Docstoc

Address List No Phone

Document Sample
Address List No Phone Powered By Docstoc
					                     ROC MEETING AGENDA
      Building Construction – Life Safety Technical Committee on
                       Fire Protection Features
                            Wednesday, October 6, 2010
                                Hotel Monteleone
                                New Orleans, LA

   1. Call to Order. Call meeting to order by Chair Eric Rosenbaum at 8:00 a.m. on
      Wednesday, October 6, 2010, at the Hotel Monteleone, New Orleans, LA.

   2. Introduction of Attendees. For a committee roster, see pg. 02.

   3. Approval of Minutes. Approve the September 24-25, 2009 meeting minutes.
      See pg. 05.

   4. TC Meeting Presentation (K. Collette). See pg. 08.

   5. NFPA 101 ROC Preparation. For Comments, see pg. 14.

   6. NFPA 5000 ROC Preparation. For Comments, see pg. 40.

   7. Other Business.

   8. Future Meetings.

   9. Adjournment. Adjourn by 5:00 p.m.

Attachments




                                    Page 1 of 50
                                                                                                      9/2/2010
Address List No Phone                                                                          Kristin Collette
Fire Protection Features                                                                              SAF-FIR
Safety to Life
Eric R. Rosenbaum                       SE 4/17/1998 Kristin Collette                                  6/29/2007
 Chair                                      SAF-FIR Secretary (Staff-Nonvoting)                         SAF-FIR
 Hughes Associates, Inc.                              National Fire Protection Association
 3610 Commerce Drive, Suite 817                       1 Batterymarch Park
 Baltimore, MD 21227-1652                             Quincy, MA 02169-7471
 Alternate: Brian T. Rhodes

John F. Bender                          RT 1/1/1986 Gregory J. Cahanin                               U 1/1/1995
 Principal                                SAF-FIR Principal                                            SAF-FIR
 Underwriters Laboratories Inc.                      Cahanin Fire & Code Consulting
 8 Pleasant Wind Court                               2522 M.L. King Street North
 Aberdeen, MD 21001                                  St. Petersburg, FL 33704
 Alternate: Howard Hopper                            Louisiana State Firemen's Association

Joseph A. Castellano                    SE 1/15/2004 John F. Devlin                                   I 7/1/1993
 Principal                                  SAF-FIR Principal                                          SAF-FIR
 The RJA Group, Inc.                                  Aon/Schirmer Engineering Corporation
 Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc.                       6305 Ivy Lane, Suite 220
 484 Sinclair Avenue                                  Greenbelt, MD 20770
 Atlanta, GA 30307                                    Alternate: Rick Glenn
 Alternate: Ronald B. Melucci

Sam W. Francis                           M 7/1/1996 Ralph D. Gerdes                                 SE 1/1/1986
 Principal                                 SAF-FIR Principal                                           SAF-FIR
 American Forest & Paper Association                 Ralph Gerdes Consultants, LLC
 1 Dutton Farm Lane                                  5510 South East Street, Suite E
 West Grove, PA 19390                                Indianapolis, IN 46227
 American Forest & Paper Association                 Alternate: David Cook

Jack A. Gump                            U 10/10/1997 Wayne D. Holmes                                 I 10/1/1996
 Principal                                  SAF-FIR Principal                                          SAF-FIR
 Babcock & Wilcox Y-12, LLC                          HSB Professional Loss Control
 260 Hill Top Drive                                  508 Parkview Drive
 Lenoir City, TN 37772-5286                          Burlington, NC 27215

Jonathan Humble                          M 7/1/1996 Ignatius Kapalczynski                           E 10/6/2000
 Principal                                 SAF-FIR Principal                                          SAF-FIR
 American Iron and Steel Institute                   Connecticut Department of Public Safety
 45 South Main Street, Suite 312                     Office of the State Fire Marshal
 West Hartford, CT 06107-2402                        1111 Country Club Road
 Alternate: Farid Alfawakhiri                        Middletown, CT 06457-9294

Marshall A. Klein                        SE 1/1/1981 William E. Koffel                               M 1/1/1986
 Principal                                  SAF-FIR Principal                                          SAF-FIR
 Marshall A. Klein & Associates, Inc.                Koffel Associates, Inc.
 6815 Autumn View Drive                              6522 Meadowridge Road, Suite 101
 Eldersburg, MD 21784-6304                           Elkridge, MD 21075
 Alternate: David M. Hammerman                       Glazing Industry Code Committee




                                                                                                            1
                                             Page 2 of 50
                                                                                                              9/2/2010
Address List No Phone                                                                                  Kristin Collette
Fire Protection Features                                                                                      SAF-FIR
Safety to Life
David A. Lewis                              SE 10/10/1998 Vickie J. Lovell                                  M 10/6/2000
 Principal                                       SAF-FIR Principal                                             SAF-FIR
 Code Consultants, Inc.                                    InterCode Incorporated
 1804 Borman Circle Drive                                  1040 Casuarina Road
 St. Louis, MO 63146-4136                                  Delray Beach, FL 33483-6710
 Alternate: Kevin D. Morin                                 Air Movement & Control Association
                                                           Alternate: Timothy J. Orris

William J. McHugh, Jr.                         IM 9/30/2004   Jon W. Pasqualone                              E 7/16/2003
Principal                                          SAF-FIR     Principal                                       SAF-FIR
Firestop Contractors International Association                 Martin County Board of County Commissioners
4415 W. Harrison Street #436                                   2401 SE Monterey Road
Hillside, IL 60162                                             Stuart, FL 34996
Firestop Contractors International Association                 Florida Fire Marshals & Inspectors Association
Alternate: Robert LeClair, Jr.                                 Alternate: Richard C. Butcher

Kurt A. Roeper                                 M 4/5/2001 Andrew M. Schneider                               E 1/15/2004
 Principal                                       SAF-FIR Principal                                            SAF-FIR
 Ingersoll-Rand Security Technologies                      Maryland State Fire Marshals Office
 9017 Blue Ash Road                                        200 Duke Street, Suite 1500
 Cincinnati, OH 45242                                      Prince Frederick, MD 20678
 Steel Door Institute                                      International Fire Marshals Association
 Alternate: Thomas R. Janicak

Stephen V. Skalko                            M 10/27/2009 Kenneth Wood                                        E 1/1/1990
 Principal                                       SAF-FIR Principal                                             SAF-FIR
 Portland Cement Association                               Office of the Illinois State Fire Marshal
 128 Summerfield Drive                                     100 West Randolph St., Suite 11-800
 Macon, GA 31210                                           Chicago, IL 60601
                                                           Alternate: Catherine L. Stashak

Farid Alfawakhiri                             M 7/23/2008 Richard C. Butcher                             E 4/14/2005
 Alternate                                       SAF-FIR Alternate                                         SAF-FIR
 American Iron and Steel Institute                         Tarpon Springs Fire Rescue
 594 Windham Lane                                          444 Huey Avenue South
 Naperville, IL 60563                                      Tarpon Springs, FL 34689
 Principal: Jonathan Humble                                Florida Fire Marshals & Inspectors Association
                                                           Principal: Jon W. Pasqualone

David Cook                                   SE 10/1/1995 Rick Glenn                                         I 7/26/2007
 Alternate                                       SAF-FIR Alternate                                             SAF-FIR
 Ralph Gerdes Consultants, LLC                             Aon/Schirmer Engineering Corporation
 5510 South East Street, Suite E                           1000 Milwaukee Avenue, 5th Floor
 Indianapolis, IN 46227                                    Glenview, IL 60025-2423
 Principal: Ralph D. Gerdes                                Principal: John F. Devlin




                                                                                                                    2
                                                   Page 3 of 50
                                                                                                        9/2/2010
Address List No Phone                                                                            Kristin Collette
Fire Protection Features                                                                                SAF-FIR
Safety to Life
David M. Hammerman                           SE 4/5/2001 Howard Hopper                                RT 3/2/2010
 Alternate                                      SAF-FIR Alternate                                       SAF-FIR
 Marshall A. Klein and Associates, Inc.                   Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
 3950 Chaffey Road                                        455 East Trimble Road
 Randallstown, MD 21133                                   San Jose, CA 95131-1230
 Principal: Marshall A. Klein                             Principal: John F. Bender

Thomas R. Janicak                            M 1/10/2002 Robert LeClair, Jr.                          IM 01/10/2008
 Alternate                                      SAF-FIR Alternate                                          SAF-FIR
 Ceco Door Products                                       A. F. Underhill, Inc.
 801 Mark Lane                                            55 North Street
 Hampshire, IL 60140                                      PO Box 376
 Steel Door Institute                                     Canton, MA 02021
 Principal: Kurt A. Roeper                                Firestop Contractors International Association
                                                          Principal: William J. McHugh, Jr.

Ronald B. Melucci                            SE 3/4/2008 Kevin D. Morin                                SE 3/4/2009
 Alternate                                      SAF-FIR Alternate                                         SAF-FIR
 The RJA Group, Inc.                                      Code Consultants, Inc.
 1661 Worcester Road, Suite 501                           215 West 40th Street, Floor 15
 Framingham, MA 01701                                     New York, NY 10018
 Principal: Joseph A. Castellano                          Principal: David A. Lewis

Timothy J. Orris                             M 7/29/2005 Brian T. Rhodes                               SE 3/4/2008
 Alternate                                      SAF-FIR Alternate                                         SAF-FIR
 AMCA International, Inc.                                 Hughes Associates, Inc.
 30 West University Drive                                 3610 Commerce Drive, Suite 817
 Arlington Heights, IL 60004-1893                         Baltimore, MD 21227-1652
 Air Movement & Control Association                       Principal: Eric R. Rosenbaum
 Principal: Vickie J. Lovell

Catherine L. Stashak                         E 11/2/2006 Michael Earl Dillon                          SE 10/1/1993
 Alternate                                     SAF-FIR Nonvoting Member                                   SAF-FIR
 Office of the Illinois State Fire Marshal                Dillon Consulting Engineers, Inc.
 Division of Technical Services                           671 Quincy Avenue
 James R. Thompson Center                                 Long Beach, CA 90814-1818
 100 West Randolph Street, #4-600                         TC on Air Conditioning
 Chicago, IL 60601
 Office of the Illinois State Fire Marshal
 Principal: Kenneth Wood

Kristin Collette                                6/29/2007
 Staff Liaison                                   SAF-FIR
 National Fire Protection Association
 1 Batterymarch Park
 Quincy, MA 02169-7471




                                                                                                               3
                                                 Page 4 of 50
                  ROP MEETING MINUTES
         Building Code – Life Safety Technical Committee
                   on Fire Protection Features
               Thursday-Friday, September 24-25, 2009 Meeting
                Embassy Suites Hotel Cleveland – Downtown
                               Cleveland, OH

1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Chair Eric Rosenbaum at 8:00
   a.m. on Thursday, September 24, 2009 at the Embassy Suites Hotel Cleveland –
   Downtown, Cleveland, OH. Chair Rosenbaum noted that agenda item 6 would be
   addressed after agenda items 7 and 8.

2. Introduction of Attendees. The following committee members and guests were
   in attendance.

   TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT

   NAME                               REPRESENTING

   Eric Rosenbaum, Chair              Hughes Associates, Inc.
   Joseph A. Castellano, Principal    The RJA Group, Inc.
   John F. Devlin, Principal          Aon/Schirmer Engineering Corporation
   Brian L. Eklow, Principal          Aon Risk Services
   Sam W. Francis, Principal          American Forest and Paper Association
   Ralph D. Gerdes, Principal         Ralph Gerdes Consultants, LLC
   Wayne D. Holmes, Principal         HSB Professional Loss Control
   Jonathan Humble, Principal         American Iron and Steel Institute
   Thomas Janicak                     Steel Door Institute
    (Alternate to K. Roeper)
   Ignatius Kapalczynski, Principal   Connecticut Department of Public Safety
   Marshall A. Klein, Principal       Marshall A. Klein & Associates, Inc.
   William E. Koffel, Principal       Koffel Associates, Inc.
                                      Rep. glazing Industry Code Committee
   Vickie J. Lovell, Principal        Inter Code Incorporated
                                      Rep. Air Movement & Control Association
   William J. McHugh, Jr. Principal   Firestop Contractors International
                                      Association
   Kurt A. Roeper, Principal          Ingersoll-Rand Security Technologies
                                      Rep. Steel Door Institute


                                 Page 5 of 50
   Andrew M. Schneider, Principal         Maryland State Fire Marshals Office
                                          Rep. International Fire Marshals Association
   Catherine L. Stashak                   Office of the Illinois State Fire Marshal
    (Alternate to K. Wood)
   John F. Bender, Voting Alternate       Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
                                          Voting Alternate to UL Rep.
   Kristin Collette, Staff Liaison        NFPA

   GUESTS

   NAME                                   REPRESENTING

   Josh Elvove                            General Services Administration
   Kevin Gallagher                        Fire Chiefs Association of Massachusetts
   Diana Hugue                            Koffel Associates, Inc.
   Dennis Pitts                           American Forest & Paper Association
   Sarah Rice                             S. Rice Consulting
   John Valiulis                          Hilti Inc.
                                          Rep. International Firestop Council
   Thomas S. Zaremba                      Alliance of Primary Fire Rated Glazing
                                          Manufacturers

   TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS NOT PRESENT

   NAME                                   REPRESENTING

   Gregory J. Cahanin, Principal          Cahanin Fire & Code Consulting
                                          Rep. Louisiana State Firemen’s Association
   David E. Lewis, Principal              Code Consultants, Inc.
   Jon W. Pasqualone, Principal           Martin County Board of County
                                          Commissioners – Rep. Florida Fire Marshals
                                          and Inspectors Association

3. Approval of Minutes. The minutes from the October 2, 2007 meeting were
   approved with one modification. Mr. Devlin noted the spelling of Schirmer
   Engineering was incorrect. The mistake will be corrected.

