofthe use of the space, or shall be determined as the maximum probable population of the space underconsideration, whichever is greater .

A.42.1.7

There is no occupant load factor specified for storage occupancies. Rather, the probable maximumnumber of persons present needs to be considered in determining the occupant load.

42.1.7.1

The occupant load factor for storage occupancies shall be in accordance with Table 42.1.7.1 asfollows:

Table 42.1.7.1 Occupant Load Factors

Storage Use

In storage occupancies MP MP

In mercantile occupancies 300 27.9

In other than storage and mercantile occupancies 500 46.5

MP: The occupant load is the maximum probable number of occupants present at any time.


Committee: SAF-IND


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The use of 'NA' could be misinterpreted to mean that there is no occupant load for storageoccupancies or parking structures, where the intent is that its determined not by a calculation but bythe maximum probable number of occupants present at any time. See also a similar changeproposed for industrial occupancies.

NOTE TO CORRELATING COMMITTEE: Please delete and move this requirement to Table 7.3.1.2by updating the row for storage use as well as the acronym at the bottom of Table 7.3.1.2.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6808-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention


634 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 644 of 718

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


635 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 645 of 718



Means of egress, arranged in accordance with Section 7.5, shall not exceed that provided by Table42.2.5, unless otherwise permitted by the fire code .

Table 42.2.5 Arrangements of Means of Egress

Level of Protection

Low-HazardStorage

Occupancy

Ordinary-HazardStorage

Occupancy High-HazardStorage

Occupancyft m

Dead-End Corridor


NL 100 30Prohibited, except aspermitted by 7.11.4

Not protected throughout by anapproved, supervised automatic sprinklersystem in accordance with 9.7.1.1(1)


Common Path of Travel





NL: Not limited.


Committee: SAF-IND


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Currently, there are potential conflicts between NFPA 101 and codes such as NFPA 1, NFPA 5000and NFPA 400 where protection levels are utilized in areas that exceed the MAQs. This addedreference to the fire code helps to eliminate the conflict and provide users with a pointer to the firecode should any of the provisions in Table 42.2.5 be further modified there. The intent is not forNFPA 101 to be more restrictive in regulating arrangement of means of egress is areas withhazardous materials.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6812-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All




636 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 646 of 718

0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


637 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 647 of 718


42.2.6* Travel Distance to Exits.

Travel distance, measured in accordance with Section 7.6, shall not exceed that provided by Table 42.2.6,unless otherwise permitted by the fire code .

Table 42.2.6 Maximum Travel Distance to Exits

Level of Protection

Low-HazardStorage

Occupancy

Ordinary-HazardStorage

Occupancy

High-HazardStorage

Occupancy

ft m ft m


NL 400 122 100 30


NL 200 61 75 23

Flammable and combustible liquidproducts stored and protected inaccordance with NFPA 30

NA NA NA 150 46

NL: Not limited. NA: Not applicable.


Committee: SAF-IND


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Currently, there are potential conflicts between NFPA 101 and codes such as NFPA 1, NFPA 5000and NFPA 400 where protection levels are utilized in areas that exceed the MAQs. This addedreference to the fire code helps to eliminate the conflict and provide users with a pointer to the firecode should any of the provisions in Table 42.2.6 be further modified there. The intent is not forNFPA 101 to be more restrictive in regulating arrangement of means of egress is areas withhazardous materials.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6813-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan


638 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 648 of 718

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


639 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 649 of 718


42.6.1.4

Where dwarf, or “smash,” egress doors are provided in doors that accommodate aircraft, such doors shallbe permitted for compliance with 42.6.1.1, 42.6.1.2, and 42.6.1.3.


Committee: SAF-IND


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The term dwarf and smash doors are outdated. The intent of the provision is to regulate egressdoors within large hangar doors that accommodate aircraft.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6806-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron


640 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 650 of 718

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


641 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 651 of 718


42.8.1.3 Opening Requirements for Open Parking Structures.

Open parking structures shall comply with 42.8.1.3.1 through 42.8.1.3.3 42.8.1.3.5 .

42.8.1.3.1

Each parking level shall have wall openings open to the atmosphere for an area of not less than 1.4 ft 2

for each linear foot (0.4 m 2 for each linear meter) of its exterior perimeter For natural ventilationpurposes, the exterior sides of the structure shall have uniformly distributed openings on two or moresides . [88A:5.5.1]

42.8.1.3.2

The area of such openings in exterior walls on a level shall be not less than 20 percent of the totalperimeter wall area of each level. [ 88A: 5.5.2]

42.8.1.3.3

The openings addressed in 42.8.1.3.1 shall be distributed over 40 percent of the building perimeter oruniformly over two opposing sides The aggregate length (i.e., total of widths) of the openings consideredto be providing natural ventilation shall be not less than 40 percent of the perimeter of the level .[88A:5.5.2 3 ]

42.8.1.3.4

Where the required openings are uniformly distributed over two opposing sides of the building,42.8.1.3.3 shall not apply. [ 88A: 5.5.4]

42.8.1.3.5

Interior wall lines and column lines shall be at least 20 percent open, with openings uniformly distributedto provide ventilation. [88A:5.5.3 5 ]


Committee: SAF-IND


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Extract update.


Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan


642 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 652 of 718

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


643 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 653 of 718


42.8.1.7 Occupant Load.

(No requirements.) The occupant load, in number of persons for whom means of egress and otherprovisions are required, shall be determined on the basis of the occupant load factors of Table 7.3.1.2that are characteristic of the use of the space, or shall be determined as the maximum probablepopulation of the space under consideration, whichever is greater.


Committee: SAF-IND


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Parking structures do not have "no requirements" for occupant load. The intent is that theoccupant load be determined as the maximum probable number of occupants present at any time.This is reflected by a pointer to Table 7.3.1.2.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6809-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.


644 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 654 of 718

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


645 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 655 of 718

First Revision No. 6710-NFPA 101-2018 [ Section No. A.13.4.8 ]

A.13.4.9

Special amusement buildings are unique structures that can present challenges not common in assemblyor other occupancies. Hazards in special amusement buildings can include industrial, electrical,pneumatic, stored energy systems, or other systems and equipment associated with the ride and/or showsystems. Occupants are typically not familiar with their surroundings, and the provided exit access mightnot be apparent while the building is operating in show conditions.

Additionally, special amusement buildings might present design challenges, which the authority havingjurisdiction might need to consider. For example, a ride building containing a roller coaster might meet theheight requirements for a high-rise structure but only contain one story of height and mezzanines orcatwalks at upper levels for evacuation. Portions of a ride might exit and return into the building, traverseto an open structure, be surrounded by water, or contain an atrium. Each of these conditions presentschallenges to the design of fire protection, fire alarm, and life safety systems, as well as the emergencyaction plan required in 13.7.13 .

Where a special amusement building on a temporary basis is installed inside another building, such aswithin an exhibit hall, the special amusement building requirements apply only to the portions of thebuilding used as a special amusement building . For example, the smoke detectors required by 13.4.9.4are not required to be connected to the building’s system. Where installed in an exhibit hall, such smokedetectors are also required to comply with the provisions applicable to an exhibit.


Committee: SAF-AXM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision to the existing annex material provides new and updated information to help the userof the code identify the different hazards typically found in a special amusement structure. As newtechnologies for special amusement attractions have been implemented, this section of the annexhas become outdated as it fails to mention these complex systems. This annex material will helpusers of the code identify other sections of the code that require consideration for these uniquecircumstances.

The section on Special Amusements installed in other buildings is updated to reflect the temporarynatures of these installations and not to provide a permanent solution in lieu of the coderequirements contained in 13.4.8.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6710-NFPA 101-2018

Public Input No. 385-NFPA 101-2018 [Section No. A.13.4.8]

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention


646 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 656 of 718

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Little, Julie A.

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Washburn, Janet A.


647 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 657 of 718

First Revision No. 6669-NFPA 101-2018 [ Section No. A.3.3.37.9 ]

A.3.3.37.9 Special Amusement Building.

Special amusement buildings include amusements typically found in theme parks such as a hauntedhouse, a roller coaster–type ride within a building, a multilevel play structure within a building, asubmarine ride, and similar amusements where the occupants are not in the open air and might or mightnot be confined to a ride vehicle and/or unable to self-evacuate. Examples of temporary specialamusement buildings include mobile fun houses typically found in carnivals or a gymnasium converted toa haunted house for Halloween .

Other occupancies might also fall into the classification of special amusement building if the conditionsdescribed in the definition apply. Escape rooms are an example of where such conditions might exist. It isincumbent on the authority having jurisdiction to inquire if the conditions in the escape room meet thedefinition of a special amusement building. Where such conditions exist, escape rooms should beclassified as special amusement buildings. Where such conditions do not exist, escape rooms might beclassified as another occupancy type, such as business.

It is important for the authority having jurisdiction to recognize that the Code requires an occupancy to beclassified as a special amusement building if the conditions in the space meet the definition of specialamusement building , regardless of the occupant load of the space. No minimum occupant load thresholdmust be met for a space to be classified as a special amusement building. A space could be classified asa special amusement building even where the occupant load is significantly fewer than the 50 occupantsrequired for classification of other assembly occupancies.


Committee: SAF-AXM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision includes the language suggested in PI-394 to provide additional examples andconsiderations to help the used determine applicability of the special amusement definition. Therevision also incorporates language suggested by a task group on escape rooms to clarify that thespecial amusement building requirements apply to escape rooms where the occupancy meets suchdefinition.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6669-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.


648 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 658 of 718

Keberle, Kenneth F.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Little, Julie A.

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Washburn, Janet A.


649 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 659 of 718


A.3.3.68 Dwelling Unit.

It is not the intent of the Code that the list of spaces in the definition of the term dwelling unit in 3.3.68 is tobe all inclusive. It is the intent of the Code that the list of spaces is a minimal set of criteria that must beprovided to be considered a dwelling unit, and, therefore, the dwelling unit can contain other spaces thatare typical to a single-family dwelling.


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Updates incorrect reference.



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.


650 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 660 of 718

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


651 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 661 of 718


A.3.3.68.1 One- and Two-Family Dwelling Unit.

The application statement of 24.1.1.1 limits each dwelling unit to being “occupied by members of a singlefamily with not more than three outsiders.” The Code does not define the term family. The definition offamilyis might be subject to federal, state, and local regulations and might not be restricted to a person ora couple (two people) and their children. The following examples aid in differentiating between a single-family dwelling and a lodging or rooming house:

(1) An individual or a couple (two people) who rent a house from a landlord and then sublease space forup to three individuals should be considered a family renting to a maximum of three outsiders, andthe house should be regulated as a single-family dwelling in accordance with Chapter 24.

(2) A house rented from a landlord by an individual or a couple (two people) in which space is subleasedto four or more individuals, but not more than 16, should be considered and regulated as a lodging orrooming house in accordance with Chapter 26.

(3) A residential building that is occupied by four or more individuals, but not more than 16, each rentingfrom a landlord, without separate cooking facilities, should be considered and regulated as a lodgingor rooming house in accordance with Chapter 26.

It is not the intent of the Code to restrict occupancy to persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption asin the traditional opinion of a family. Regulations affecting occupant safety under the Life Safety Codediffer greatly from zoning regulations that attempt to control who may, and who may not, live in aresidential area designated a "single family" zone. Community zoning regulations address problems ofnoise, pollution, littering, overcrowding, and traffic. Restricting occupancy of single-family housing basedon the biological or legal relationships between its inhabitants bears no reasonable relationship to thegoals of life safety.

A group of nonrelatives living together in a nontraditional group can be the "functional equivalent" of amore traditional family unit. The factors that must be considered by the authority having jurisdiction arewhether the group shares the entire house other than individual bedrooms, lives, cooks, and functionstogether as a single housekeeping unit and is primarily nontransient.


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This addresses the common occurrence of non relatives living together in a nontraditionalgroup.



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention


652 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 662 of 718

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


653 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 663 of 718


A.3.3.217 Photoluminescent.

The released light is normally visible for a limited time if the ambient light sources are removed or partiallyobscured. [ 301, 2018]


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Added missing extract citation.


Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


654 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 664 of 718


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


655 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 665 of 718


A.4.6.12.3

Examples of such features include automatic sprinklers, fire alarm systems, standpipes, and portable fireextinguishers. The presence of a life safety feature, such as sprinklers or fire alarm devices, creates areasonable expectation by the public that these safety features are functional. When systems areinoperable or taken out of service but the devices remain, they present a false sense of safety. Also,before taking any life safety features out of service, extreme care needs to be exercised to ensure that thefeature is not required, was not originally provided as an alternative or equivalent, or is no longer requireddue to other new requirements in the current Code. It is not intended that the entire system or protectionfeature be removed. Instead, components such as sprinklers, initiating devices, notification appliances,standpipe hose, and exit systems should be removed to reduce the likelihood of relying on inoperablesystems or features. Conversely, equipment, such as fire or smoke dampers, that is not obvious to thepublic should be able to be taken out of service if no longer required by this Code. Where a door that isnot required to be fire protection rated is equipped with a fire protection listing label, it is not the intent of4.6.12.3 to require such door to be subject to the annual fire door inspection and testing requirement ofChapter 8 or to require such door to be self- or automatic-closing due merely to the presence of thelabel.


Committee: SAF-FUN


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Licensure and accreditation agencies continue to require health care facilities to perform the annualinspection and test for doors provided with a fire protection listing label even when the door is notrequired by Code to be fire protection rated. The existing language in the last sentence of the annexnote implies that the door is not required to be inspected and tested per Chapter 8, however, it is notclear that a fire protection label on a door is not a life safety feature obvious to the public.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6649-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


20 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Laramee, Scott T.

Affirmative All



656 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 666 of 718

Alfawakhiri, Farid


Cheng, Amy Y.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Frable, David W.

Groner, Norman E.

Hopkins, Mark

Jacoby, David J.

Jelenewicz, Chris

Klein, David P.

Lathrop, James K.

Murga, Ricardo

Pauls, Jake


Reiswig, Rodger

Roberts, Jon G.

Tyree, David P.

Vann, Joshua


657 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 667 of 718



658 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 668 of 718

A.5.2.2

One of the methods that follows can be used to avoid exposing occupants to untenable conditions.

Method 1. The design team can set detailed performance criteria that ensure that occupants are notincapacitated by fire effects. The SFPE Engineering Guide to Performance-Based Fire Protectiondescribes a process of establishing tenability limits.

The guide references D. A. Purser, “Assessment of Hazards to Occupants from Smoke, Toxic Gasses,and Heat,” Chapter 2/6 63 , SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, which describes a fractionaleffective dose (FED) calculation approach, which is also contained in NFPA 269. FED addresses theeffects of carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen bromide, andanoxia. It is possible to use the test data, combined with laboratory experience, to estimate the FED valuethat leads to the survival of virtually all people. This value is about 0.8.

There is a relationship between exposures leading to death and those leading to incapacitation. Kaplan[Kaplan and Hartzell, Journal of Fire Sciences, 2:286–305 (1984)] found that rodent susceptibility is similarto that of humans and that for the narcotic gases, CO and HCN, incapacitation is estimated to occur atone-third to one-half of the lethal exposure. A set of very large statistical studies on human lethalityassociated with carbon monoxide involving almost 5000 fatalities (Hirschler et al., “Carbon monoxide andhuman lethality: Fire and non-fire studies,” Elsevier, 1993) showed that the vast majority of fire deaths areattributable to carbon monoxide poisoning, which results in lethality at levels as low as 25 percentcarboxyhemoglobin (much lower than previously believed) without requiring the effect of additionaltoxicants. This work was also confirmed by Gann [Gann et al., Fire and Materials, 18:193 (1994)], whoalso found that carbon monoxide dominates the lethality of fire smoke, since most fire deaths occurremote from the fire room in fires that have proceeded past flashover. Thus, if an FED value of 0.8 wereused for a nonlethal exposure, an FED of 0.3 would be reasonable for a nonincapacitating exposure.

If the authority having jurisdiction or the design professional is concerned with potential toxic fire effects,other than those addressed by the FED procedure as documented, the calculation procedure can beexpanded by adding additional terms to the FED equation, with each term expressed as a ratio. Thenumerator of the ratio is the cumulative exposure to that fire effect, measured as an integral of the productof instantaneous exposure (concentration for toxic products) and time. The denominator of the ratio is thequantity of cumulative exposure for which FED equals the chosen threshold value (i.e., 0.8 or 0.3) basedon that fire effect alone. A complete analysis of tenability requires consideration of tenability criteria forthermal effects (convected heat and radiated heat) and smoke obscuration, as well as those for smoketoxicity, and an example of the application of such criteria is shown in ASTM E2280, Standard Guide forFire Hazard Assessment of the Effect of Upholstered Seating Furniture Within Patient Rooms of HealthCare Facilities.

For buildings where an unusually large fraction of the occupants are especially vulnerable, the calculationprocedure for the smoke toxicity incapacitating criterion should be modified to use FED values lower than0.8 or 0.3.