4. Fire Protection Research Foundation Project Review. Bill Koffel and Diana
   Hugue from Koffel Associates gave a presentation on the project “Quantifying
   Smoke Barrier Performance”. This project was initially proposed by the
   BLD/SAF-FIR Technical Committee during the ROC meeting in the Fall of 2007
   and was conducted by the Fire Protection Research Foundation. See attachment
   A - Pg. 4.

5. Standardization of Language Where Supervision of Sprinkler Systems Is
   Required. The committee addressed this issue and no further action was taken.

6. Consistency of List Based Options – i.e., when all conditions must be met or
   some conditions must be met. A task group was formed to address the sections

                                     Page 6 of 50
       in NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000 where a list based option was used. The task group
       and committee developed committee proposals where needed.

   7. NFPA 101 ROP Preparation. All public proposals were addressed. Committee
      proposals were developed as needed. See ROP letter ballot package.

   8. NFPA 5000 ROP Preparation. All public proposals were addressed.
      Committee proposals were developed as needed. See ROP letter ballot package.

   9. Other Business. No additional business was addressed.

   10. Future Meetings. The next meeting will be the Report on Comments meeting
       and will be held in the Fall of 2010 at a location to be determined.

   11. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 am on Friday, September
       25, 2009 by Chair Rosenbaum.


Meeting Minutes were prepared by:




Kristin Collette, NFPA Staff Liaison




                                       Page 7 of 50
              BLD/SAF Committees                                                    BLD/SAF Committees
      Report on Comments (ROC) Meetings                                     Report on Comments (ROC) Meetings

                                                                   NFPA        is concerned with your Safety

         NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000 ROC
                                                                   If                          ,
                                                                           the fire alarm sounds, we will evacuate
                  Meetings

                  October 2010                                     Exiting…exits          are ……..
                 Monteleone Hotel
                 New Orleans, LA

                                                         1                                                                    2




              BLD/SAF Committees                                                    BLD/SAF Committees
      Report on Comments (ROC) Meetings                                     Report on Comments (ROC) Meetings

                     Overview                                            Participation in NFPA Committee Meetings is
 General  Procedures for Meeting                                         generally limited to Committee Members and
                                                                          NFPA Staff
 Timeline for Processing the Code
 Committee Actions                                                      Participation by guests is usually granted by the
 Committee Statements                                                    Chair
 Balloting
                                                                         The Chair may limit the time of any presentation
                                                                          (member or guest)

                                                         3                                                                    4




              BLD/SAF Committees                                                    BLD/SAF Committees
      Report on Comments (ROC) Meetings                                     Report on Comments (ROC) Meetings

   All guests are requested to sign-in and identify               Formal        voting
    their affiliation
                                                                           Secured by post-meeting letter ballot (2/3
                                                                           majority agreement)
   Members please verify/update your contact
    Members,                                                               V ti
                                                                            Voting during meeting requires simple
                                                                                    d i         ti        i     i   l
    information on pages attached to sign-in                               majority vote and is used to establish a sense
                                                                           of agreement that can be letter balloted
   Use of tape recorders or other means of                                Only the results of the letter ballot determine
    reproducing verbatim transcriptions of the                             the official position of the Committee on any
    meeting are prohibited                                                 Comment

                                                         5                                                                    6




                                                         Page 1

                                                       Page 8 of 50
              BLD/SAF Committees                                           BLD/SAF Committees
      Report on Comments (ROC) Meetings                            Report on Comments (ROC) Meetings

 Reminder     to Members in Special Expert                    Remaining timeline for processing the 2012
                                                                  edition of NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000
    (SE) Category: If representing a non-SE
                                                              Comment Closing Date: September 3, 2010
    interest (such as a consultant representing
                                                                           g
                                                               TC ROC meetings:
    a manufacturer or an association of
                                                                Core Chapters October 4-8; balloting follows
    users), this must be declared. The member                   Occupancy Chapters October 18-22; balloting follows
    should refrain from voting on the issue.                TCCs meet: January 5-6, 2011
                                                            NITMAM Closing Date: April 8, 2011
                                                            NFPA Annual Meeting: June 12-15, 2011
                                                            Amendment ballots: mid to late June (TCC – July)

                                                  7
                                                            Standards Council Issuance: August 11, 2011               8




              BLD/SAF Committees                                           BLD/SAF Committees
      Report on Comments (ROC) Meetings                            Report on Comments (ROC) Meetings


Report    on Comments (ROC)                                    General      Procedures
    preparation - today                                            Follow Robert’s Rules of Order
                                                                   Prior to discussion, a motion is
                                                                       o     d scuss o ,    ot o s
                                                                   required




                                                  9                                                                    10




              BLD/SAF Committees                                           BLD/SAF Committees
      Report on Comments (ROC) Meetings                            Report on Comments (ROC) Meetings

   Committee Member participation:                             Committee        Chair Actions:
     Member addresses the Chair                                   States the Motion
     Member receives recognition from t e
        e be ece es ecog t o        o the                          Calls for d scuss o
                                                                    Ca s o discussion
     Chair                                                         Ensures all issues have been heard
     Member speaks to the Chair                                   Takes the Vote
     Member poses questions to others                             Announces the result of the Vote
     through the Chair
     Member answers questions through
     the Chair                                    11                                                                   12




                                                  Page 2

                                             Page 9 of 50
            BLD/SAF Committees                                               BLD/SAF Committees
    Report on Comments (ROC) Meetings                                Report on Comments (ROC) Meetings

Committee Actions on Comments:                                    Accept:
  Accept                                                             The Comment is accepted by the Committee
                                                                     without change
  Accept In Principle                                                No Committee Statement is required for an
  Accept In Part                                                     Accept, but one is permitted to be provided for
                                                                     clarification
  Accept In Principle In Part
  Reject
  Hold
                                                        13                                                               14




            BLD/SAF Committees                                               BLD/SAF Committees
    Report on Comments (ROC) Meetings                                Report on Comments (ROC) Meetings

 Accept in Principle:                                            Accept in Part:
    The Committee agrees with the change in                         Only part of the Comment is accepted
    principle, and accepts the Comment but with                      Committee must indicate accepted part in
    change in wording                                                Committee Action and address rejected part and
    Committee must indicate change in Committee                     rationale for rejection in Committee Statement
    Action and rationale in Committee Statement




                                                        15                                                               16




            BLD/SAF Committees                                               BLD/SAF Committees
    Report on Comments (ROC) Meetings                                Report on Comments (ROC) Meetings

 Accept in Principle in Part:                                    Reject:
    A combination of Accept in Principle and Accept                 The Committee rejects the Comment in entirety
    in Part                                                          Committee must indicate reasons for rejection in
    Committee must indicate accepted and changed                    Committee Statement
    parts in Committee Action
    Committee must indicate rejected parts and
    rationale for changed/rejected parts in Committee
    Statement



                                                        17                                                               18




                                                        Page 3

                                                   Page 10 of 50
              BLD/SAF Committees                                                BLD/SAF Committees
      Report on Comments (ROC) Meetings                                 Report on Comments (ROC) Meetings

 Hold:                                                              CommitteeStatements (Explaining
    The Committee holds for processing as a                          the Committee Action):
    proposal for next cycle, a Comment that:                           Action of “Accept” requires no
      introduces concept that has not had public                      Committee Statement
      review
                                                                       All other actions require a Committee
      changes text to point TC would have to restudy
      ROP or other affected parts of document                          Statement to explain the action of the
      proposes something that can’t be handled within
                                                                       Committee
      time frame for processing the ROC

                                                         19                                                     20




              BLD/SAF Committees                                                BLD/SAF Committees
      Report on Comments (ROC) Meetings                                 Report on Comments (ROC) Meetings

 Committee   Statement must include a valid                        Committee Statements (continued)
  reason for the action                                              Should not reference a Comment with
 The reason should be technical where                                opposing action unless the referenced
     li bl
  applicable                                                          C         t ti f t il      l i the
                                                                      Comment satisfactorily explains th
 Must explain why the Comment was not                                rejection
  accepted                                                           Should not make a vague reference to
 Acceptance of another Comment is not an                             intent
  adequate reason to reject a Comment                                Should explain how submitter’s
                                                                      substantiation is inadequate
                                                         21                                                     22




              BLD/SAF Committees                                                BLD/SAF Committees
      Report on Comments (ROC) Meetings                                 Report on Comments (ROC) Meetings

 Letter ballots are on the Committee Action                      Your ballot form is
                                                                  electronically submit-
 The Ballot form allows you to vote
                                                                  able
   Affirmative on all actions                                     You can save a copy
   Affirmative on all actions except those                        f yourself
                                                                  for         lf
     specifically noted                                           You can also print and
 The Ballot form provides a column for                           fax/mail it to NFPA
  affirmative with comment
  Note: This box only needs to be checked if there                All you need is (free)
            is an accompanying comment                            Adobe Reader
                                                         23                                                     24




                                                         Page 4

                                                   Page 11 of 50
           BLD/SAF Committees                                              BLD/SAF Committees
   Report on Comments (ROC) Meetings                               Report on Comments (ROC) Meetings

 Alternates are encouraged to return
 ballots (insurance if Principal’s ballot not
 received)
 B ll ti
  Balloting Process:
            P                                                               Questions?
   Initial letter ballot
   Circulation of Negatives, if any received
   Circulation serves as second ballot to allow
   change of vote
   Final vote reported
                                                     25                                                26




                                                      Page 5

                                                   Page 12 of 50
                                   ANNUAL 2011 REVISION CYCLE

                                           NFPA 101 AND NFPA 5000
       PROCESS                                                                                DATES         DATES
        STAGE                                     PROCESS STEP                                FOR TC       FOR TCC
 1   PRELIMINARY    1.0 Notification of intent to enter cycle

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

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

     TECH SESSION   4.1 Notice of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAM) Closing Date                4/8/11       4/8/11
     PREPARATION    4.2 Posting of Filed NITMAM                                                5/6/11       5/6/11
         ON &       4.3 Council Issuance Date for Consent Documents                           5/31/11      5/31/11
 4
     ISSUANCE OF
       CONSENT      4.4 Appeal Closing Date for Consent Documents                             6/15/11      6/15/11
      DOCUMENTS

      TECHNICAL     5.0 Association Meeting for Documents with Certified Amending
 5                                                                                           6/12-16/11   6/12-16/11
       SESSION      Motions

      APPEALS &     6.1 Appeal closing date for Documents with Certified Amending
                                                                                               7/6/11       7/6/11
     ISSUANCE OF    Motions
 6
     DOCUMENTS
                    6.2 Council issuance for Documents with Certified Amending Motions        8/11/11      8/11/11
      W/CAMS




Schedules for Revision Cycles may change. Please check the NFPA website (www.nfpa.org) for the most up-to-
date information on schedules.

March 2009
REVISED: September, 2010




                                                                    Page 13 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                         NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-13 Log #58 SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
           Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International
                             101-21
                     Revise text to read as follows:
 2.3.6 ASTM Publications.
 ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. www.astm.org
 ASTM D 1929, Standard Test Method for Determining Ignition Temperatures of Plastic,1996 (2001 e1)
 ASTM D 2859, Standard Test Method for Ignition Characteristics of Finished Textile Floor Covering Materials, 2006 .
 ASTM D 2898, Standard Test Methods for Accelerated Weathering of Fire-Retardant-Treated Wood for Fire Testing,
2010 2008 (e1).
 ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, 2010 2009a.
 ASTM E 108, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Roof Coverings, 2010a 2007a.
 ASTM E 119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, 2009c 2008a.
 ASTM E 136, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750 Degrees C, 2009b
2009.
 ASTM E 648, Standard Test Method for Critical Radiant Flux of Floor Covering Systems Using a Radiant Heat Energy
Source, 2010 2009a.
  ASTM E 814, Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Through-Penetration Fire Stops, 2010 2008a.
 ASTM E 1352, Standard Test Method for Cigarette Ignition Resistance of Mock-Up Upholstered Furniture Assemblies,
2008a .
 ASTM E 1353, Standard Test Methods for Cigarette Ignition Resistance of Components of Upholstered Furniture,
2008a (e1) .
 ASTM E 1537, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Upholstered Furniture, 2007 .
  ASTM E 1590, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Mattresses, 2007.
  ASTM E 1591, Standard Guide for Obtaining Data for Deterministic Fire Models, 2007.
  ASTM E 1966, Standard Test Method for Fire-Resistive Joint Systems, 2007.
  ASTM E 2073, Standard Test Method for Photopic Luminance of Photoluminescent (Phosphorescent) Markings, 2010
2007.
 ASTM E 2307, Standard Test Method for Determining Fire Resistance of Perimeter Fire Barrier Systems Using
Intermediate-Scale, Multi-Story Test Apparatus, 2010 2004 e1.
 ASTM F 851, Standard Test Method for Self-Rising Seat Mechanisms, 1987 (2005).
 ASTM F 1577, Standard Test Methods for Detention Locks for Swinging Doors, 2005 .
 ASTM G 155, Standard Practice for Operating Xenon Arc Light Apparatus for Exposure of Non-Metallic Materials,
2005a.
                  ASTM standards update, per ASTM web site August 12 2010. The commenter requests that NFPA
staff checks the most recent editions at the time of the code going to print.