Method 2. For each design fire scenario and the design specifications, conditions, and assumptions, thedesign team can demonstrate that each room or area will be fully evacuated before the smoke and toxicgas layer in that room descends to a level lower than 6 ft (1830 mm) above the floor. The timing of suchan evacuation means that no occupant is exposed to fire effects. Such an evacuation requires calculationof the locations, movement, and behavior of occupants, because fire effects and occupants are separatedby moving the occupants. A level of 60 in. (1525 mm) is often used in calculations, but, at that level, alarge fraction of the population would not be able to stand, walk, or run normally and still avoid inhalationof toxic gases. They would have to bend over or otherwise move their heads closer to the floor level.

Method 3. For each design fire scenario and the design specifications and assumptions, the design teamcan demonstrate that the smoke and toxic gas layer will not descend to a level lower than 6 ft (1830 mm)above the floor in any occupied room. The advantage of this procedure is that it conservatively ensuresthat no occupant is exposed to fire effects, regardless of where occupants are located or where theymove. This eliminates the need for calculations regarding occupants, including those for their behavior,movement locations, pre-fire characteristics, and reactions to fire effects. This procedure is even moreconservative and simpler than the procedure in Method 2, because it does not allow fire effects inoccupied rooms to develop to a point where people could be affected at any time during the fire.

Method 4. For each design fire scenario and the design specifications and assumptions, the design teamcan demonstrate that no fire effects will reach any occupied room. The advantage of this procedure is thatit eliminates the need for calculations regarding occupants, including those for their behavior, movement,locations, pre-fire characteristics, and reactions to fire effects. A further advantage is that it also eliminatesthe need for some of the modeling of fire effects, because it is not necessary to model the filling of rooms,only the spread of fire effects to those rooms. This procedure is even more conservative and simpler thanthe procedures in Methods 2 and 3, because it does not allow any fire effects in occupied rooms.


659 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 669 of 718


Committee: SAF-FUN


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Edit needed to reflect the correct chapter in the SFPE Handbook.



Ballot Results


20 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Laramee, Scott T.

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid


Cheng, Amy Y.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Frable, David W.

Groner, Norman E.

Hopkins, Mark

Jacoby, David J.

Jelenewicz, Chris

Klein, David P.

Lathrop, James K.

Murga, Ricardo

Pauls, Jake


Reiswig, Rodger

Roberts, Jon G.

Tyree, David P.

Vann, Joshua


660 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 670 of 718

First Revision No. 6651-NFPA 101-2018 [ Section No. A.5.6 ]


661 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 671 of 718

A.5.6


662 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 672 of 718

The SFPE Engineering Guide to Performance-Based Fire Protection outlines a process for evaluatingwhether trial designs meet the performance criteria during the design fire scenarios. Additional informationon reviewing the evaluation of a performance-based design can be found in the SFPE Code Official'sGuide to Performance-Based Design Review.

The procedures described in Sections 5.2 and 5.4 identify required design fire scenarios among thedesign fire scenarios within which a proposed fire safety design is required to perform and the associateduntenable conditions that are to be avoided in order to maintain life safety. Section 5.6 discusses methodsthat form the link from the scenarios and criteria to the goals and objectives.

Assessment methods are used to demonstrate that the proposed design will achieve the statedgoals/objectives by providing information indicating that the performance criteria of Section 5.2 can beadequately met. Assessment methods are permitted to be either tests or modeling.

Tests. Test results can be directly used to assess a fire safety design when they accurately represent thescenarios developed by using Section 5.4 and provide output data matching the performance criteria inSection 5.2. Because the performance criteria for this Code are stated in terms of human exposure tolethal fire effects, no test will suffice. However, tests will be needed to produce data for use in models andother calculation methods.

Standardized Tests. Standardized tests are conducted on various systems and components to determinewhether they meet some predetermined, typically prescriptive criteria. Results are given on a pass/failbasis — the test specimen either does or does not meet the pre-established criteria. The actualperformance of the test specimen is not usually recorded.

Scale. Tests can be either small, intermediate, or full scale. Small-scale tests are used to test activation ofdetection and suppression devices and the flammability and toxicity of materials. Usually, the item to betested is placed within the testing device or apparatus. Intermediate-scale tests can be used to determinethe adequacy of system components — for example, doors and windows — as opposed to entiresystems. The difference between small- and intermediate-scale tests is usually one of definition providedby those conducting the test. Full-scale tests are typically used to test building and structural componentsor entire systems. The difference between intermediate- and large-scale tests is also subject to thedefinition of those performing the test. Full-scale tests are intended to most closely depict performance ofthe test subject as installed in the field; that is, most closely represent real world performance.

Full-scale building evacuations can provide information on how the evacuation of a structure is likely tooccur for an existing building with a given population without subjecting occupants to the real physical orpsychological effects of a fire.

Data Uses. The data obtained from standardized tests have three uses for verification purposes. First, thetest results can be used instead of a model. This use is typically the role of full-scale test results. Second,the test results can be used as a basis for validating the model. The model predictions match well with thetest results. Therefore, the model can be used in situations similar to the test scenario. Third, the testresults can be used as input to models. This is typically the use of small-scale tests, specificallyflammability tests.

Start-Up Test. Start-up test results can be used to demonstrate that the fire safety system performs asdesigned. The system design might be based on modeling. If the start-up test indicates a deficiency, thesystem needs to be adjusted and retested until it can be demonstrated that the design can meet theperformance criteria. Typically, start-up tests apply only to the installation to which they are designed.

Experimental Data. Experimental data from nonstandardized tests can be used when the specifiedscenario and the experimental setup are similar. Typically, experimental data are applicable to a greatervariety of scenarios than are standardized test results.

Human and Organizational Performance Tests. Certain tests determine whether inputs used to determinehuman performance criteria remain valid during the occupancy of a building. Tests of human andorganizational performance might include any of the following:

(1) Measuring evacuation times during fire drills

(2) Querying emergency response team members to determine whether they know required procedures

(3) Conducting field tests to ensure that emergency response team members can execute tasks withinpredetermined times and accuracy limits

The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering , Chapter 64 (Engineering Data) provides a listing ofdata sets that are available to quantify human performance.

Design proposals should include descriptions of any tests needed to determine whether stated goals,objectives, and performance criteria are being met.

Modeling. Models can be used to predict the performance criteria for a given scenario. Because of thelimitations on using only tests for this purpose, models are expected to be used in most, if not all,


663 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 673 of 718

performance-based design assessments.

The effect of fire and its toxic products on the occupants can be modeled, as can the movement andbehavior of occupants during the fire. The term evacuation model will be used to describe models thatpredict the location and movements of occupants, and the term tenability model will be used to describemodels that predict the effects on occupants of specified levels of exposure to fire effects.

Types of Fire Models. Fire models are used to predict fire-related performance criteria. Fire models can beeither probabilistic or deterministic. Several types of deterministic models are available: computationalfluid dynamics (CFD or field) models, zone models, purpose-built models, and hand calculations.Probabilistic fire models are also available but are less likely to be used for this purpose.

Probabilistic fire models use the probabilities as well as the severity of various events as the basis ofevaluation. Some probabilistic models incorporate deterministic models but are not required to do so.Probabilistic models attempt to predict the likelihood or probability that events or severity associated withan unwanted fire will occur, or they predict the “expected loss,” which can be thought of as the probability-weighted average severity across all possible scenarios. Probabilistic models can be manifested as faultor event trees or other system models that use frequency or probability data as input. These models tendto be manifested as computer software, but are not required to do so. Furthermore, the discussion thatfollows under “Sources of Models” can also be applied to probabilistic models, although it concentrates ondeterministic models.

CFD models can provide more accurate predictions than other deterministic models, because they dividea given space into many smaller-volume spaces. However, since they are still models, they are notabsolute in their depiction of reality. In addition, they are much more expensive to use, because they arecomputationally intensive. Because of their expense, complexity, and intensive computational needs, CFDmodels require much greater scrutiny than do zone models.

It is much easier to assess the sensitivity of different parameters with zone models because they generallyrun much faster and the output is much easier to interpret. Prediction of fire growth and spread has a largenumber of variables associated with it.

Purpose-built models (also known as stand-alone models) are similar to zone models in their ease of use.However, purpose-built models do not provide a comprehensive model. Instead, they predict the value ofone variable of interest. For example, such a model can predict the conditions of a ceiling jet at a specifiedlocation under a ceiling, but a zone model would “transport” those conditions throughout the enclosure.

Purpose-built models might or might not be manifested as computer software. Models that are not in theform of software are referred to as hand calculations. Purpose-built models are, therefore, simple enoughthat the data management capabilities of a computer are not necessary. Many of the calculations arefound in the SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering.

Types of Evacuation Models. Four categories of evacuation models can be considered: single-parameterestimation methods, movement models, behavioral simulation models, and tenability models.

Single-parameter estimation methods are generally used for simple estimates of movement time. Theyare usually based on equations derived from observations of movement in nonemergency situations. Theycan be hand calculations or simple computer models. Examples include calculation methods for flow timesbased on widths of exit paths and travel times based on travel distances. Sources for these methodsinclude the SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering and the NFPA Fire Protection Handbook.