  Printed on 9/16/2010                                     1

                                          Page 14 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                             NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-21 Log #148 SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Robert J. Davidson, Davidson Code Concepts, LLC
                              101-47
                      Revise text to read as follows:
 Chapter 3 – Definitions
 New section:
                             Glazing with either a fire protection or a fire resistance rating.
                  In response to the Committee Statement the following changes were made to the proposal.
 A requirement for a temperature rise door was found at Section 7.2.13.4 of NFPA 101 dealing with elevator lobbies and
that was added to modified Table 8.3.4.2. All other temperature rise related entries were removed. Correlation with the
maximum vision panel size permitted by ASME A17.1 was added. The labeling requirement for 30 minute shafts has
been identified as applying to existing shafts. Panel size limitations were modified to eliminate any potential conflicts
with NFPA 80. No proposed changes were included in the table, it is intended to depict current requirements.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-22 Log #189 SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Thomas Zaremba, Roetzel and Andress
                               101-47
                      New section:
                               Glazing with either a fire protection rating or a fire resistance rating.
                   The problem to be resolved by this comment is that the 2009 International Code Council (“IBC”) and
NFPA 101-2009 have the same system for marking fire rated glazing. In the 2012 development cycle, IBC has adopted
modifications to which make some changes to, but, largely clarify, its system of marking fire rated glazing materials.
The changes proposed in this comment are intended to harmonize the IBC marking system with the marking system of
NFPA 101. Although the NFPA 101 Technical Committee disapproved Proposal 101-47, it agreed conceptually with the
proposal and encouraged proponents to make several identified changes and resubmit the proposal. The changes
identified by the Committee are incorporated into this comment with the exception of the Committee’s comment that
NFPA does not have criteria for a temperature rise rated door. In that regard, NFPA 101, Section 7.2.13.4 establishes a
temperature rise criteria for elevator lobby doors, namely, a temperature rise limitation of 450 F after 30 minutes.
Accordingly, the “T” designation for temperature rise doors has been left in the proposed marking system for that
application.




  Printed on 9/16/2010                                       2

                                            Page 15 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                                NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-24 Log #62 SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International / Rep. American Fire Safety Council
                                101-49
                        Reject proposal 101-49.
                    This proposal introduces a proprietary concept that is not appropriate for a code or standard because it
is not related to the performance of the material. Different methods exist or could be developed to manufacture
fire-retardant-treated wood (FRTW) and they may or may not involve the pressure process. The issue is whether FRTW
does or does not perform as required: flame spread index no larger than 25, no significant progressive combustion and
no flame spread beyond 12.5 ft.
This proposal also introduces a requirement (that the material must be listed and labeled) which should not be in a
definition but should be in the body of the document. The NFPA Manual of Style does not allow requirements in
definitions. I agree that FRTW should be listed and labeled but the definition should not state this requirement; the
requirement should be in a section in the body of NFPA 703.
  In fact, section 4.5 already includes the requirement that these materials must be listed and labeled.
  The rejection of proposal 101-49 should not affect the continued acceptance of proposal 101-48 (or the associated
comment I made separately), which contains needed editorial changes.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-25 Log #171 SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.
                              101-49
                      Revise the beginning of the definition of Fire Retardant Treated Wood to:
 A pressure treated wood product impregnated with a chemical with the treated wood product tested in accordance with
ASTM E84 or UL 723 having a listed flame spread index of 25 or less and showing no evidence of significant . . .”
                  There are three grammatical problems with the section as acted on by the committee in proposal
101-49:
 1) The phrase “impregnated with chemical” is missing the function word “a” before the singular noun “chemical”.
 2) The way that the committee processed the sentence, it appeared that the chemical was subjected to the E84 test,
not the treated wood.
 3) If you are going to use the word “having” before “a listed flame spread index”, you need to have the verb “show”
changed to “showing” so that the verb tenses agree.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-27 Log #19 SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life,
                              101-52
                      Revise the definition so that requirements are moved to the body of the code (new 4.6.14) as done
for the term Noncombustible Material in Proposals 101-54a and 101-64.
                  Requirements should not be part of a definition. The definition of Limited Combustible Material should
be formatted like that of Noncombustible Material as done by Proposals 101-54a and 101-64.




  Printed on 9/16/2010                                        3

                                             Page 16 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                                NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-89 Log #112 SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Tony Crimi, A.C. Consulting Solutions, Inc. / Rep. International Firestop Council
                                101-165
                        Add new text to read as follows:
         The fire resistance rating of an element or assembly determined by tests conducted in accordance with NFPA
251 or other approved test methods shall not be permitted to rely on an automatic fire protection system, unless
evaluated as an equivalency in accordance with Section 1.4 or as part of a performance-based option in accordance
with Chapter 5.
           NFPA 251, ANSI/UL 263, and ASTM E 119 are nationally recognized methods of determining fire resistance of
building elements and assemblies. Assemblies tested in accordance with these fire-resistance test Standards provide
passive fire protection. The test procedures set forth in these Standards make no provision for testing automatic fire
suppression systems or water sprays in conjunction with structural members or assemblies tested in vertical or
horizontal fire resistance furnaces. Such evaluations can only be done via the Alternative protection methods
procedures in Section 1.4, or by evaluation as a performance-based option in Chapter 5.
                    In response to some of the Committee Negatives expressed during the letter balloting, it needs to be
recognized that the proposed language is consistent with Section 8.2.3.1 in that it would require a specific approval by
the Authority Having Jurisdiction using either the equivalency or performance-based options permitted by the Code.
The language proposed for 8.1.3 in this public comment is already in NFPA 5000-09. The Appendix note is new.
 It is predominantly with fire-resistance ratings that some material manufacturers have begun to submit test reports to
Authorities Having Jurisdiction claiming to have “fire-resistance ratings” that are derived from modified standard tests
using a flow of cooling water during the fire test, it now becomes important to clarify that the code-required fire
resistance rating is in fact a property that is meant to represent the inherent resistance to fire without the assistance of
cooling flows. In countless instances, the code already incorporates the risk-reducing effect of a fire suppression system
by reducing the fire-resistance requirements, and often by reducing many other required safety measures as well.
 As stated originally the possibility of reducing some code requirements based on the improved behavior of an
assembly when subjected to a cooling water flow can already be done via Alternative protection methods as allowed by
Section 1.4, or by evaluation as a performance-based option in Chapter 5. Although some Voters felt that this language
was redundant it is identical to the current language in NFPA 5000-09. The Appendix Note is new and intended to
provide background information for the user.
 As a point of comparison, the IBC has also included this concept in the 2012 edition.




  Printed on 9/16/2010                                        4

                                             Page 17 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                                      NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-90 Log #188 SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Thomas Zaremba, Roetzel and Andress / Rep. Alliance of Primary Fire Rated Glazing Manufacturers
                               101-165
                       Add new text to read as follows:
         The fire resistance rating of an element or assembly determined by tests conducted in accordance with NFPA
251 or other approved test methods shall not be permitted to rely on an automatic fire protection system, unless
evaluated as an equivalency in accordance with Section 1.4 or as part of a performance–based option in accordance
with Chapter 5.
                    There are two problems that would be resolved by the addition of this new section. The first problem is
that NFPA 101 contains no language comparable to Section 8.2.1.3 of NFPA 5000. The language proposed in this
comment is virtually identical to that section of NFPA 5000. The second problem is that a certain Evaluation Services
Report, specifically, ESR-2397 (held by Tyco Fire Products Research and Development) can easily be applied to
automatically elevate non-NFPA 251 (ASTM E119) tested materials to the equivalent of fire-resistance rated materials
when an automatic sprinkler system is installed. The language proposed in this Comment is intended to solve both
problems. First, since the language proposed is virtually identical to language found in Section 8.2.1.3 of NFPA 5000,
adopting this provision will harmonize NFPA 101 with NFPA 5000. Second, the addition of this provision will eliminate
any automatic elevation of non-NFPA 251 tested materials to the equivalent of fire-resistance tested materials through
the use of automatic sprinkler systems. Harmonizing NFPA 101 with the existing provisions of NFPA 5000 and
eliminating the use of automatic sprinkler systems to automatically elevate non-rated materials to the equivalent of
fire-resistance rated materials are both necessary in order to preserve the integrity of fire-resistive construction. (The
IBC recently adopted a provision very similar to the one proposed here when it adopted FS4-09/10 with a modification
proposed by TYCO Fire Suppression and Building Products.)




_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-91 Log #285 SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
                                101-163
                        Reconsider.
 8.2.2.3.x Fire Barrier Continuity – Single fire areas above or below stories penetrated by convenience openings on the
adjacent floor that are common to opposite sides of fire barriers shall be enclosed with construction having a fire
resistance rating at least equal to that of the fire barrier.
                    The proposal has been restated for clarity. The intent remains the same. If the conditions shown in the
ROP artwork are not permitted because the penetrated floor is a fire barrier, then the penetrating openings are not
permitted at all. If the penetrated floor is not a fire barrier, then the fire barrier is in violation because it is not continuous
to another barrier or outside wall. Neither condition is addressed by 8.6.8.




  Printed on 9/16/2010                                            5

                                                Page 18 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                                     NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-92 Log #300 SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
                                101-163
                       Revise text to read as follows:
 Reconsider.
 8.2.2.3.x Fire Barrier Continuity – Single fire areas above or below stories penetrated by convenience openings on the
adjacent floor that are common to opposite sides of fire barriers shall be enclosed with construction having a fire
resistance rating at least equal to that of the fire barrier.
                  Reconsider
 The proposal has been restated for clarity. The intent remains the same. If the conditions shown in the ROP artwork
are not permitted because the penetrated floor is a fire barrier, then the penetrating openings are not permitted at all. If
the penetrated floor is not a fire barrier, then the fire barrier is in violation because it is not continuous to another barrier
or outside wall. Neither condition is addressed by 8.6.8.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-93 Log #113 SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Tony Crimi, A.C. Consulting Solutions, Inc. / Rep. International Firestop Council
                                 101-165
                       Add new text to read as follows:
              Under the prescriptive fire resistance requirements of this Code, determination of the fire resistance rating
of structural elements, components and building assemblies in 8.2.3.1 shall be established without the use of automatic
fire suppression systems in accordance with the fire exposure, procedures, and acceptance criteria specified in ASTM
E119 or UL 263.
               NFPA 251, ANSI/UL 263, and ASTM E 119 are nationally recognized methods of determining fire
resistance of building elements and assemblies. Assemblies tested in accordance with these fire-resistance test
Standards provide passive fire protection. The test procedures set forth in these Standards make no provision for testing
automatic fire suppression systems or water sprays in conjunction with structural members or assemblies tested in
vertical or horizontal fire resistance furnaces. Such evaluations can only be done via the Alternative protection methods
procedures in Section 1.4, or by evaluation as a performance-based option in Chapter 5.
                   In response to some of the Committee Negatives expressed during the letter balloting, it needs to be
recognized that the proposed language is consistent with Section 8.2.3.1 in that it would require a specific approval by
the Authority Having Jurisdiction using either the equivalency or performance-based options permitted by the Code.
It is predominantly with fire-resistance ratings that some material manufacturers have begun to submit test reports to
Authorities Having Jurisdiction claiming to have “fire-resistance ratings” that are derived from modified standard tests
using a flow of cooling water during the fire test, it now becomes important to clarify that the code-required fire
resistance rating is in fact a property that is meant to represent the inherent resistance to fire without the assistance of
cooling flows. In countless instances, the code already incorporates the risk-reducing effect of a fire suppression system
by reducing the fire-resistance requirements, and often by reducing many other required safety measures as well.
  As stated originally the possibility of reducing some code requirements based on the improved behavior of an
assembly when subjected to a cooling water flow can already be done via Alternative protection methods as allowed by
Section 1.4, or by evaluation as a performance-based option in Chapter 5. Some Voters felt that this language was
redundant and, as such, we have removed it from this proposal.
  As a point of comparison, the IBC has also accepted this concept and clarification for inclusion in the 2012 edition.
The proposals was accepted initially by the Committee, and a slightly modified adopted by the membership at the ICC
Final Action Hearings in Dallas in 2009.




  Printed on 9/16/2010                                           6

                                               Page 19 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                               NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-94 Log #302 SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
                                101-165
                        Reconsider.
                    Although the negative votes substantiate that the code does not recognize this concept, the fact that
the concept is still frequently misunderstood and misapplied by design professionals, product manufacturers, and code
enforcers indicates that the concept is not easily discerned from the present code language. Acknowledging that the
means of addressing this issue correctly is found in Chapter 1, additional language and annex explanations can direct
users to the proper sections of the code.




  Printed on 9/16/2010                                        7

                                            Page 20 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                                 NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-95 Log #4 SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________




              Tony Crimi, A.C. Consulting Solutions, Inc.
                                101-165
                        New text to read as follows:
             Determination of the fire resistance rating of structural elements and building assemblies in 8.2.3.1 shall be
independent of automatic fire suppression systems unless evaluated as an equivalency in accordance with Section 1.4
or as part of a performance-based option in accordance with Chapter 5.
               NFPA 251, ANSI/UL 263, and ASTM E 119 are considered nationally recognized methods of determining
fire resistance and have been found to yield equivalent test results. Assemblies tested in accordance with these
fire-resistance test Standards provide passive fire protection. The test procedures set forth in these Standards make no
provision for testing automatic fire suppression systems or water sprays in conjunction with structural members or
assemblies tested in vertical or horizontal fire resistance furnaces.
                              There is the potential for misuse of long established fire-resistance test Standards relied
upon in the Code to determine performance of elements and assemblies tested as systems in conjunction with
dedicated active suppression systems. NFPA 251, UL 263, and ASTM E119 do not make provision for testing of these
types of combined active and passive fire protection systems.
                    The proposed language is consistent with Section 8.2.3.1 in that it would require a specific approval by
the Authority Having Jurisdiction using either the equivalency of performance-based options permitted by the Code.
Since some material manufacturers have begun to submit test reports to Authorities Having Jurisdiction claiming to have
“fire-resistance ratings” that are derived from modified standard tests using a flow of cooling water during the fire test, it
now becomes important to clarify that the code-required fire resistance rating is in fact a property that is meant to
represent the inherent resistance to fire without the assistance of cooling flows. In countless instances, the code already
incorporates the risk-reducing effect of a fire suppression system by reducing the fire-resistance requirements, and often
by reducing many other required safety measures as well.
  The possibility of reducing some code requirements based on the improved behavior of an assembly when subjected
to a cooling water flow can already be done via Alternative protection methods as allowed by Section 1.4, or by
evaluation as a performance-based option in Chapter 5. Thus, the only impact of this code change is to prevent a
manufacturer of products from claiming an inflated fire resistance based on the long established recognized fire
resistance test Standards mandated by the Code. The code change would not restrict anyone from proving that the
addition of a cooling and/or extinguishing water flow can reduce some other requirement in the code.
  It has never been the intent of either the Codes or the fire resistance testing Standards to incorporate the fire
suppression system as part of the fire resistance rating of a building element, component or assembly. It would not be
acceptable to have a fire-resistance rating that is determined during a test using a cooling flow, since a fire resistive
assembly is usually required by the Code in order to provide an inherent passive level of fire protection that is expected
to provide a required level of fire protection if sprinkler protection were to become disabled, impaired, or diminished. The
notion of multiple safeguards and “Balanced Fire Protection” is not new to the Codes. It has long been a basic tenet that
the design of every building or structure intended for human occupancy shall be such that reliance for safety to life does
not depend solely on any single safeguard. Additional safeguards are provided for life safety in case any single
safeguard is ineffective due to inappropriate human actions or system failure.
  The resulting cooling-enhanced fire resistance rating then provides a result that would be incompatible with the
required fire resistance ratings specified throughout the I-Codes. The various fire resistance ratings mandated
throughout dozens of articles in the Code have been established based on an assumption of the type of construction
that would pass the standardized tests without the aid of water cooling during fire exposure. For example, a relatively
thin and un-insulated metal panel wall with suitable water cooling could potentially be arranged to pass a 1-hour
standardized fire-resistance test, and possibly even longer duration fire-resistance tests. However, where the Code
specifies the need for a 1-hour assembly, the intent in the development of that code provision would have clearly been
to have an assembly that could survive a fire without being breached and without losing any load-bearing capabilities all
by itself, without relying on an external water source for continued cooling. If sprinkler protection was also required for
such occupancy, then the overall intent of the Code is to have these two systems act independently, but in concert with
each other.

  Printed on 9/16/2010                                         8

                                              Page 21 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                               NFPA 101

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-96 Log #303 SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
                                101-166
                        Reconsider.
                    Although the negative votes substantiate that the code does not recognize this concept, the fact that
the concept is still frequently misunderstood and misapplied by design professionals, product manufacturers, and code
enforcers indicates that the concept is not easily discerned from the present code language. Acknowledging that the
means of addressing this issue correctly is found in Chapter 1, additional language and annex explanations can direct
users to the proper sections of the code.




  Printed on 9/16/2010                                        9

                                            Page 22 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                                NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-97 Log #229 SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Robert J. Davidson, Davidson Code Concepts, LLC
                                101-47
                       Revise text to read as follows:
             New fire resistance–rated glazing shall bear the identifier“W-XXX” where “XXX” is the fire resistance rating in
minutes. be marked in accordance with Tables 8.3.3.12 and 8.3.4.2. Such identification marking shall be permanently
affixed.
            New F f ire protection–rated glazing shall be marked in accordance with Tables 8.3.3.12 and 8.3.4.2, bear
identification as described in 8.3.3.11.1 or 8.3.3.11.2 and such marking shall be permanently affixed.
              Fire protection–rated glazing used in doors shall bear a four-part identification in
  the form of D — H (or NH) — T (or NT) — XXX, with the component parts defined as follows:
  (1) D, which indicates that the glazing is to be used in fire door assemblies and that the glazing meets the fire
protection requirements of NFPA 252,
  (2) H, which indicates that the glazing meets the hose stream requirements of the test standard
  (3) NH, which indicates that the glazing does not meet the hose stream requirements of the test standard
  (4) T, which indicates that the glazing has a maximum transmitted temperature endpoint of not more than 450°F
(250°C) above ambient at the end of 30 minutes of standard fire test exposure
  (5) NT, which indicates that the glazing does not have a temperature rise rating
  (6) XXX, which is the placeholder that specifies the fire protection rating period, in minutes
              Fire protection–rated glazing used in fire resistance–rated walls and partitions shall bear the identification
OH-XXX, which is defined as follows:
  (1) OH indicates that the glazing meets both the fire protection and the hose stream requirements of NFPA 257,
                                                                   ; ASTM E 2010,
                                               ; or ANSI/UL 9,                                                 ; and
Copyright NFPA is permitted to be used in openings.
  (2) XXX indicates the fire protection rating period, in minutes, that was tested.

 ***Insert Table 8.3.3.12 here***

 ***Insert Table 8.3.4.2 here***


                  In response to the Committee Statement the following changes were made to the proposal.
 A requirement for a temperature rise door was found at Section 7.2.13.4 of NFPA 101 dealing with elevator lobbies and
that was added to modified Table 8.3.4.2. All other temperature rise related entries were removed. Correlation with the
maximum vision panel size permitted by ASME A17.1 was added. The labeling requirement for 30 minute shafts has
been identified as applying to existing shafts. Panel size limitations were modified to eliminate any potential conflicts
with NFPA 80. No proposed changes were included in the table, it is intended to depict current requirements.




  Printed on 9/16/2010                                        10

                                             Page 23 of 50
Table 8.3.3.12 – (New) Marking Fire-Rated Glazing Assemblies

Fire Test Standard          Marking      Definition of Marking

NFPA 251 or UL 263          W            Meets wall assembly criteria.

NFPA 257 or UL 9            OH           Meets fire window assembly criteria
                                         including the hose stream test.

NFPA 252 or UL 10B or UL    D            Meets fire door assembly criteria.
10C

                            H            Meets fire door assembly “Hose Stream”
                                         test.

                            T            Meets to 450º F temperature rise criteria
                                         for 30 minutes

                            XXX          The time in minutes of the fire resistance
                                         or fire protection rating of the glazing
                                         assembly




                                      1
                     101_L229_Table 8.3.3.12_A2011ROC_R


                                  Page 24 of 50
        Table 8.3.4.2 Minimum Fire Protection Ratings for Opening Protectives in Fire Resistance–Rated Assemblies and Fire rated Glazing Markings



                                                                    Door                                                Minimum                       Fire Rated Glazing
                                                                   Vision                                          Sidelight/Transom                        Marking                                    Fire Rated
                                Walls and        Fire Door         Panel            Fire Rated Glazing           Assembly Rating (hr)               Sidelite/Transom Panel         Fire Window          Glazing
                                Partitions      Assemblies        Maximum          Marking Door Vision             Fire          Fire                 Fire           Fire          Assemblies           Marking
           Component               (hr)             (hr)            Size                  Panel                 protection    resistance           protection     resistance            (hr)            Window
             Elevator
            hoistways                2              1-1/2         144 sq. in.      <=144 sq.in. = D-H-90            NP               2                 NP             W-120             NPc              W-120
                                     1                1           144 sq. in.      <=144sq.in. =D-H-60              NP               1                 NP             W-60              NPc              W-60
                                                                  Maximum
         Elevator Lobby              1                1           size tested             D-H-T-60                  NP               1                 NP             W-60              NPc               W-60
          Vertical shafts
            (including
         stairways, exits
            and refuse                                            Maximum
              chutes                 2              1-1/2         size tested             D-H--90                   NP               2                 NP             W-120             NPc              W-120
                                                                  Maximum
                                     1                1           size tested             D-H- 60                   NP               1                 NP             W-60              NPc               W-60
          Replacement
            Panels in
         Existing Vertical                                        Maximum
              Shafts                1/2              1/3          size tested              D-H-20                  1/3              1/3              D-H-20           W-20              NPc               W-30
                                                                                                                  Not                                 Not
           Fire barriers             3                3           100 sq. in.c    <=100 sq.in. = D-H-180        Permitted            3              Permitted         W-180             NPc              W-180
                                                                                  >100 sq.in.= D-H-W 180
                                                                  Maximum
                                     2              1-1/2         size tested             D-H--90                   NP               2                 NP             W-120             NPc              W-120
                                                                  Maximum
                                     1               3/4          size tested              D-H-45                   3/4                              D-H-45                             3/4         OH-45 or W-45
                                                                  Maximum
                                    1/2              1/3          size tested              D-H-20                   1/3                              D-H-20                             1/3         OH-20 or W-20
                                                                  Maximum
                                                                                                                                                                                             c
         Horizontal exits            2              1-1/2         size tested             D-H--90                   NP               2                 NP             W-120             NP               W-120
         Horizontal exits
             served by
         bridges between                                          Maximum
             buildings               2               3/4          size tested             D-H--45                   3/4           D-H-45                                                3/4         OH-45 or W-45
            Exit access                                           Maximum
           corridors † a             1               1/3          size tested              D-H-20                   1/3                              D-H-20                             3/4         OH-45 or W-45
                                                                  Maximum
                                    1/2              1/3          size tested              D-H-20                   1/3                              D-H-20                             1/3         OH-20 or W-20
        Smoke barriers †                                          Maximum
                                                                  size tested                                           1/3                                                                             OH-45 or W-45
                  a
                                         1                1/3                                                                                                                              3/4
          Smoke partitions                                        Maximum
                † a, ‡ b                1/2               1/3     size tested                   D-20                    1/3                             D-20                               1/3          OH-20 or W-20
NP: Not permitted.
a† Fire doors are not required to have a hose stream test per NFPA 252, Standard Methods of Fire Tests of Door Assemblies; ASTM E 2074, Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Door Assemblies, Including Positive
Pressure Testing of Side-Hinged and Pivoted Swinging Door Assemblies; ANSI/UL 10B, Standard for Fire Tests of Door Assemblies; or ANSI/UL 10C, Standard for Positive Pressure Fire Tests of Door Assemblies.
b‡ For residential board and care, see 32.2.3.1 and 33.2.3.1.
c Fire resistance rated glazing tested to NFPA 251 shall be permitted in the maximum size tested.

                                                                                                 1
                                                                                 101_L229_Table 8.3.4.2_A2011ROC_R

                                                                                               Page 25 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                                NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-98 Log #228 SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Thomas Zaremba, Roetzel and Andress
                                101-47
                        New section:
  New section:
             Fire resistance-rated glazing tested in accordance with NFPA 251, Standard Method of Tests of Fire
Endurance of Building Construction and Materials, shall be permitted in fire door assemblies and fire window assemblies
where tested and installed in accordance with their listings.
             New fire resistance–rated glazing shall bear the identifier “W-XXX” where “XXX” is the fire resistance rating in
minutes. be marked in accordance with Tables 8.3.3.12 and 8.3.4.2 Such identification marking shall be permanently
affixed.
            New Ffire protection–rated glazing shall be marked in accordance with Tables 8.3.3.12 and 8.3.4.2, bear
identification as described in 8.3.3.11.1 or 8.3.3.11.2 and such marking shall be permanently affixed.
              Fire protection–rated glazing used in doors shall bear a four-part identification in the form of D — H (or NH)
— T (or NT) — XXX, with the component parts defined as follows:
  (1) D, which indicates that the glazing is to be used in fire door assemblies and that the glazing meets the fire
protection requirements of NFPA 252, Standard Methods of Fire Tests of Door Assemblies
  (2) H, which indicates that the glazing meets the hose stream requirements of the test standard
  (3) NH, which indicates that the glazing does not meet the hose stream requirements of the test standard
  (4) T, which indicates that the glazing has a maximum transmitted temperature endpoint of not more than 450°F
(250°C) above ambient at the end of 30 minutes of standard fire test exposure
  (5) NT, which indicates that the glazing does not have a temperature rise rating
  (6) XXX, which is the placeholder that specifies the fire protection rating period, in minutes 8.3.3.11.2 Fire
protection–rated glazing used in fire resistance–rated walls and
partitions shall bear the identification OH-XXX, which is defined as follows:
  (1) OH indicates that the glazing meets both the fire protection and the hose stream requirements of NFPA 257,
Standard on Fire Test for Window and Glass Block Assemblies; ASTM E 2010, Standard Test Method for Positive
Pressure Fire Tests of Window Assemblies; or ANSI/UL 9, Standard for Fire Tests of Window Assemblies; and
Copyright NFPA is permitted to be used in openings.
  (2) XXX indicates the fire protection rating period, in minutes, that was tested.
  New section:
             Fire-rated glazing assemblies marked as complying with hose stream requirements (H) shall be permitted in
applications that do not require compliance with hose stream requirements. Fire-rated glazing assemblies marked as
complying with temperature rise requirements (T) shall be permitted in applications that do not require compliance with
temperature rise requirements. Fire-rated glazing assemblies marked with ratings (XXX) that exceed the ratings
required by this code shall be permitted.
  New table:



        ***Insert Table 8.3.3.12 Here***

        ***Insert Table 8.3.4.2 Here***


                   The problem to be resolved by this comment is that the 2009 International Code Council (“IBC”) and
NFPA 101-2009 have the same system for marking fire rated glazing. In the 2012 development cycle, IBC has adopted
modifications to which make some changes to, but, largely clarify, its system of marking fire rated glazing materials.
The changes proposed in this comment are intended to harmonize the IBC marking system with the marking system of
NFPA 101. Although the NFPA 101 Technical Committee disapproved Proposal 101-47, it agreed conceptually with the
proposal and encouraged proponents to make several identified changes and resubmit the proposal. The changes
identified by the Committee are incorporated into this comment with the exception of the Committee’s comment that
NFPA does not have criteria for a temperature rise rated door. In that regard, NFPA 101, Section 7.2.13.4 establishes a
temperature rise criteria for elevator lobby doors, namely, a temperature rise limitation of 450 F after 30 minutes.