Movement models generally handle large numbers of people in a network flow similar to water in pipes orball bearings in chutes. They tend to optimize occupant behavior, resulting in predicted evacuation timesthat can be unrealistic and far from conservative. However, they can be useful in an overall assessment ofa design, especially in early evaluation stages where an unacceptable result with this sort of modelindicates that the design has failed to achieve the life safety objectives.

Behavioral simulation models take into consideration more of the variables related to occupant movementand behavior. Occupants are treated as individuals and can have unique characteristics assigned to them,allowing a more realistic simulation of the design under consideration. However, given the limitedavailability of data for the development of these models, for their verification by their authors, or for inputwhen using them, their predictive reliability is questionable.

Tenability Models. In general, tenability models will be needed only to automate calculations for the time-of-exposure effect equations referenced in A.5.2.2.

Other Models. Models can be used to describe combustion (as noted, most fire models only characterizefire effects), automatic system performance, and other elements of the calculation. There are few modelsin common use for these purposes, so they are not further described here.

Sources of Models. A compendia of computer fire models are found in the SFPE Computer SoftwareDirectory Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering and in Olenick, S. and Carpenter, D., “An UpdatedInternational Survey of Computer Models for Fire and Smoke,” Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, 13,2, 2003, pp. 87–110. Within these references are models that were developed by the Building Fire


664 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 674 of 718

Research Laboratory of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which can be downloadedfrom the Internet at http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/864/fmabs.html. Evacuation models are discussed in the SFPEHandbook of Fire Protection Engineering and , the SFPE Guide to Human Behavior in Fire , and theNFPA Fire Protection Handbook.

Verification and validation. Models should undergo verification and validation to ensure that they areappropriate for their intended use. “Verification” is a check of the math used in the models. “Validation” is acheck of the physics used in the model. The SFPE Guidelines for Substantiating a Fire Model for a GivenApplication provides a process for verifying and validating models.

The design professional should present the proposal, and the authority having jurisdiction, when decidingwhether to approve a proposal, should consider the strength of the evidence presented for the validity,accuracy, relevance, and precision of the proposed methods. An element in establishing the strength ofscientific evidence is the extent of external review and acceptance of the evidence by peers of the authorsof that evidence.

Models have limitations. Most are not user friendly, and experienced users are able to construct morereasonable models and better interpret output than are novices. For these reasons, the third-party reviewand equivalency provisions of 5.1.4 and 5.3.3 are provided. The intent is not to discourage the use ofmodels, only to indicate that they should be used with caution by those who are well versed in theirnuances.

Input Data. The first step in using a model is to develop the input data. The heat release rate curvespecified by the user is the driving force of a fire effects model. If this curve is incorrectly defined, thesubsequent results are not usable. In addition to the smoldering and growth phases that will be specifiedas part of the scenario definition, two additional phases are needed to complete the input heat releaserate curve — steady burning and burnout.

Steady burning is characterized by its duration, which is a function of the total amount of fuel available tobe burned. In determining the duration of this phase, the designer needs to consider how much fuel hasbeen assumed to be consumed in the smoldering and growth phases and how much is assumed to beconsumed in the burnout phase that follows. Depending on the assumptions made regarding the amountof fuel consumed during burnout, the time at which this phase starts is likely to be easy to determine.

The preceding discussion assumes that the burning objects are solid (e.g., tables and chairs). If liquid orgaseous fuels are involved, the shape of the curve will be different. For example, smoldering is notrelevant for burning liquids or gases, and the growth period is very short, typically measured in seconds.Peak heat release rate can depend primarily on the rate of release, on the leak rate (gases and liquidsprays), or on the extent of spill (pooled liquids). The steady burning phase is once again dependent onthe amount of fuel available to burn. Like the growth phase, the burnout phase is typically short (e.g.,closing a valve), although it is conceivable that longer times might be appropriate, depending on theextinguishment scenario.

Material properties are usually needed for all fuel items, both initial and secondary, and the enclosuresurfaces of involved rooms or spaces.

For all fires of consequence, it is reasonable to assume that the fire receives adequate ventilation. If thereis insufficient oxygen, the fire will not be sustained. An overabundance of oxygen is only a concern inspecial cases (e.g., hermetically sealed spaces) where a fire might not occur due to dilution of the fuel(i.e., a flammable mixture is not produced). Therefore, given that the scenarios of interest will occur innonhermetically sealed enclosures, it is reasonable to assume that adequate ventilation is available andthat, if a fire starts, it will continue to burn until it either runs out of fuel or is extinguished by other means.The only variable that might need to be assumed is the total vent width.

Maximum fire extent is affected by two geometric aspects: burning object proximity to walls and overallenclosure dimensions.

The room dimensions affect the time required for a room to flashover. For a given amount and type of fuel,under the same ventilation conditions, a small room will flashover before a large room. In a large roomwith a small amount of fuel, a fire will behave as if it is burning outside — that is, adequate oxygen forburning and no concentration of heat exist. If the fuel package is unchanged but the dimensions of theroom are decreased, the room will begin to have an affect on the fire, assuming adequate ventilation. Thepresence of the relatively smaller enclosure results in the buildup of a hot layer of smoke and otherproducts of combustion under the ceiling. This buildup, in turn, feeds more heat back to the seat of thefire, which results in an increase in the pyrolysis rate of the fuel and, thus, increases the amount of heatenergy released by the fire. The room enclosure surfaces themselves also contribute to this radiationfeedback effect.

Probabilistic data are expressed as either a frequency (units of inverse time) or a probability (unitless, butapplicable to a stated period of time). An example of the former is the expected number of failures peryear, and the range of the latter is between zero and one, inclusive. Probabilities can be either objective orsubjective. Subjective probabilities express a degree of belief that an event will occur. Objective


665 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 675 of 718

probabilities are based on historical data and can be expressed as a reliability of an item, such as acomponent or a system.


Committee: SAF-FUN


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The SFPE Computer Software Directory is out of date and is no longer published by SFPE. Assuch, reference to this document should be deleted. The SFPE Handbook of Fire ProtectionEngineering is a replacement reference as it describes many of the current computer fire models.Additionally, the new version of the SFPE Guide to Human Behavior in Fire will have a significantdiscussion on evacuation models.

Also, Chapter 64 of the SFPE Handbook provides the most comprehensive listing of data sets thatare available for the engineer who is asked to perform egress calculations.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6651-NFPA 101-2018

Public Input No. 319-NFPA 101-2018 [Section No. A.5.6]

Ballot Results


20 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Laramee, Scott T.

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid


Cheng, Amy Y.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Frable, David W.

Groner, Norman E.

Hopkins, Mark

Jacoby, David J.

Jelenewicz, Chris

Klein, David P.

Lathrop, James K.

Murga, Ricardo

Pauls, Jake


666 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 676 of 718


Reiswig, Rodger

Roberts, Jon G.

Tyree, David P.

Vann, Joshua


667 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 677 of 718

First Revision No. 6558-NFPA 101-2018 [ Sections A.7.2.1.2.3.2(2), A.7.2.1.2.3.2(3) ]

A.7.2.1.2.3.2(2)

A An example of a room that is “not required to be accessible to persons with severe mobilityimpairments” is one that is not required to be accessible by NFPA 5000, Chapter 10 12 .

A.7.2.1.2.3.2(3)

A An example of a room that is “not required to be accessible to persons with severe mobilityimpairments” is one that is not required to be accessible by NFPA 5000, Chapter 10 12 .


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The proposed change to Chapter 12 of NFPA 5000 aligns directly with the structure of NFPA5000. The current reference to Chapter 10 of NFPA 5000 addresses Interior Finish and notAccessibility.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6558-NFPA 101-2018

Public Input No. 1-NFPA 101-2018 [Sections A.7.2.1.2.3.2(2), A.7.2.1.2.3.2(3)]

Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.


668 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 678 of 718

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


669 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 679 of 718

First Revision No. 6536-NFPA 101-2018 [ Section No. A.7.2.1.4.1 ]

A.7.2.1.4.1

Where doors are subject to two-way traffic, or where their opening can interfere with pedestrian traffic, anappropriately located vision panel can reduce the chance of accidents.

Swinging doors in horizontal- or vertical-rolling partitions should be permitted in a means of egress wherethe following criteria are met:

(1) The door or doors comply with 7.2.1.4.

(2) The partition in which the doors are mounted complies with the applicable fire protection rating andcloses upon smoke detection or power failure at a speed not exceeding 9 in./s (230 mm/s) and notless than 6 in./s (150 mm/s).

(3) The doors mounted in the partition are self-closing or automatic-closing in accordance with 7.2.1.8.

Pivoted-swinging-type doors include balanced doors.


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision clarifies that balanced doors are a type of pivoted-swinging door in responseto PI-422.


Public Input No. 422-NFPA 101-2018 [Sections 7.2.1.4.1, 7.2.1.4.2]

Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.


670 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 680 of 718

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


671 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 681 of 718


A.7.2.1.6

None of the special locking arrangements addressed in 7.2.1.6 are intended to allow credentialed egress,request to exit , or similar provisions, where an occupant cannot leave the building without swiping a cardthrough a reader. Where such an arrangement is desired to keep track of occupants, the swiping of cardsneeds to be procedural but not necessary for releasing the door lock or latch. Free egress Egress needsto be available at all times. Another option to free egress is the use of a delayed-egress electrical lockingsystem as required by this Code .


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The phrase "request to exit" is not used elsewhere in NFPA 101 and usually refers to theelectrical switch associated with locking hardware. Free egress would not be available at all timeswhere a delayed egress electrical locking system is permitted.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6561-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.


672 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 682 of 718

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


673 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 683 of 718


A.7.2.1.9

Special-purpose horizontally sliding accordion or folding door assemblies installed in accordance with7.2.1.14 7.2.1.13 should not be considered powered doors subject to the provisions of 7.2.1.9.

Powered doors are divided into two categories — power-assisted and or low-energy power-operated. Power-assisted doors, and power-operated doors. Doors that conform to ANSI/BHMAA156.19, Power Assist and Low Energy Power Operated Doors, or ANSI/BHMA A156.38, Low EnergyPower Operated Sliding and Folding Doors , use limited power to operate the door. They require fewersafeguards as compared to full power–operated doors. These door operators are for swinging, sliding, orfolding doors only . Power-assisted and low-energy power -operated doors require fewer safeguards ascompared to power-operated doors. Doors that conform to ANSI/BHMA A156.10, Power OperatedPedestrian Doors, require more power to operate the door and require additional safeguards to provideprotection against personal injury. Power-operated doors can be swinging, sliding, or folding doors.


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Revised to reflect revisions / additions of 7.2.1.9.1.1 through 7.2.1.9.1.3.



Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel


674 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 684 of 718

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


675 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 685 of 718


A.7.2.1.14.1

Door assemblies within the required means of egress (e.g., door assemblies that discharge from exitenclosures) require a higher level of care and maintenance throughout the life of their installations toensure they perform as intended by the Code. Annual inspection and functional testing of these doorassemblies is necessary to verify that they are maintained in proper working condition. Panic hardwareand fire exit hardware devices are specifically required to be used in assembly and educationaloccupancies. However, door leaves that are equipped with panic hardware or fire exit hardware, in areasnot specifically required by the Code (e.g., stairwell entry doors and double-egress cross-corridor doorassemblies not serving an assembly occupancy), should be subject to annual inspection and functionaltesting to ensure that the operating hardware functions correctly in accordance with 7.2.1.7, since thepresence of panic hardware and fire exit hardware implies it is required by the Code.

Additionally, door assemblies that are door hardware release of electrically locked egress door assembliesin accordance with 7.2.1.6.3 and door assemblies that are equipped with special locking arrangements inaccordance with 7.2.1.6 are outfitted with electrified hardware and access control devices that aresusceptible to wear and abuse. Consequently, these door assemblies need to be inspected and tested onan annual basis, regardless of the occupant load being served.

In cases where the authority having jurisdiction determines there is a distinct hazard to building occupantsafety, the inspection requirements of 7.2.1.14 should be applied to other exit access, exit, and exitdischarge door assemblies.


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

These doors may – or may not – be equipped with access control (ingress control)devices.



Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin


676 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 686 of 718

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


677 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 687 of 718


A.7.2.1.14.2

See NFPA 80, Annex J, for information pertaining to performance-based inspection, testing, andmaintenance of fire door assemblies. See NFPA 105 , Annex B, for information pertaining toperformance-based inspection, testing, and maintenance of smoke door assemblies.


Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The revision adds the appropriate reference to NFPA 105 for smoke doors.



Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.


678 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 688 of 718

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


679 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 689 of 718



680 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 690 of 718

A.7.3.3.2

The effective capacity of stairways has been shown by research to be proportional to the effective width ofthe stairway, which is the nominal width minus 12 in. (305 mm). This phenomenon, and the supportingresearch, were described in the chapter, “Movement of People,” in the first, second, and thirdeditions Chapter 59, “Employing the Hydraulic Model in Assessing Emergency Movement,” in the fifthedition of the SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering and was also addressed in Appendix D ofthe 1985 edition of NFPA 101, among several other publications. In 1988, this appendix was moved toform Chapter 2 of the 1988 edition of NFPA 101M. (This document was later designated as NFPA 101A,and this chapter remained in the document through the 1998 edition.) In essence, the effective widthphenomenon recognizes that there is an edge or boundary effect at the sides of a circulation path. It hasbeen best examined in relation to stairway width, where the edge effect was estimated to be 6 in.(150 mm) on each side, but a similar phenomenon occurs with other paths, such as corridors and doors,although quantitative estimates of their edge effect are not as well established as they have been forstairways, at least those stairways studied in Canada during the late 1960s through the 1970s in officebuilding evacuation drills and in crowd movement in a variety of buildings with assembly occupancy.

More recent studies have not been performed to determine how the edge effect might be changing (or haschanged) with demographic changes to larger, heavier occupants moving more slowly, and thus swayinglaterally, to maintain balance when walking. The impact of such demographic changes, which aresignificant and influential for evacuation flow and speed of movement on stairs, for example, has the effectof increasing the time of evacuation in a way that affects all stair widths but will be most pronounced fornominal widths less than 56 in. (1422 mm).

Without taking into account occupant demographic changes in the last few decades that affect evacuationperformance, especially on stairs, the formula for enhanced capacity of stairways wider than 44 in.(1120 mm) assumes that any portion of the nominal width greater than 44 in. (1120 mm) is as effectiveproportionally as the effective width of a nominal 44 in. (1120 mm) stair, that is, 32 in. (810 mm). Thus, thedenominator (0.218) in the equation is simply the effective width of 32 in. (810 mm) divided by the capacityof 147 persons that is credited, by the 0.3 in. (7.6 mm) capacity factor in Table 7.3.3.1, to thecorresponding nominal width, 44 in. (1120 mm).

The resulting permitted stairway capacities, based on occupant load of single stories (in accordance with7.3.1.4), for several stairway widths are shown in Table A.7.3.3.2.

Table A.7.3.3.2 Stairway Capacities

Permitted Capacity (no. ofpersons)

NominalWidth

Clear Width Between

Handrailsa Effective

Width

in. mm in. mm in. mm

120b 36 915 28 710 24 610

147 44 1120 36 915 32 810

202 56 1420 48 1220 44 1120

257 68 1725 60c 1525c 56 1420

aA reasonable handrail incursion of only 4 in. (100 mm) into the nominal width is assumed on each side ofthe stair, although 7.3.2.2 permits a maximum incursion of 41⁄2 in. (114 mm) on each side.

bOther Code sections limit the occupant load for such stairs more severely (e.g., 50 persons in7.2.2.2.1.2). Such lower limits are partly justified by the relatively small effective width of such stairs,which, if taken into account by Table 7.3.3.1, would result in a correspondingly low effective capacity ofonly 110 persons (24 divided by 0.218) or a more realistic capacity factor of 0.327, applicable to nominalwidth.

cA clear width of 60 in. (1525 mm) is the maximum permitted by the handrail reachability criteria of7.2.2.4.1.2. Although some prior editions of the Code permitted wider portions of stairs [up to 88 in.(2240 mm) between handrails], such wider portions are less effective for reasonably safe crowd flow andgenerally should not be used for major crowd movement. To achieve the maximum possible, reasonablysafe egress capacity for such stairs, retrofit of an intermediate — not necessarily central — handrail isrecommended; for example, with an intermediate handrail located 36 in. (915 mm) from the closest sidehandrail. In this case, the effective capacity would be 358 persons for the formerly permitted, nowretrofitted, stair. This is based on a retrofitted effective width of about 78 in. (1980 mm) [subtracting 2 in.(51 mm) from each usable side of a handrail and assuming a 2 in. (51 mm) wide retrofitted intermediatehandrail].



681 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 691 of 718

Committee: SAF-MEA


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The revision reflects the current edition of the SFPE Handbook.



Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Di Pilla, Steven

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent


682 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 692 of 718

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


683 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 693 of 718


A.8.2.3.1

ASTM E119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, andANSI/UL 263, Standard for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, are considered nationallyrecognized methods of determining fire resistance and have been found to yield equivalent test results.Materials used to construct fire-resistance-rated elements and assemblies might include spray fire-resistive materials (SFRM), intumescent fire-resistive materials (IFRM), and other materials or systemsconforming to 8.2.3.1 . The materials or systems are installed and inspected in accordance with the listeddesign, construction documents, and the manufacturer’s installation instructions that describe thethickness, type, or other characteristics of materials or systems required to meet the fire resistance rating.