  Printed on 9/16/2010                                        11

                                             Page 26 of 50
Table 8.3.3.12 – Marking Fire-Rated Glazing Assemblies

Fire Test Standard       Marking      Definition of Marking

NFPA 251                 W            Meets wall         assembly
                                      criteria.

NFPA 257                 OH           Meets fire window
                                      assembly criteria
                                      including the hose
                                      stream test.

NFPA 252                 D            Meets fire door assembly
                                      criteria.


                         H            Meets fire door assembly
                                      “Hose Stream” test.


                                      Meets       450         F
                         T            temperature rise criteria
                                      for 30 minutes.

                         XXX          The time in minutes of
                                      the fire resistance or fire
                                      protection rating of the
                                      glazing assembly




         101/L228/Tb 8.3.3.12/A11/ROC

                  Page 27 of 50
Ta ble 8.3.4.2 Minim um F ir e P r ot ect ion Ra t in gs for Open in g P r ot ect ives in F ir e Resist a n ce -
Ra t ed Assem blies a n d F ir e Ra t ed Gla zing Ma r kin gs
                                                                         Minimum              Fire Rated Glazing           Fire
                                                        Fire
                                             Door                    Sidelight/Transom             Marking              Window
                    Walls                              Rated                                                                           Fire
                                            Vision                    Assembly Rating          Sidelite/Transom        Assemblies
                     and       Fire Door              Glazing                                                                         Rated
                                            Panel                           (hr)                     Panel                 (hr)
 Component         Partition   Assemblies             Marking                                                                        Glazing
                                            Maxim                                                                     Fire Fire
                      s        (hr)                    Door           Fire        Fire                                               Marking
                                             um                                                Fire         Fire      prot resist
                     (hr)                              Vision       protectio   resistanc                                            Window
                                             Size                                           protection   resistance   ecti    ance
                                                       Panel            n           e
                                                                                                                      on
                                                        <=144
   Elevator                                 144 sq.
                      2          1-1/2                sq.in. = D-     NP           2           NP         W-120       NP      2c      W-120
  hoistways                                   in.
                                                      H or W-90
                                                      <=144sq.i
                                            144 sq.
                      1            1                   n. = D-H       NP           1           NP          W-60       NP      1c      W-60
                                              in.
                                                       or W-60
                                                         100 sq.
                                              100
Elevator lobby        1            1                  in = D-H-       NP           1           NP          W-60       NP      1c      W-60
                                             sq.in.
                                                      T or W-60
                                                       100 sq.in
                                                           =
                                                         W-60

Vertical shafts
                                            Maxim
  (including
                                            um size
  stairways,          2          1-1/2                D-H or W-       NP           2           NP         W-120       NP      2c      W-120
                                             tested
   exits and                                             90
refuse chutes
                                            Maxim
                                                       D-H- or
                      1            1        um size                   NP           1           NP          W-60       NP      1c      W-60
                                                        W-60
                                             tested
 Replacement
                                            Maxim
  Panels in                                                                                 D-H-OH-
                     1/2          1/3       um size   D or W-20       1/3         1/3                      W-20       NP     1/2c     W-30
   Existing                                                                                    20
                                             tested
Vertical Shafts

                                                           100
                                              100     sq.in. = D-
 Fire barriers        3            3                                  NP           3           NP         W-180       NP      3c      W-180
                                             sq.in.    H or W-
                                                          180
                                                          100
                                                       sq,in= W
                                                          180
                                              100     D-H or W-
                      2          1-1/2                                NP           2           NP         W-120       NP      2c      W-120
                                             sq.in.        90
                                            Maxim
                                                      D-H or W-                             D-H-OH-                                  OH or W-
                      1           3/4       um size                   3/4         3/4                      W-45       3/4     3/4
                                                         45                                    45                                      45
                                             tested
                                            Maxim
                                                                                            D-H-OH-                                  OH or W-
                     1/2          1/3a      um size   D or W-20       1/3         1/3                      W-20       1/3     1/3
                                                                                               20                                      20
                                             tested

                                            Maxim
                                                      D-H or W-
Horizontal exits       2         1-1/2      um size                   NP           2           NP         W-120       NPc      2      W-120
                                                         90
                                             tested

Horizontal exits
                                            Maxim
   served by                                          D-H or W-                             D-H-OH-                                  OH or W-
                       2          3/4       um size                   3/4         3/4                      W-45        3/4    3/4
bridges between                                          45                                    45                                      45
                                             tested
    buildings

                                            Maxim
  Exit access                                                                               D-H-OH-                                  OH or W-
                       1          1/3       um size   D or W-20       3/4         3/4                      W-45       3/4     3/4
  corridors a                                                                                  45                                      45
                                             tested
                                            Maxim
                                                                                            D-H-OH-                                  OH or W-
                      1/2         1/3       um size   D or W-20       1/3         1/3                      W-20       1/3     1/3
                                                                                               20                                      20
                                             tested
                                            Maxim
    Smoke                                                                                   D-H-OH-                                  OH or W-
                       1          1/3       um size   D or W-20       3/4         3/4                      W-45       3/4     3/4
  barriersa,b                                                                                  45                                      45
                                             tested
                                         101/L228/Tb 8.3.4.2/A11/ROC
                                                      1

                                                             Page 28 of 50
                                                                                  Minimum                  Fire Rated Glazing              Fire
                                                                Fire
                                                   Door                       Sidelight/Transom                 Marking                 Window
                     Walls                                     Rated                                                                                      Fire
                                                  Vision                       Assembly Rating              Sidelite/Transom           Assemblies
                      and        Fire Door                    Glazing                                                                                    Rated
                                                  Panel                              (hr)                         Panel                    (hr)
  Component         Partition    Assemblies                   Marking                                                                                   Glazing
                                                  Maxim                                                                               Fire Fire
                       s         (hr)                          Door            Fire          Fire                                                       Marking
                                                   um                                                       Fire          Fire        prot resist
                      (hr)                                     Vision        protectio     resistanc                                                    Window
                                                   Size                                                  protection    resistance     ecti    ance
                                                               Panel             n             e
                                                                                                                                      on
                                                 Maxim
     Smoke                                                                                               D-H-OH-                                       OH or W-
                        1/2           1/3        um size     D or W-20          1/3           1/3                        W-20          1/3      1/3
  partitionsa,b                                                                                             20                                           20
                                                  tested
NP: Not permitted.
a Fire doors are not required to have a hose stream test per NFPA 252, Standard Methods of Fire Tests of Door Assemblies; ASTM E 2074, Standard Test Method for
Fire Tests of Door Assemblies, Including Positive Pressure Testing of Side-Hinged and Pivoted Swinging Door Assemblies; ANSI/UL 10B, Standard for Fire Tests of
Door
Assemblies; or ANSI/UL 10C, Standard for Positive Pressure Fire Tests of Door Assemblies.
b For residential board and care, see 32.2.3.1 and 33.2.3.1.
c Fire resistance rated glazing tested to NFPA 251 shall be permitted in the maximum size tested.




                                             101/L228/Tb 8.3.4.2/A11/ROC
                                                          2

                                                                     Page 29 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                                   NFPA 101
Accordingly, the “T” designation for temperature rise doors has been left in the proposed marking system for that
application.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-99 Log #149a SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Robert J. Davidson, Davidson Code Concepts, LLC
                                 101-125
                         Keying on the current language in 7.2.6.2 and 13.3.1 for ‘existing’ wired glass installations, revise
as follows for clarification:
           Existing installations of W ired glass of ¼ in. (6 mm) thickness and labeled for fire protection purposes shall
be permitted to be used in approved opening protectives, provided that the maximum size specified by the listing is not
exceeded. Other glazing materials that have been tested, listed and labeled to indicate the type of opening to be
protected for fire protection purposes shall be permitted to be used in approved opening protectives in accordance with
Table 8.3.4.2 their listing, with the maximum sizes tested, and in sizes in accordance with NFPA 80.
                    In response to the Committee Statement the following changes were made to the proposal.
  The sections relating to “existing” installations are proposed to be modified by adding language clarifying that
application of these sections is limited to ‘existing’ wired glass installations and not intened to allow new installations.
The language proposed for addition was obtained by review of existing language found at sections 7.6.2.2 subsection
(2) and 13.3.1 subsection (4)(c) included below. This proposal will provide for improved correlation of various sections
relating to existing installations of wired glass.
                       . An exit passageway shall be separated from other parts of the building as specified in 7.1.3.2, and
the following alternatives shall be permitted:
  (1) Fire windows in accordance with 8.3.3 shall be permitted to be installed in the separation in a building protected
throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7.
  (2)          fixed wired glass panels in steel sash shall be permitted to be                     in the separation in
buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7.
                                             . Any vertical opening shall be enclosed or protected in accordance with
Section 8.6, unless otherwise permitted by the following:
  (1)* Stairs or ramps shall be permitted to be unenclosed between balconies or mezzanines and main assembly areas
located below, provided that the balcony or mezzanine is open to the main assembly area.
  (2) Exit access stairs from lighting and access catwalks, galleries, and gridirons shall not be required to be enclosed.
  (3) Assembly occupancies protected by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with
Section 9.7 shall be permitted to have unprotected vertical openings in accordance with 8.6.8.2.
  (4) Use of the following alternative materials shall be permitted where assemblies constructed of such materials are in
good repair and free of any condition that would diminish their original fire resistance characteristics:
  (a) Existing wood lath and plaster
  (b) Existing 1/2 in. (13 mm) gypsum wallboard
  (c)                        of ¼ in. (6.3 mm) thick wired glass that are, or are rendered, inoperative and fixed in the
closed position
  (d) Other existing materials having similar fire resistance capabilities




  Printed on 9/16/2010                                         12

                                              Page 30 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                              NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-100 Log #301 SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
                              101-177
                      Revise text to read as follows:
 Reconsider.
 8.5.2.4(3) Smoke Barrier Continuity – Single fire areas above or below stories penetrated by convenience openings on
the adjacent floor that are common to opposite sides of smoke barriers shall be enclosed with construction having a
smoke resistance rating at least equal to that of the smoke barrier.



                   Reconsider
  The proposal has been restated for clarity. The intent remains the same. If the conditions shown in the ROP artwork
are not permitted because the penetrated floor is a smoke barrier, then the penetrating openings are not permitted at all.
If the penetrated floor is not a smoke barrier, then the smoke barrier is in violation because it is not continuous to
another barrier or outside wall. Neither condition is addressed by 8.6.8 or 8.12.4.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-109 Log #91 SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Wayne Holmes, Burlington, NC
                             101-177a
                     Delete the last sentence of proposed 8.5.4.1. Continue to delete the word, undercuts, in the first
sentence.
 Add a new last sentence,
  "Clearance under the bottom of doors without a fire protection rating shall be in accordance with manufacturer's
specifications.
                  The proposed change to 8.5.4.1 would establish a maximum 3/4 inch clearance under smoke doors.
The substantiation states that the change is necessary for correlation with NFPA 80. The substantiation is incorrect and
does not support the establishment of a 3/4 maximum bottom clearance.
 Section 8.5 of NFPA 101 covers smoke barriers. Doors in smoke barriers which are not also fire barriers are not
required to comply with NFPA 80.
 The applicable NFPA standard on smoke doors is NFPA 105. The proposed 101-8.5.4.1 conflicts with 105-4.2.2.1
which does not specify a quantitative maximum clearance but rather states "Clearance for doors without a fire rating
shall be in accordance with manufacturer's specification."




  Printed on 9/16/2010                                       13

                                            Page 31 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                            NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-110 Log #92 SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Wayne Holmes, Burlington, NC
                             101-177b
                     Delete the last sentence of proposed 8.5.4.1. Continue to delete the word, undercuts, in the first
sentence.
  Add a new last sentence,
 "Clearance under the bottom of doors without a fire protection rating shall be in accordance with manufacturer's
specifications.
                  The proposed change to 8.5.4.1 would establish a maximum 3/4 inch clearance under smoke doors.
The substantiation states that the Code has permitted a 3/4 inch in both new and existing smoke barriers for many
editions . The substantiation is incorrect and does not support the establishment of a 3/4 maximum bottom clearance.
 Previous editions of NFPA 101 have never specified a maximum 3/4 inch clearance below either new or existing
smoke doors. Rather, previous editions have only required that clearances for smoke doors be the minimum clearance
necessary for proper operations.
 Section 8.5 of NFPA 101 covers smoke barriers. Not all doors in openings are required to have a fire protection rating.
Doors in smoke barriers which are not also fire barriers are not required to comply with NFPA 80.
 The applicable NFPA standard on smoke doors is NFPA 105. The proposed 101-8.5.4.1 conflicts with 105-4.2.2.1
which does not specify a quantitative maximum clearance but rather states "Clearance for doors without a fire rating
shall be in accordance with manufacturer's specification."




  Printed on 9/16/2010                                      14

                                           Page 32 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                                NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-111 Log #114 SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
          Tony Crimi, A.C. Consulting Solutions, Inc. / Rep. International Firestop Council
                           101-180
                   Revise text to read as follows:

           The provisions of 8.5.6 shall govern the materials and methods of construction used to protect
through-penetrations and membrane penetrations of smoke barriers.
           Penetrations for cables, cable trays, conduits, pipes, tubes, vents, wires, and similar items to accommodate
electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and communications systems that pass through a wall, floor, or floor/ceiling assembly
constructed as a smoke barrier, or through the ceiling membrane of the roof/ceiling of a smoke barrier assembly, shall
be protected by a system or material capable of restricting the transfer of smoke.
           Where doors in smoke barriers are required to be smoke leakage-rated by the requirements of Chapters 11
through 43, penetrations for cables, cable trays, conduits, pipes, tubes, vents, wires, and similar items to accommodate
electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and communications systems that pass through a wall, floor, or floor/ceiling assembly
constructed as a smoke barrier, or through the ceiling membrane of the roof/ceiling of a smoke barrier assembly, shall
be protected by a system or material tested in accordance with the requirements of UL 1479 for air leakage. The air
leakage rate (L-RATING) of the penetration assemblies measured at 0.30 inch (7.47 Pa) of water in both the ambient
temperature and elevated temperature tests, shall not exceed:
                                       3       2
  1. 5.0 cfm per square foot (0.025m / s .m ) of penetration opening for each                                           ; or
                                                     3                                  2
  2. A total cumulative leakage of 50 cfm (0.024m /s) for any 100 square feet (9.3 m ) of wall area, or floor area.
             Where a smoke barrier is also constructed as a fire barrier, the penetrations shall be protected in accordance
with the requirements of 8.3.5 to limit the spread of fire for a time period equal to the fire resistance rating of the
assembly and 8.5.6 to restrict the transfer of smoke, unless the requirements of 8.5.6.4 are met.
              Where sprinklers penetrate a single membrane of a fire resistance–rated assembly in buildings equipped
throughout with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, noncombustible escutcheon plates shall be permitted,
provided that the space around each sprinkler penetration does not exceed 1/2 in. (13 mm), measured between the
edge of the membrane and the sprinkler.
              Where the penetrating item uses a sleeve to penetrate the smoke barrier, the sleeve shall be securely set in
the smoke barrier, and the space between the item and the sleeve shall be filled with a material capable of restricting
the transfer of smoke in accordance with 8.5.6.2 or 8.5.6.3.
              Where designs take transmission of vibrations into consideration, any vibration isolation shall meet one of the
following conditions:
  (1) It shall be provided on either side of the smoke barrier.
  (2) It shall be designed for the specific purpose.
                               Currently, the Code lacks guidance on quantitative performance requirements for the
maximum total leakage that is acceptable for smoke barriers. In the absence of a comprehensive approach to
quantifying Smoke Barriers performance, the Life Safety Code already recognizes that there are instances in Chapters
11 through 43 where leakage rated doors and dampers are required. What is still lacking is identifying a performance
level that is realistic and achievable for joints and penetrations in Smoke Barriers.
                   : This proposed Code change is intended to improve the Code regarding the requirements for smoke
leakage through penetrations and joints in smoke barriers. In response to the Committee reason, the proposal has been
modified to only require leakage rated penetration where leakage rated doors are also required. In these cases, this
                                2
proposal would allow 5 cfm/ft for individual through penetrations as one option, and would also allow an alternative
requirement for the cumulative total leakage of all through-penetrations in a given area of smoke barrier.  This approach
is also used in other Building Codes.
  Another Committee comment related to the fact that the previous proposal was not limited to new buildings. Section
8.1.1 already requires that the features of fire protection set forth in Chapter 8 shall apply to both new construction and
existing buildings. However, the revised version of the proposal does differentiate this by reffering to the occupancy
Chapters to trigger the new requirement. In this way, the requirements would apply to either new or existing buildings,
depending upon the decision of the Committee’s in the individual occupancy chapters.




  Printed on 9/16/2010                                        15

                                             Page 33 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                                 NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-112 Log #115 SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
          Tony Crimi, A.C. Consulting Solutions, Inc. / Rep. International Firestop Council
                           101-181
                   Revise text to read as follows:

           The provisions of 8.5.7 shall govern the materials and methods of construction used to protect joints in
between and at the perimeter of smoke barriers or, where smoke barriers meet other smoke barriers, the floor or roof
deck above, or the outside walls. The provisions of 8.5.7 shall not apply to approved existing materials and methods of
construction used to protect existing joints in smoke barriers, unless otherwise required by Chapters 11 through 43.
           Joints made within, between, or at the perimeter of smoke barriers shall be protected with a joint system that is
capable of limiting the transfer of smoke tested in accordance with the requirements of UL 2079 for air leakage. The air
                                                                             3
leakage rate of the joint shall not exceed 5 cfm per lineal foot (0.00775 m /s .m) of joint at 0.30 inch (7.47 Pa) of water
for both the ambient temperature and elevated temperature tests.
  8.5.7.3 Joints made within or between smoke barriers shall be protected with a smoke-tight joint system that is capable
of limiting the transfer of smoke.
             Smoke barriers that are also constructed as fire barriers shall be protected with a joint system that is
designed and tested to resist the spread of fire for a time period equal to the required fire resistance rating of the
assembly and restrict the transfer of smoke in accordance with 8.5.7.2.
             Testing of the joint system in a smoke barrier that also serves as fire barrier shall be representative of the
actual installation suitable for the required engineering demand without compromising the fire resistance rating of the
assembly or the structural integrity of the assembly.
                               Currently, the Code lacks guidance on quantitative performance requirements for the
maximum total leakage that is acceptable for smoke barriers. In the absence of a comprehensive approach to
quantifying Smoke Barriers performance, the Life Safety Code already recognizes that there are instances in Chapters
11 through 43 where leakage rated doors and dampers are required. What is still lacking is identifying a performance
level that is realistic and achievable for joints and penetrations in Smoke Barriers.
                  : The Committee reason for rejection is incorrect. Firstly, the last sentence of 8.5.7.1 already states the
following:
  “The provisions of 8.5.7 shall not apply to approved existing materials and methods of construction used to protect
existing joints in smoke barriers, unless otherwise required by Chapters 11 through 43.”
  Consequently, the proposal does differentiate between new and existing construction by referring to the occupancy
Chapters to trigger the Joint leakage and Joint treatment requirement. In this way, the requirements could apply to
either new or existing buildings, depending upon the decision of the Committee’s in the individual occupancy chapters.
Existing approved methods can continue to be used as installed.
  This proposed Code change is intended to improve the Code regarding the requirements for smoke leakage through
penetrations and joints in smoke barriers. This type of requirement already exists in other US Building Codes.




  Printed on 9/16/2010                                        16

                                             Page 34 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                            NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-113 Log #243 SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
                               101-185
                       Revise text to read as follows:
 Reconsider.
 8.6.7.1 Where permitted by Chapters 11-43, where an atrium meeting all provisions of 8.6.7 is present and
appropriately located, occupancy separation shall not be required.
                   1 – As originally worded, the proposal allows the atrium to replace occupancy separation without
mention of location within the building relative to the occupancies and whether it is meant for vertical or horizontal
occupancy separation. It makes no distinction for occupancies of differing hazard levels.
 2 – As originally worded, an equivalency is implied between atria and occupancy separation, where the substantiation
has not technically documented an engineering equivalency.
 3 – The revised wording takes the proponents proposal only as far as the substantiation warrants.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-114 Log #286a SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
                               101-185
                       Reconsider.
 8.6.7.1 Where permitted by Chapters 11-43, where an atrium meeting all provisions of 8.6.7 is present and
appropriately located, occupancy separation shall not be required.
                   1 – As originally worded, the proposal allows the atrium to replace occupancy separation without
mention of location within the building relative to the occupancies and whether it is meant for vertical or horizontal
occupancy separation. It makes no distinction for occupancies of differing hazard levels.
 2 – As originally worded, an equivalency is implied between atria and occupancy separation, where the substantiation
has not technically documented an engineering equivalency.
 3 – The revised wording takes the proponents proposal only as far as the substantiation warrants.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-116 Log #277a SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
                               101-185
                       Reconsider.
 8.6.7.1 Where permitted by Chapters 11-43, where an atrium meeting all provisions of 8.6.7 is present and
appropriately located, occupancy separation shall not be required.
                   1 – As originally worded, the proposal allows the atrium to replace occupancy separation without
mention of location within the building relative to the occupancies and whether it is meant for vertical or horizontal
occupancy separation. It makes no distinction for occupancies of differing hazard levels.
 2 – As originally worded, an equivalency is implied between atria and occupancy separation, where the substantiation
has not technically documented an engineering equivalency.
 3 – The revised wording takes the proponents proposal only as far as the substantiation warrants.




  Printed on 9/16/2010                                      17

                                           Page 35 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                             NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-118 Log #33 SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life,
                              101-185a
                      Reconsider the proposal in light of member Holmes’ Explanation of Negative. If the action of
Accept is to be retained, provide technical justification for the significant technical change.
                  The egress time for a protect-in-place occupancy like health care may be more than 20 minutes. The
change from “whichever is greater” to “whichever is less” would result in 20 minutes of required performance of the
smoke control system in an atrium of a hospital, for example.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-119 Log #128 SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Eugene A. Cable, Life Safety Engineering
                               101-189
                      Revise text to read as follows;
  3) Such openings shall be separated from corridors, and when corridors are not provided, be separated from the
means of egress by which occupants outside the communicating space have to reach an exit.
                   Appreciate Mr. Kapalczynski’s comment.
  This is another attempt to provide language to prohibit a convenience opening from exposing the only means of egress
from other space. I submit that without the corridor (modern open floor design) we would essentially be violating current
Code item (5) “Such openings shall not serve as a required means of egress”. That was originally understood to prohibit
the convenience stair as a vertical and only means of egress. If we must pass through the vertical opening space in
horizontal travel to get to an exit that is no different than traveling vertically within the opening to get to an exit.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-120 Log #275 SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
                              101-190
                      Revise text as follows:
  Reconsider.
  Any convenience stairway connecting more than two stories
                    Escalator openings are understood to be sized for escalators while convenience stairs could
legitimately be placed in much larger convenience openings. The language of 8.6.8, 8.12.4 does not permit convenience
stairs connecting more than two stories.




  Printed on 9/16/2010                                      18

                                            Page 36 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                               NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-121 Log #102 SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
              Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development Committee
                                101-193a
                        Revise to read:
                                                       Where permitted by Chapters 11 through 43, alcohol-based hand-rub
dispensers shall permitted provided they meet all of the following criteria:
  (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
  (2) 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,
  (3) Dispensers shall be separated from each other by horizontal spacing of not less than 48 in. (1220 mm).
  (4) Not more than an aggregate 10 gal (37.8 L) of alcohol-based hand-rub solution or 1135 oz (32.2 kg) of Level 1
aerosols, or a combination of liquids and Level 1 aerosols not to exceed, in total, the equivalent of 10 gal (37.8 L) or
1135 oz (32.2 kg,) shall be in use outside of a storage cabinet in a single smoke compartment or fire compartment.
  (5) Storage of quantities greater than 5 gal (18.9 L) in a single smoke compartment or fire compartment shall meet the
requirements of NFPA 30,                                                  .
  (6) Dispensers shall not be installed in the following locations:
  (a) Above an ignition source for a horizontal distance of 1 in. (25 mm) to each side of the ignition source
  (b) To the side of an ignition source within a 1 in. (25 mm) horizontal distance from the ignition source
  (c) Beneath an ignition source within a 1 in. (25 mm) vertical distance from the ignition source
  (7) Dispensers installed in corridors or areas open to corridors directly over carpeted floors shall be permitted only in
sprinklered areas of the building.
  (8) The alcohol-based hand-rub solution shall not exceed 95 percent alcohol content by volume.
  (9) Operation of the dispenser shall comply with the following criteria:
  (a) The dispenser shall not release its contents except when the dispenser is activated, either manually or
automatically by touch-free activation.
  (b) Any activation of the dispenser shall only occur when an object is placed within 4 in. (100 mm) of the sensing
device.
  (c) An object placed within the activation zone and left in place shall not cause more than one activation.
  (d) The dispenser shall not dispense more solution than the amount required for hand hygiene consistent with label
instructions
  (e) The dispenser shall be designed, constructed and operated in a manner that ensures accidental or malicious
activation of the dispensing device are minimized.
  (f) The dispenser shall be tested in accordance with the manufacturer’s care and use instructions each time a new refill
is installed.
                    The introduction of flammable liquids in the form of alcohol-based hand sanitizer dispensers should be
carefully regulated when placed in an egress corridor or spaces exposed to corridors. The presence of a fire sprinkler
system can help protect occupants in the event of a fire emergency and should be required at a minimum.