Committee: SAF-FIR


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

NFPA 101 does not contain a description of the materials used to construct fire resistance-ratedelements and assemblies according to ASTM E 119 or UL 263. This revision adds annex materialthat describes the materials used in listed designs. The text adds "and systems" to the proposedtext and revises some of the terminology to be inclusive of various installations and procedures.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6587-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All


Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.


684 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 694 of 718

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.


Graupmann, Joseph

Gump, Jack A.

Hall, William J.


Hopper, Howard

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon

Koffel, William E.


Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.



685 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 695 of 718


A.8.3.3.2.2

Longer ratings might be required where opening protectives are provided for property protection as well aslife safety. NFPA 80 should be consulted for standard practice in the selection and installation of fire doorassemblies and fire window assemblies.

A vision panel in a fire door is not a fire window, and, thus, it is not the intent of the “NP” notations in the“Fire Window Assemblies” column of Table 8.3.3.2.2 to prohibit vision panels in fire doors.

Table 8.3.3.2.2 with regards to glazing is intended for new construction and could have limited application

to existing glazing installations. For example, existing vision panels of 100 in. 2 (0.065 m 2 ) of wired

glass in 60-minute and 90-minute doors and existing vision panels of 1296 in. 2 (0.84 m 2 ) wired glass indoors 45 minutes or less have been accepted.

Historically, installations of wired glass did not require marking. There could be existing installations ofother glazing products used as opening protectives (e.g., vision panels, side lights, or transom panels)that also might not have markings. It is the building owner’s responsibility to provide documentationacceptable to the AHJ regarding the product used and its compliance with the applicable provisions ofthis Code .

Existing fire windows, where permitted, were traditionally allowed to have up to 1296 in. 2 (0.84 m 2 ) ofwired glass per panel.


Committee: SAF-FIR


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The new annex text clarifies the application of opening protectives and Table 8.3.3.2.2 for existingbuildings. In addition, this revision responds to Correlating Committee request to review the tablefor application to existing installations.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6661-NFPA 101-2018

Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.


686 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 696 of 718

Affirmative All


Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.


Graupmann, Joseph

Gump, Jack A.

Hall, William J.


Hopper, Howard

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon

Koffel, William E.


Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.



687 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 697 of 718


A.9.7.2.1

NFPA 72 provides details of standard practice in sprinkler supervision. Subject to the approval of theauthority having jurisdiction, sprinkler supervision is also permitted to be provided by direct connectionto municipal fire departments or, in the case of very large establishments, to a private headquartersproviding similar functions. NFPA 72 covers such matters. System components and parameters thatare required to be monitored should include, but should not be limited to, control valves, water tanklevels and temperatures, tank pressure, and air pressure on dry-pipe valves.

Where municipal fire alarm systems are involved, reference should also be made to NFPA 1221 .


Committee: SAF-BSF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The existing annex note does not provide any additional information that is not alreadyaddressed in the body of the Code.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6543-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Donga, Paul M.

Jardin, Joseph M.

Klinker, Richard L.

White, Kristian

Affirmative All

Balido, Jodi S

Bradley, Harry L.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Brock, Pat D.

Chen, Flora F.


688 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 698 of 718

Dempsey, Bryan

Grill, Raymond A.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Hutton, Claude O.

Kellett, Michael

Killian, David A.

Larrimer, Peter A.

Lazarz, Daniel J.

Panowitz, Scott E.

Reed, Ray F.

Reiswig, Rodger


Ruchala, Kurt A.

Shudak, Lawrence J.

Szmanda, Michael R.

Warner, Todd W.

Wren, Carl D.

Wyatt, David M.


Dale, Stephen E.

.


689 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 699 of 718

First Revision No. 6518-NFPA 101-2018 [ Section No. A.10.2.4.3.3.2 ]

A.10.2.4.3.3.2

Both NFPA 286 and ANSI/ UL 1715, Standard for Fire Test of Interior Finish Material, contain smokeobscuration criteria. ANSI/ UL 1040, Standard for Fire Test of Insulated Wall Construction, and ANSI/ FM4880, Approval Standard for Class I Insulated Wall or Wall and Roof/Ceiling Panels; Plastic Interior FinishMaterials; Plastic Exterior Building Panels; Wall/Ceiling Coating Systems; Interior or Exterior FinishSystems American National Standard for Evaluating the Fire Performance of Insulated Building PanelAssemblies and Interior Finish Materials , do not. Smoke obscuration is an important component of the fireperformance of cellular or foamed plastic materials.



101_INT_FR-6518_A.10.2.4.3.3.2.docx For staff use--FINAL


Committee: SAF-INT


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: title correction - see https://www.fmapprovals.com/approval-standards?filter=0


Public Input No. 150-NFPA 101-2018 [Section No. A.10.2.4.3.3.2]

Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Carrigan, Matthew

Affirmative All

Babrauskas, Vytenis


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Evans, Michael W.

Fitch, William E.



690 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 700 of 718

Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry




Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.


Newman, Kathleen A.

ok


691 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 701 of 718


A.10.3.2.1

The Class I requirement associated with testing in accordance with NFPA 260 and the char length of notmore than 11⁄2 in. (38 mm) required with testing in accordance with NFPA 261 are indicators that thefurniture item or mattress is resistant to a cigarette ignition. A fire that smolders for an excessive period oftime without flaming can reduce the tenability within the room or area of fire origin without developing thetemperatures necessary to operate automatic sprinklers.

The test results from NFPA 260 and from NFPA 261 are suitable for classification purposes but should notbe used as input into fire models because they are not generated in units suitable for engineeringcalculations.

Until recently Traditionally , NFPA 260 was equivalent to ASTM E1353, Standard Test Methods forCigarette Ignition Resistance of Components of Upholstered Furniture, and NFPA 261 was equivalent toASTM E1352, Standard Test Method for Cigarette Ignition Resistance of Mock-Up Upholstered FurnitureAssemblies. However, that changed temporarily when NFPA 260 and NFPA 261 adopted the new NISTstandard reference material (SRM 1196) as the igniting cigarette and ASTM E1352 and ASTM E1353 didnot, meaning that ASTM E1352 and ASTM E1353 use were using commercial cigarettes that are low-ignition propensity and have a low likelihood of properly assessing smoldering potential. The 2016editions of ASTM E1352 and ASTM E1353 adopted the NIST SRM 1196 cigarette as the ignitingcigarette, making them, once more, equivalent to NFPA 261 and NFPA 260 , respectively.


Committee: SAF-INT


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Clarifies updated information on ASTM E1352 and ASTM E1353.



Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

13 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Carrigan, Matthew

Affirmative All

Babrauskas, Vytenis



692 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 702 of 718

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Evans, Michael W.

Fitch, William E.


Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry




Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.


Newman, Kathleen A.

ok


693 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 703 of 718


A.12.4.2.1

Life safety evaluations are examples of performance-based approaches to life safety. In this respect,significant guidance in the form and process of life safety evaluations is provided by Chapter 5, keeping inmind the fire safety emphasis in Chapter 5. Performance criteria, scenarios, evaluation, safety factors,documentation, maintenance, and periodic assessment (including a warrant of fitness) all apply to thebroader considerations in a life safety evaluation. A life safety evaluation deals not only with fire but alsowith storms, collapse, crowd behavior, and other related safety considerations for which a checklist isprovided in A.12.4.1.3 A.12.4.2.3 . Chapter 5 provides guidance, based on fire safety requirements, forestablishing a documented case showing that products of combustion in all conceivable fire scenarios willnot significantly endanger occupants using means of egress in the facility (e.g., due to fire detection,automatic suppression, smoke control, large-volume space, or management procedures). Moreover,means of egress facilities plus facility management capabilities should be adequate to cope with scenarioswhere certain egress routes are blocked for some reason.

In addition to making realistic assumptions about the capabilities of persons in the facility (e.g., anassembled crowd including many disabled persons or persons unfamiliar with the facility), the life safetyevaluation should include a factor of safety of not less than 2.0 in all calculations relating to hazarddevelopment time and required egress time (the combination of flow time and other time needed to detectand assess an emergency condition, initiate egress, and move along the egress routes). The factor ofsafety takes into account the possibility that half of the egress routes might not be used (or be usable) incertain situations.