  Printed on 9/16/2010                                       19

                                             Page 37 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                                NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-122 Log #133 SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
               James K. Lathrop, Koffel Associates, Inc.
                                  101-193a
                         Revise text to read as follows:
                                                       Where permitted by Chapters 11 through 43, alcohol-based hand-rub
dispensers shall permitted provided they meet all of the following criteria:
  (1) 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 rooms or suites of rooms
  (2) 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,
  (3) Dispensers shall be separated from each other by horizontal spacing of not less than 48 in. (1220 mm).
  (4) Not more than an aggregate 10 gal (37.8 L) of alcohol-based hand-rub solution or 1135 oz (32.2 kg) of Level 1
aerosols, or a combination of liquids and Level 1 aerosols not to exceed, in total, the equivalent of 10 gal (37.8 L) or
1135 oz (32.2 kg,) shall be in use outside of a storage cabinet in a single smoke Compartment, or fire compartment or
story whichever is less in area. One dispenser complying with 8.7.3.3 (1) per room and located in that room shall not be
included in the aggregated quantity
  (5) Storage of quantities greater than 5 gal (18.9 L) in a single smoke compartment or fire compartment or story,
whichever is less in area, shall meet the requirements of NFPA 30,                                                   .
  (6) Dispensers shall not be installed in the following locations:
   (a) Above an ignition source for a horizontal distance of 1 in. (25 mm) to each side of the ignition source
   (b) To the side of an ignition source within a 1 in. (25 mm) horizontal distance from the ignition source
   (c) Beneath an ignition source within a 1 in. (25 mm) vertical distance from the ignition source
  (7) Dispensers installed directly over carpeted floors shall be permitted only in sprinklered areas of the building.
  (8) The alcohol-based hand-rub solution shall not exceed 95 percent alcohol content by volume.
  (9) Operation of the dispenser shall comply with the following criteria:
   (a) The dispenser shall not release its contents except when the dispenser is activated, either manually or
automatically by touch-free activation.
   (b) Any activation of the dispenser shall only occur when an object is placed within 4 in. (100 mm) of the sensing
device.
   (c) An object placed within the activation zone and left in place shall not cause more than one activation.
   (d) The dispenser shall not dispense more solution than the amount required for hand hygiene consistent with label
instructions
   (e) The dispenser shall be designed, constructed and operated in a manner that ensures accidental or malicious
activation of the dispensing device are minimized.
   (f) The dispenser shall be tested in accordance with the manufacturer’s care and use instructions each time a new
refill is installed.
               The total quantities of flammable liquids in any area should comply with the provisions of other recognized
codes, including NFPA 1,                  , and NFPA 30,                                            . In addition, special
consideration should be given to the following:
  (1) Obstructions created by the installation of hand-rub solution dispensers
  (2) Location of dispensers with regard to adjacent combustible materials and potential sources of ignition, especially
where dispensers are mounted on walls of combustible construction
  (3) Requirements for other fire protection features, including complete automatic sprinkler protection, to be installed
throughout the compartment
  (4) Amount and location of the flammable solutions, both in use and in storage, particularly with respect to potential for
leakage or failure of the dispenser
                     Most of the modifications are to make this compatible with other occupancies beyond health care.
Many buildings do not have fire rated separations between stories, so “stories” need to be added to the smoke barrier,
fire barrier list. The one technical change deals with a common problem today especially in emergency rooms and
clinics. Where dispensers are put in the corridor and each individual room the 10 gallon limit is a common violation. The
big concern is dispensers in the corridor, so small dispensers within individual rooms should be exempted from the
“total” calculation. Each of these “exempted” containers would be located in a separate room. The cumulative effect of

  Printed on 9/16/2010                                        20

                                             Page 38 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                         NFPA 101
such containers is basically a non-issue.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-326 Log #84 SAF-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International
                             101-431
                     Revise text to read as follows:
 D.1.2.6 ASTM Publications. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA
19428-2959. www.astm.org
 ASTM C 1629/C 1629M, Standard Classification for Abuse-Resistant Nondecorated Interior Gypsum Panel Products
and Fiber-Reinforced Cement Panels, 2006 .
 ASTM D 2859, Standard Test Method for Ignition Characteristics of Finished Textile Floor Covering Materials, 2006.
 ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, 2010 2009a
 ASTM E 119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, 2009c 2008a.
 ASTM E 814, Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Through-Penetration Fire Stops, 2010 2008b.
 ASTM E 1352, Standard Test Method for Cigarette Ignition Resistance of Mock-Up Upholstered Furniture Assemblies,
2008a .
 ASTM E 1353, Standard Test Methods for Cigarette Ignition Resistance of Components of Upholstered Furniture,
2008a .
 ASTM E 1355, Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability of Deterministic Fire Models, 2005a .
 ASTM E 1472, Standard Guide for Documenting Computer Software for Fire Models, 2007.
 ASTM E 1537, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Upholstered Furniture, 2007 .
  ASTM E 1590, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Mattresses, 2007.
  ASTM E 1966 Standard Test Method for Fire-Resistive Joint Systems, 2007 .
  ASTM E 2030, Standard Guide for Recommended Uses of Photoluminescent (Phosphorescent) Safety Markings,
2009a 2008.
 ASTM E 2174, Standard Practice for On-Site Inspection of Installed Fire Stops, 2009 2004.
 ASTM E 2238, Standard Guide for Evacuation Route Diagrams, 2002.
 ASTM E 2307, Standard Test Method for Determining Fire Resistance of Perimeter Fire Barrier Systems Using
Intermediate-Scale, Multi-Story Test Apparatus, 2010 2004 e1.
 ASTM E 2393, Standard Practice for On-Site Inspection of Installed Fire Resistive Joint Systems and Perimeter Fire
Barriers, 2010 2004.
 ASTM E 2484, Standard Specification for Multi-Story Building External Evacuation Controlled Descent Devices, 2008 .
 ASTM E 2513, Standard Specification for Multi-Story Building External Evacuation Platform Rescue Systems, 2007.
 ASTM F 1637, Standard Practice for Safe Walking Surfaces, 2009 2007.
 ASTM F 1870, Standard Guide for Selection of Fire Test Methods for the Assessment of Upholstered Furnishings in
Detention and Correctional Facilities, 2005.
                  ASTM standards update, per ASTM web site August 12, 2010. The commenter requests that NFPA
staff checks the most recent editions at the time of the code going to print.




  Printed on 9/16/2010                                    21

                                            Page 39 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                              NFPA 5000
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-18 Log #35 BLD-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
           Technical Correlating Committee on Building Code,
                             5000-36
                      Review the actions taken on Proposal 5000-37 by BLD-SCM to ensure there is a consistent
treatment of this subject. The current text is for foam plastic and the new term is for foam plastic insulation. The
committee should consider retaining the current term and its definition in addition to adding the new term.
                   Several TC members voted negatively or abstained on this item indicating they had not had the
chance to review the actions taken by BLD-SCM. In addition, there are other uses for foam plastic materials beyond just
serving as an insulating material.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-19 Log #36 BLD-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
           Technical Correlating Committee on Building Code,
                              5000-37
                     Review the actions taken on Proposal 5000-37 to ensure there is a consistent treatment of this
subject. The current text is for foam plastic and the new term is for foam plastic insulation. The committee should
consider retaining the current term and its definition in addition to adding the new term.
                  There are other uses for foam plastic materials beyond just serving as an insulating material.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-20 Log #7 BLD-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International / Rep. American Fire Safety Council
                               5000-36
                       Revise definition to read as follows:
 3.3.46.3* Thermal Barrier. A material that limits the average temperature rise of an unexposed surface to not more
than 250°F (139°C) for a specified fire exposure complying with the standard time–temperature curve of NFPA 251,
Standard Methods of Tests of Fire Resistance of Building Construction and Materials. A material, product, or assembly
that prevents or delays ignition of an unexposed surface by limiting the temperature rise and by acting as a flame
exposure barrier for a 15-minute time period.
A.3.3.46.3 Thermal Barrier. Finish ratings, as published in the UL Fire Resistance Directory, are one way of determining
thermal barrier. A test method developed in order to assess whether a material, product, or assembly constitutes a
thermal barrier (NFPA 275) requires thermal barriers to meet both a test for fire resistance (which limits temperature rise
on the unexposed side) and for reaction-to-fire (intended to prevent or delay ignition of the material on the unexposed
side). The reaction to fire test can be NFPA 286, FM 4880, UL 1040 or UL 1715.
                    With the development of NFPA 275 the existing definition of thermal barrier is no longer correct
because thermal barriers both limit the temperature rise and act as a flame exposure barrier, to delay or prevent ignition.
The definition and the proposed annex note have been amended to clarify this. This makes the definition more generic.
  For information: thermal barrier is referred to in NFPA 5000 in the following locations: 26.2.3.6.1 (where it applies more
generically than to foam plastic), 37.4.4 (where it applies to MCMs; NFPA 275 applies also to MCMs), 48.3.3 (where it
applies to foam plastics), 48.4.1.3 (where it applies to foam plastics), 48.4.1.8.3 (which refers back to 48.3.3) and 48.4.3
(where it applies to foam plastics).
  The technical committee should consider whether the revised definition of thermal barrier applies to section 26.2.3.6.1.
The commenter believes it does.
In view of the TCC comment and the fact that the committee on Fire Protection Features did not see the action of the
committee on Structures, Construction, and Materials, this comment is directed at both committees; they acted on
proposals 5000-36 and 5000-37 respectively.




  Printed on 9/16/2010                                        1

                                             Page 40 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                            NFPA 5000
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-36 Log #13 BLD-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
           Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International / Rep. American Fire Safety Council
                               5000-72
                       Revise text to read as follows:
 4.5.10 Noncombustible material
 4.5.10.1* A material that complies with the requirements of either 4.5.10.2 or 4.5.10.3 shall be considered a
noncombustible material.
 4.5.10.2 A material that is reported as passing ASTM E 136,
                                           , shall be considered a noncombustible material.
 4.5.10.3 4.5.10.2 A material that is reported as complying with the pass/fail criteria of ASTM E 136 when tested in
accordance with the test method and procedure in ASTM E 2652,
                                                                         , shall be considered a noncombustible material.
 4.5.10.4 4.5.10.3 Where the term limited-combustible is used in this Code, it shall also include noncombustible.
 A.4.5.10.1 It is not necessary to conduct tests to both ASTM E 136 and ASTM E 2652.
                   The revised wording should resolve the concern of James Lathrop and clarify that only one of the tests
needs to be conducted and not both.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-47 Log #45 BLD-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
           Technical Correlating Committee on Building Code,
                              5000-78
                      The committee is asked to review the action taken by BLD-BLC on proposal 5000-80a and
determine if the changes proposed are consistent with Chapter 8.
                  It appears as though the committee intended to coordinate the provisions of Section 8.16.1 with
changes proposed for Chapter 7. No specific language was acted on BLD-BLC thus there is a need to finalize that
language.




  Printed on 9/16/2010                                       2

                                            Page 41 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                             NFPA 5000
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-56 Log #19a BLD-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International / Rep. American Fire Safety Council
                                5000-78
                        Revise text to read as follows:
  7.2.3.2.14 Ceiling and Raised Floor Plenums. The space between the top of the finished ceiling and the underside of
the floor or roof above and the space between the top of the finished floor and the underside of a raised floor Plenums*
shall be permitted to be used to supply air to the occupied area or return and exhaust air from the occupied area,
provided that the requirements of 7.2.3.2.15 through 7.2.3.2.21 7.2.3.2.20 are met.
A.7.2.3.2.14 NFPA 90A recognizes the following types of plenums: ceiling cavity plenum, apparatus casing plenum,
air-handling room plenum and raised floor plenum. The requirements in NFPA 90A are different for each type of plenum
and Chapter 3 of this code shows definitions for each type of plenum.
7.2.3.2.15 Plenum Materials Combustibility. Materials within a ceiling cavity plenum exposed to the airflow shall comply
with the requirements of section 4.3.11 of NFPA 90A be noncombustible or comply with one of the following.
[90A:4.3.11.2.6]
7.2.3.2.15.1 Electrical wires and cables and optical fiber cables shall be listed as having a maximum peak optical
density of 0.5 or less, an average optical density of 0.15 or less, and a maximum flame spread distance of 60 in. (1500
mm) or less when tested in accordance with NFPA 262, Standard Method of Test for Flame Travel and Smoke of Wires
and Cables for Use in Air-Handling Spaces or shall be installed in metal raceways, metal sheathed cable, or totally
enclosed non-ventilated busway. [90A:4.3.11.2.6.1]
7.2.3.2.15.2 Pneumatic tubing for control systems shall be listed as having a maximum peak optical density of 0.5 or
less, an average optical density of 0.15 or less, and a maximum flame spread distance of 60 in. (1500 mm) or less when
tested in accordance with ANSI/UL 1820, Standard for Safety Fire Test of Pneumatic Tubing for Flame and Smoke
Characteristics. [90A:4.3.11.2.6.2]
7.2.3.2.15.3 Nonmetallic fire sprinkler piping shall be listed as having a maximum peak optical density of 0.5 or less, an
average optical density of 0.15 or less, and a maximum flame spread distance of 60 in. (1500 mm) or less when tested
in accordance with ANSI/UL 1887, Standard for Safety Fire Test of Plastic Sprinkler Pipe for Visible Flame and Smoke
Characteristics. [90A:4.3.11.2.6.3]
7.2.3.2.15.4 Optical-fiber and communication raceways shall be listed as having a maximum peak optical density of 0.5
or less, an average optical density of 0.15 or less, and a maximum flame spread distance of 60 in. (1500 mm) or less
when tested in accordance with ANSI/UL 2024, Standard for Optical-Fiber and Communications Cable Raceway.
[90A:4.3.11.2.6.4]
7.2.3.2.15.5 Loudspeaker recessed lighting fixture and other electrical equipment with combustible enclosures,
including their assemblies and accessories, cable ties, and other discrete products shall be permitted in the ceiling
cavity plenum where listed as having a maximum peak optical density of 0.5 or less, an average optical density of 0.15
or less, and a peak heat release rate of 100 kW or less when tested in accordance with UL 2043, Standard for Fire Test
for Heat and Visible Smoke Release for Discrete Products and Their Accessories Installed in Air-Handling Spaces.
[90A:4.3.11.2.6.5]
7.2.3.2.15.6 Supplementary materials for air distribution systems shall be permitted when complying with the provisions
of 4.3.3 of NFPA 90A, Standard for the Installation of Air-Conditioning and Ventilating Systems. [90A:4.3.11.2.6.6]
7.2.3.2.15.7 Smoke detectors shall not be required to meet the provisions of 7.2.3.2.15. [90A:4.3.11.2.6.7]
7.2.3.2.15.8 Fire-retardant-treated wood complying with Chapter 45 shall be permitted.
7.2.3.2.16 Wall or ceiling finish in plenums shall comply with section 4.3.11.6 of NFPA 90A.
7.2.3.2.16 7.2.3.2.17 Plenum Fire Stopping. The integrity of the fire stopping for penetrations shall be maintained.
7.2.3.2.17 7.2.3.2.18 Plenum Light Diffusers. Light diffusers, other than those made of metal or glass, used in
air-handling light fixtures shall be listed and marked as follows:
Fixture Light Diffusers for Air-Handling Fixtures
7.2.3.2.18 7.2.3.2.19 Plenum Air Temperature. The temperature of air delivered to plenums shall not exceed 250°F
(121°C).
7.2.3.2.19 7.2.3.2.20 Plenum Materials Exposure. Materials used in the construction of a plenum shall be suitable for
continuous exposure to the temperature and humidity conditions of the environmental air in the plenum.
7.2.3.2.20 7.2.3.2.21 Ceiling Plenum Tested Assembly. Where the plenum is a part of a floor/ceiling or roof/ceiling
assembly that has been tested or investigated and assigned a fire resistance rating of 1 hour or more, and the assembly
contains air ducts and openings for air ducts, all the materials and the construction of the assembly, including the air