Regarding crowd behavior, the potential hazards created by larger masses of people and greater crowddensities (which can be problematic during ingress, occupancy, and egress) demand that technology beused by designers, managers, and authorities responsible for buildings to compensate for the relaxedegress capacity provisions of Table 12.4.2.3 Table 12.4.3.3 . In very large buildings for assembly use, thehazard of crowd crushes can exceed that of fire or structural failure. Therefore, the building designers,managers, event planners, security personnel, police authorities, and fire authorities, as well as thebuilding construction authorities, should understand the potential problems and solutions, includingcoordination of their activities. For crowd behavior, this understanding includes factors of space, energy,time, and information, as well as specific crowd management techniques, such as metering. Publishedguidance on these factors and techniques is found in the SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering,Section 3, Chapter 13, pp. 3-342–3-366 (Proulx, G., “Movement of People”), in Chapter 56, EgressConcepts and Design Approaches; Chapter 58, Human Behavior in Fire; and Chapter 59, Employing theHydraulic Model in Assessing Emergency Movement; the SFPE Guide to Human Behavior in Fire ; andthe publications referenced therein.

Table 12.2.3.2 and Table 12.4.2.3 Table 12.4.3.3 are based on a linear relationship between number ofseats and nominal flow time, with not less than 200 seconds (3.3 minutes) for 2,000 seats plus 1 secondfor every additional 50 seats up to 25,000. Beyond 25,000 total seats, the nominal flow time is limited to660 seconds (11 minutes). Nominal flow time refers to the flow time for the most able group of patrons;some groups less familiar with the premises or less able groups might take longer to pass a point in theegress system. Although three or more digits are noted in the tables, the resulting calculations should beassumed to provide only two significant figures of precision.


Committee: SAF-AXM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The edits reflect the changes made to the current edition of the SFPE Handbook of fire ProtectionEngineering. Also, the revised version of the SFPE Guide to Human Behavior in Fire providesadditional guidance on the information referenced in Section 12.4.1.1.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6701-NFPA 101-2018


694 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 704 of 718


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Little, Julie A.

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Washburn, Janet A.


695 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 705 of 718


A.12.4.9

Special amusement buildings are unique structures that can present challenges not common in assemblyor other occupancies. Hazards in special amusement buildings can include industrial, electrical,pneumatic, stored energy systems, or other systems and equipment associated with the ride and/or showsystems. Occupants are typically not familiar with their surroundings, and the provided exit access mightnot be apparent while the building is operating in show conditions.

Additionally, special amusement buildings might present design challenges, which the authority havingjurisdiction might need to consider. For example, a ride building containing a roller coaster might meet theheight requirements for a high-rise structure but only contain one story of height and mezzanines orcatwalks at upper levels for evacuation. Portions of a ride might exit and return into the building, traverseto an open structure, be surrounded by water, or contain an atrium. Each of these conditions presentschallenges to the design of fire protection, fire alarm, and life safety systems, as well as the emergencyaction plan required in 12.7.1.3 .

Where a special amusement building is installed inside another building on a temporary basis , such aswithin an exhibit hall, the special amusement building requirements apply only to the portions of thebuilding used as a special amusement building . For example, the smoke detectors required by12.4.8.4 12.4.9.4 are not required to be connected to the building’s fire alarm system. Where installed inan exhibit hall, such smoke detectors are also required to comply with the provisions applicable to anexhibit.


Committee: SAF-AXM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision to the existing annex material provides new and updated information to help the userof the code identify the different hazards typically found in a special amusement structure. As newtechnologies for special amusement attractions have been implemented, this section of the annexhas become outdated as it fails to mention these complex systems. This annex material will helpusers of the code identify other sections of the code that require consideration for these uniquecircumstances.

The section on Special Amusements installed in other buildings is updated to reflect the temporarynatures of these installations and not to provide a permanent solution in lieu of the coderequirements contained in Chapter 12.4.8.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6703-NFPA 101-2018


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention


696 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 706 of 718

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Little, Julie A.

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Washburn, Janet A.


697 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 707 of 718


A.13.4.2.1

Life safety evaluations are examples of performance-based approaches to life safety. In this respect,significant guidance in the form and process of life safety evaluations is provided by Chapter 5, keeping inmind the fire safety emphasis in Chapter 5. Performance criteria, scenarios, evaluation, safety factors,documentation, maintenance, and periodic assessment (including a warrant of fitness) all apply to thebroader considerations in a life safety evaluation. A life safety evaluation deals not only with fire but alsowith storms, collapse, crowd behavior, and other related safety considerations for which a checklist isprovided in A.13.4.1.4 A.13.4.2.3 . Chapter 5 provides guidance, based on fire safety requirements, forestablishing a documented case showing that products of combustion in all conceivable fire scenarios willnot significantly endanger occupants using means of egress in the facility (e.g., due to fire detection,automatic suppression, smoke control, large-volume space, or management procedures). Moreover,means of egress facilities plus facility management capabilities should be adequate to cope with scenarioswhere certain egress routes are blocked for some reason.

In addition to making realistic assumptions about the capabilities of persons in the facility (e.g., anassembled crowd including many disabled persons or persons unfamiliar with the facility), the life safetyevaluation should include a factor of safety of not less than 2.0 in all calculations relating to hazarddevelopment time and required egress time (the combination of flow time and other time needed to detectand assess an emergency condition, initiate egress, and move along the egress routes). This factor ofsafety takes into account the possibility that half of the egress routes might not be used (or usable) incertain situations.

Regarding crowd behavior, the potential hazards created by larger masses of people and greater crowddensities (which can be problematic during ingress, occupancy, and egress) demand that technology beused by designers, managers, and authorities responsible for buildings to compensate for the relaxedegress capacity provisions of Table 13.4.3.3. In very large buildings for assembly use, the hazard of crowdcrushes can exceed that of fire or structural failure. Therefore, the building designers, managers, eventplanners, security personnel, police authorities, and fire authorities, as well as the building constructionauthorities, should understand the potential problems and solutions, including coordination of theiractivities. For crowd behavior, this understanding includes factors of space, energy, time, and information,as well as specific crowd management techniques, such as metering. Published guidance on thesefactors and techniques is found in the SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, Section 3 ,Chapter 13 , pp. 3-342–3-366 (Proulx, G., “Movement of People”), in Chapter 56, Egress Concepts andDesign Approaches, and Chapter 58, Human Behavior in Fire, and Chapter 59, Employing the HydraulicModel in Assessing Emergency Movement, the SFPE Guide to Human Behavior in Fire and thepublications referenced therein.

Table 13.2.3.2 and Table 13.4.3.3 are based on a linear relationship between number of seats andnominal flow time, with not less than 200 seconds (3.3 minutes) for 2, 000 seats plus 1 second for everyadditional 50 seats up to 25,000. Beyond 25,000 total seats, the nominal flow time is limited to660 seconds (11 minutes). Nominal flow time refers to the flow time for the most able group of patrons;some groups less familiar with the premises or less able groups might take longer to pass a point in theegress system. Although three or more digits are noted in the tables, the resulting calculations should beassumed to provide only two significant figures of precision.


Committee: SAF-AXM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Edits needed to reflect current edition of the SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering.Also, the SFPE Guide to Human Behavior in Fire provides information relevant to content in13.4.1.1.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6709-NFPA 101-2018


698 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 708 of 718


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Little, Julie A.

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Washburn, Janet A.


699 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 709 of 718


A.24.1.1.2

The Code specifies that, wherever there are three or more living units in a building, the building isconsidered an apartment building and is required to comply with either Chapter 30 or Chapter 31, asappropriate. A townhouse unit is considered to be an apartment building if there are three or more units inthe building. The type of wall required between units in order to consider them as separate buildings isnormally established by the authority having jurisdiction. If the units are separated by a wall of sufficientfire resistance and structural integrity to be considered as separate buildings, the provisions of Chapter 24apply to each townhouse. Condominium status is a form of ownership, not occupancy; for example, thereare condominium warehouses, condominium apartments, and condominium offices.

The provisions of 24.1.1.2 state that, in one- and two-family dwellings, each dwelling unit can be“occupied by members of a single family with not more than three outsiders.” The Code does not definethe term family. The definition of familyis might be subject to federal, state, and local regulations andmight not be restricted to a person or a couple (two people) and their children. The following examples aidin differentiating between a single-family dwelling and a lodging or rooming house:

(1) An individual or a couple (two people) who rent a house from a landlord and then sublease space forup to three individuals should be considered a family renting to a maximum of three outsiders, andthe house should be regulated as a single-family dwelling in accordance with Chapter 24.

(2) A house rented from a landlord by an individual or a couple (two people) in which space is subleasedto 4 or more individuals, but not more than 16, should be considered and regulated as a lodging orrooming house in accordance with Chapter 26.

(3) A residential building that is occupied by 4 or more individuals, but not more than 16, each rentingfrom a landlord, without separate cooking facilities, should be considered and regulated as a lodgingor rooming house in accordance with Chapter 26.

It is not the intent of the Code to restrict occupancy to persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption asin the traditional opinion of a family. Regulations affecting occupant safety under the Life Safety Codediffer greatly from zoning regulations that attempt to control who may, and who may not, live in aresidential area designated a “single family” zone. Community zoning regulations address problems ofnoise, pollution, littering, overcrowding, and traffic. Restricting occupancy of single-family housing basedon the biological or legal relationships between its inhabitants bears no reasonable relationship to thegoals of life safety.

A group of nonrelatives living together in a nontraditional group can be the “functional equivalent” of amore traditional family unit. The factors that must be considered by the authority having jurisdiction arewhether the group shares the entire house other than individual bedrooms, lives, cooks, and functionstogether as a single housekeeping unit and is primarily nontransient.


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This addresses the common occurrence of non relatives living together in a nontraditonalgroup.



Ballot Results



700 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 710 of 718

30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


701 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 711 of 718

First Revision No. 6901-NFPA 101-2018 [ Sections A.24.2.8, A.24.2.8.1.2, A.24.2.8.2,

A.24.2.8.2.1, ... ]

A.24.2.8

The grab bars and stanchions required by 24.2.8 are designed to improve safety of showering andbathing by ambulatory users, typically entering and exiting a bath, bathtub-shower combination, or showerfacility for showering while standing, or for other forms of bathing that can entail transition to/from acrouching or sitting position.

For grab bar requirements appropriate for other uses and users, especially users with disabilities, refer tothe requirements in ICC/ANSI A117.1, Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities. Generally, the grabbars specified for this Code will not interfere with other grab bars installed in accordance with therequirements of ICC/ANSI A117.1, and they can contribute to meeting the requirements of ICC/ANSIA117.1 and vice versa. For example, combination vertical and horizontal grab bars (e.g., in an Lconfiguration), as addressed by ICC/ANSI A117.1, can meet the requirements of this Code for a verticalgrab bar. Similarly, requirements for a horizontal grab bar or horizontal stanchion on the non-access sideor back wall are compatible.

Dimensions for the height of grab bars are based on typical, mass-produced bathtubs with a wall heightabove the finished floor of about 15 in. (380 mm) and the bottom of the bathtub within 1 in. to 2 in. (25 mmto 51 mm) of the finished floor elevation. Adjustments to stipulated grab bar and horizontal stanchionheight limits and ranges, referenced to the bath tub rim, should be considered for bathtubs having higherwalls and, thus, rim heights, above the bottom of the tub and, possibly, also the wall height above thefinished floor. ICC/ANSI A117.1 references grab bar height dimensions to the bathtub rim and, forconsistency with this widely used ANSI standard, that convention is maintained in this Code.

A.24.2.8.1.2

The provision of 24.2.8.1.2 is intended to ensure that grab bars, if provided voluntarily (i.e., asnonrequired) for dedicated showers, meet the requirements of 24.2.8, so that something appearing to be agrab bar can effectively perform as one. However, such grab bars would only be considered nonrequiredin the case of dedicated showers not involving misstep and fall dangers addressed by 7.1.6.2 and 7.1.6.4.This means that walking surfaces must be at least as safe, in terms of underfoot conditions, as any otherportion of the means of egress (where, for example, handrails are not required) for users not havingmobility disabilities. This would require exceptionally careful choice and maintenance of underfootmaterials as well as very effective control of water within and adjacent to the dedicated shower facility.

A.24.2.8.2

The requirements within this section provide design options for points of control when entering and/orexiting a bathtub or shower. Points of control are critical to providing guidance and stability to an occupantmuch the same as a handrail provides on stairs. The different points of control specified by this section,wall-mounted grabs or vertical poles stanchions , provide options for compliance in a wide range ofconditions. It is important to note that only one point of control is required for entry and egress transfers.The use of a vertical pole stanchion is not required and is offered as an option to wall-mounted grab bars.

A.24.2.8.2.1

Grab bars located where they interfere with sealing or with a shower curtain against escape of water —especially to the floor surface outside the shower facility — might introduce safety problems in the form ofgreatly reduced slip resistance of the walking surface, which could violate this Code. This can be avoidedwith a 6 in. (150 mm) horizontal separation between the shower curtain rod and the grab bar. It isassumed that other forms of water control, such as an installed enclosure, will not interfere with the use ofgrab bars and stanchions .

A.24.2.8.2.3

A freestanding pole top-and-bottom-fixed, vertical stanchion satisfying requirements for a grab bar canoffer flexibility in placement, for example, within the close quarters of a small bathroom where there is awater closet adjacent to the bathing facility and a single grab bar or vertical stanchion can serve bothfacilities. Where the bathing facility is freestanding, without walls, especially with large soaking tubs,including those on pedestals, the vertical pole–type grab bar stanchion is especially useful. Thepole stanchion also can solve attachment problems where walls are nonexistent or difficult to use forinstalling conventional, wall-mounted grab bars.


702 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 712 of 718

A.24.2.8.3.1

Using the midpoints of the distance ranges and the minimum distance from the control end wall results ina 45-degree angle for the diagonal grab bar. Such a diagonal grab bar (or alternatively, a horizontal grabbar fairly similar to the option provided by 24.2.8.3.1, which meets requirements of ICC/ANSI A117.1,Standard for Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities) was found suitable in tests performed ofseveral grab bar options with 103 independent-living seniors with an average age of 70 [Sveistrup et al.,2003].

A.24.2.8.4

The best-performing grab bars are in the middle third of the permitted range for circular diameter. Forsome grab bar designs, with undulations and other surface geometry features to improve slip resistancefor users’ hands, these dimensions will be nominal with small variations depending on wheremeasurements are taken. Children and others with smaller hands will be able to use the diameters withinthe lower part of the permitted range. When using a freestanding pole for a grab bar vertical stanchion ,structural considerations, especially for stiffness, might dictate using diameters in the upper part of thepermitted range.

Note that a minimum clearance between the grab bar or stanchion and an adjacent surface is specified.With grab bars, especially horizontal ones, on which large, downward loads are imposed by the arms ofusers, there is some concern about people’s hands slipping into the clear space; however, this can occureven with an absolute 1.5 in. (38 mm) clearance, as some standards specify and most grab bar designsprovide. Thus the main difference in the end result is where, along its length, the arm gets wedged behindthe grab bar, not the complete prevention of this happening at all.


Committee: SAF-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Minor, largely editorial changes have been made for consistency with the requirements that areproposed to use the term "stanchion" in place of "pole." Related to this, there has been clarificationin a few instances of the orientation of the stanchion as either vertical or horizontal.

ResponseMessage:

FR-6901-NFPA 101-2018

Public Input No. 346-NFPA 101-2018 [Sections A.24.2.8, A.24.2.8.1.2, A.24.2.8.2, A.24.2.8.2.1, ...]

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


703 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 713 of 718

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.

Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


Buuck, Daniel

The term "stanchion" is problematic. Merriam-Webster defines it as an *upright* bar, post, or support (as for a roofor a ship's deck). The proposed use of "horizontal stanchion" in Section A.24.2.8 will cause confusion.


This requirement is far, far afield from safety to life from fire. It invades the privacy of a single-family homeownerwho, in the vast majority of cases, doesn't need or want this extensive system of support bars. The Fair HousingAct already requires wall reinforcements so that support bars can be installed if needed by the homeowner ortenant.

Spangler, Kevin

Agree with Alfred's comment. This section should be relocated in the chapters pertaining to PUBLIC safety, suchas hotels, motels and dormitories. It should not be part of the single family chapter.


704 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 714 of 718


A.24.3.4.2.2

The placement requirements of NFPA 720 NFPA 72 are modified specifically for one- and two-familydwellings as required by this Code and do not affect other regulations within a jurisdiction.


Committee: SAF-RES

Submittal Date: Fri Oct 12 09:11:38 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: NFPA 72 has replaced NFPA 720.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.


705 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 715 of 718

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


706 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 716 of 718


A.26.3.4.6.2

The placement requirements of NFPA 720 NFPA 72 are modified to accommodate lodging or roominghouse occupancies that are part of multiple occupancy buildings (e.g., an on-call physicians' sleepingroom in a hospital). The placement requirements of NFPA 720 NFPA 72 are modified specifically forlodging or rooming houses as required by this Code and do not affect other regulations within ajurisdiction.


Committee: SAF-RES

Submittal Date: Fri Oct 12 09:12:29 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: NFPA 72 has replaced NFPA 720.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.


707 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 717 of 718

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.


Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


708 of 708 11/29/2018, 10:24 AM

Page 718 of 718

Date post:	15-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

First Revision No. 6537-NFPA 101-2018 [ Global Input ]€¦ · When the provisions of 7.2.1.5.8.2...

Documents