  Printed on 9/16/2010                                       3

                                            Page 42 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                            NFPA 5000
duct materials and the size and protection of the openings, shall conform with the design of the fire resistance–rated
assembly, as tested in accordance with NFPA 251, Standard Methods of Tests of Fire Resistance of Building
Construction and Materials; ASTM E 119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials;
or UL 263, Standard for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials.
48.4.3* Plenums. The use of foam plastic insulation as wall or ceiling finish in plenums shall comply with section
4.3.11.6 of NFPA 90A. be permitted where the insulation meets one of the following criteria:
(1) The foam plastic insulation complies with 48.3.2.1 and is separated from the plenum by a thermal barrier complying
with 48.3.3.
(2) The foam plastic insulation has a flame spread index of 25 or less and a smoke developed index of 50 or less when
tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL 723 and meets one of the following criteria:
(a) The foam plastic is separated from the plenum by a thermal barrier complying with 48.3.3.
(b) The foam plastic is approved based on tests conducted in accordance with 48.4.4.
(3) The foam plastic insulation complies with 48.3.2.1 and is covered by corrosion-resistant steel having a base metal
thickness of not less than 0.016 in. (0.4 mm) and meets one of the following:
(a) The foam plastic is separated from the plenum by a thermal barrier complying with 48.3.3.
(b) The foam plastic is approved based on tests conducted in accordance with 48.4.4.
A.48.4.3 These requirements are consistent with the requirements in section 7.2.3.2.17 of this code.
Also, add the following definitions into chapter 3:
Air-Handling Unit Room Plenum. An individual room containing an air-handling unit(s) used to gather air from various
sources and combine the air within the room for returning to the air-handling unit. [90A: 3.3.22.1]
Apparatus Casing Plenum. A sheet metal construction attached directly to a fan enclosure, fan coil unit, air-handling
unit, or furnace bonnet for the purpose of connecting distribution ducts. [90A: 3.3.22.2]
Ceiling Cavity Plenum. The space between the top of the finished ceiling and the underside of the floor or roof above
where used to supply air to the occupied area, or to return or exhaust air from the occupied area. [90A: 3.3.22.3]
Raised Floor Plenum. The space between the top of the finished floor and the underside of a raised floor where used to
supply air to the occupied area, or to return or exhaust air from the occupied area. [90A: 3.3.22.4]
                     NFPA Standards Council specified that NFPA 90A has primary jurisdiction over materials in plenums.
The text contained in present sections 7.2.3.2.14 through 7.2.3.2.20 and that contained in present section 48.4.3 of
NFPA 5000 is not consistent with either the 2009 or the upcoming 2012 editions of NFPA 90A. This needs to be
changed. Moreover, the requirements for Wall or Ceiling Finish in Plenums (from 4.3.11.6 of NFPA 90A and its
subsections) are missing in NFPA 5000 or are incorrect in 48.4.3. The permission to use fire retardant treated wood in
7.2.3.2.15.8 is not consistent with the requirements in NFPA 90A. Finally, the requirements in NFPA 90A are different
for each of the four types of plenums recognized by NFPA 90A.
This comment deletes all the specific requirements and refers to section 4.3.11 of NFPA 90A. A section on wall or
ceiling finish in plenums is added (simply with reference to section 4.3.11.6 of NFPA 90A) because wall or ceiling finish
in plenums is treated as a separate section within NFPA 90A and not within the individual plenum sections. This
section, which addresses material combustibility, is placed before the other sections already contained in NFPA 5000,
which are not associated with material combustibility or with NFPA 90A.
This comment is made to proposals 5000-76, 5000-77, 5000-78 and 5000-80a and the legislative text is based on the
existing text in NFPA 5000 rather than on the revisions proposed by the technical committee on building construction, in
view of the various TCC notes. If this comment is accepted, the section on plenum materials will be shorter and
completely consistent with NFPA 90A.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-77 Log #56 BLD-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
           Technical Correlating Committee on Building Code,
                              5000-92
                    The committee is asked to review the action on this proposal given the final action on Proposal
5000-93 of Reject.
                 Proposal 5000-93 failed the letter ballot phase of voting thus the reported action is Reject. The
change in Section 8.2.1.3 is related thus it should be re-evaluated during the comment period.




  Printed on 9/16/2010                                       4

                                            Page 43 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                             NFPA 5000
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-78 Log #153 BLD-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
                                5000-93
                        New text to read as follows:
 Reconsider.
                    Although the negative votes substantiate that the code does not recognize this concept, the fact that
the concept is still frequently misunderstood and misapplied by design professionals, product manufacturers, and code
enforcers indicates that the concept is not easily discerned from the present code language. Acknowledging that the
means of addressing this issue correctly is found in Chapter 1, additional language and annex explanations can direct
users to the proper sections of the code.




  Printed on 9/16/2010                                        5

                                            Page 44 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                                NFPA 5000
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-79 Log #1 BLD-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________




              Tony Crimi, A.C. Consulting Solutions, Inc. / Rep. International Firestop Council
                                5000-93
                        Add new text to read as follows:
                etermination of the fire resistance rating of structural elements and building assemblies in 8.2.3.1 shall be
independent of automatic fire suppression systems unless evaluated as an equivalency in accordance with Section 1.4
or as part of a performance-based option in accordance with Chapter 5.
                NFPA 251, ANSI/UL 263, and ASTM E119 are considered nationally recognized methods of determining
fire resistance and have been found to yield equivalent test results. Assemblies tested in accordance with these fire-
resistance test Standards provide passive fire protection. The test procedures set forth in these Standards make no
provision for testing automatic fire suppression systems or water sprays in conjunction with structural members or
assemblies tested in vertical or horizontal fire resistance furnaces.
                               There is the potential for misuse of long established fire-resistance test Standards relied
upon in the Code to determine performance of elements and assemblies tested as systems in conjunction with
dedicated active suppression systems. NFPA 251, UL 263, and ASTM E119 do not make provision for testing of these
types of combined active and passive fire protection systems.
                     The proposed language is consistent with Section 8.2.3.1 in that it would require a specific approval
by the Authority Having Jurisdiction using either the equivalency or performance-based options permitted by the Code.
Since some material manufacturers have begun to submit test reports to Authorities Having Jurisdiction claiming to have
“fire-resistance ratings” that are derived from modified standard tests using a flow of cooling water during the fire test, it
now becomes important to clarify that the code-required fire resistance rating is in fact a property that is meant to
represent the inherent resistance to fire without the assistance of cooling flows. In countless instances, the code already
incorporates the risk-reducing effect of a fire suppression system by reducing the fire-resistance requirements, and often
by reducing many other required safety measures as well.
  The possibility of reducing some code requirements based on the improved behavior of an assembly when subjected
to a cooling water flow can already be done via Alternative protection methods as allowed by Section 1.4, or by
evaluation as a performance-based option in Chapter 5. Thus, the only impact of this code change is to prevent a
manufacturer of products from claiming an inflated fire resistance rating based on the long established recognized fire
resistance test Standards mandated by the Code. The code change would not restrict anyone from proving that the
addition of a cooling and/or extinguishing water flow can reduce some other requirement in the code.
  It has never been the intent of either the Codes or the fire resistance testing Standards to incorporate the fire
suppression system as part of the fire resistance rating of a building element, component or assembly. It would not be
acceptable to have a fire-resistance rating that is determined during a test using a cooling flow, since a fire resistive
assembly is usually required by the Code in order to provide a an inherent passive level of fire protection that is
expected to provide a required level of fire protection if if sprinkler protection were to become disabled, impaired, or
diminished. The notion of multiple safeguards and “Balanced Fire Protection” is not new to the Codes. It has long been
a basic tenet that the design of every building or structure intended for human occupancy shall be such that reliance for
safety to life does not depend solely on any single safeguard. Additional safeguards are provided for life safety in case
any single safeguard is ineffective due to inappropriate human actions or system failure.
  The resulting cooling-enhanced fire resistance rating then provides a result that would be incompatible with the
required fire resistance ratings specified throughout the I-Codes. The various fire resistance ratings mandated
throughout dozens of articles in the Code have been established based on an assumption of the type of construction
that would pass the standardized tests without the aid of water cooling during fire exposure. For example, a relatively
thin and un-insulated metal panel wall with suitable water cooling could potentially be arranged to pass a 1-hour
standardized fire-resistance test, and possibly even longer duration fire-resistance tests. However, where the Code
specifies the need for a 1-hour assembly, the intent in the development of that code provision would have clearly been
to have an assembly that could survive a fire without being breached and without losing any load-bearing capabilities all
by itself, without relying on an external water source for continued cooling. If sprinkler protection was also required for
such occupancy, then the overall intent of the Code is to have these two systems act independently, but in concert with
each other.

  Printed on 9/16/2010                                         6

                                              Page 45 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                             NFPA 5000



_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-80 Log #154 BLD-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
                                5000-94
                        New text to read as follows:
 Reconsider.
                    Although the negative votes substantiate that the code does not recognize this concept, the fact that
the concept is still frequently misunderstood and misapplied by design professionals, product manufacturers, and code
enforcers indicates that the concept is not easily discerned from the present code language. Acknowledging that the
means of addressing this issue correctly is found in Chapter 1, additional language and annex explanations can direct
users to the proper sections of the code.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-83 Log #58 BLD-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Technical Correlating Committee on Building Code,
                              5000-96b
                      The committee is asked to review the recommendation in this proposal to determine if the language
is consistent with NFPA 80 or NFPA 105 as pointed out in the negative ballot.
                   The provisions of Chapter 8 should not be in conflict with NFPA 80 or NFPA 105. Alternatively, if the
committee follows the Standards Council Policy that allows an occupancy based committee to provide different
requirements from what the installation standards require, that approach can be considered. The Standards Council
policy on actions that an occupancy document committee needs to take if it wants to deviate from an installation
document must be followed.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-84 Log #59 BLD-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Technical Correlating Committee on Building Code,
                              5000-96d
                      The committee is asked to review the recommendation in this proposal to determine if the language
is consistent with NFPA 80 or NFPA 105 as pointed out in the negative ballot.
                   The provisions of Chapter 8 should not be in conflict with NFPA 80 or NFPA 105. Alternatively, if the
committee follows the Standards Council Policy that allows an occupancy based committee to provide different
requirements from what the installation standards require, that approach can be considered. The Standards Council
policy on actions that an occupancy document committee needs to take if it wants to deviate from an installation
document must be followed.




  Printed on 9/16/2010                                        7

                                            Page 46 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                              NFPA 5000
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-85 Log #152 BLD-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
           Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
                                5000-97
                        Revise text to read as follows:
 Reconsider.
 8.11.2.x Smoke Barrier Continuity – Single fire areas above or below stories penetrated by convenience openings on
the adjacent floor that are common to opposite sides of smoke barriers shall be enclosed with construction having a
smoke resistance at least equal to that of the smoke barrier.
                    The proposal has been restated for clarity. The intent remains the same. If the conditions shown in the
ROP artwork are not permitted because the penetrated floor is a smoke barrier, then the penetrating openings are not
permitted at all. If the penetrated floor is not a smoke barrier, then the smoke barrier is in violation because it is not
continuous to another barrier or outside wall. Neither condition is addressed by 8.12.4.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-94 Log #68 BLD-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Technical Correlating Committee on Building Code,
                               5000-97a
                      Reconsider the action on this proposal to determine if latching is required or not. Section 8.11.4.2
(3) appears to not require the latching hardware but implies that the occupancy chapters can offer a different option.
The Occupancy Chapter TCs should review their chapter provisions applicable to smoke barriers and, if it is the TC’s
desire, revise text so as to specifically require latching in the appropriate locations.
                   The occupancy chapters might need to be correlated with the change made to 8.11.4.2(3).




  Printed on 9/16/2010                                        8

                                             Page 47 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                                NFPA 5000
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-95 Log #113 BLD-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
          Tony Crimi, A.C. Consulting Solutions, Inc. / Rep. International Firestop Council
                           5000-98
                   Revise text to read as follows:

             The provisions of 8.11.5 shall govern the materials and methods of construction used to protect
through-penetrations and membrane penetrations of smoke barriers.
             Penetrations for cables, cable trays, conduits, pipes, tubes, vents, wires, and similar items to accommodate
electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and communications systems that pass through a wall, floor, or floor/ceiling assembly
constructed as a smoke barrier, or through the ceiling membrane of the roof/ceiling of a smoke barrier assembly, shall
be protected by a system or material capable of restricting the transfer of smoke.
              Where doors in smoke barriers are required to be smoke leakage-rated by the requirements of Chapters 11
through 43, penetrations for cables, cable trays, conduits, pipes, tubes, vents, wires, and similar items to accommodate
electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and communications systems that pass through a wall, floor, or floor/ceiling assembly
constructed as a smoke barrier, or through the ceiling membrane of the roof/ceiling of a smoke barrier assembly, shall
be protected by a system or material tested in accordance with the requirements of UL 1479 for air leakage. The air
leakage rate (L-RATING) of the penetration assemblies measured at 0.30 inch (7.47 Pa) of water in both the ambient
temperature and elevated temperature tests, shall not exceed:
                                       3       2
  1. 5.0 cfm per square foot (0.025m / s .m ) of penetration opening for each through-penetration firestop system; or
                                                     3                                  2
  2. A total cumulative leakage of 50 cfm (0.024m /s) for any 100 square feet (9.3 m ) of wall area, or floor area.
               Where a smoke barrier is also constructed as a fire barrier, the penetrations shall be protected in
accordance with the requirements of 8.3.5 to limit the spread of fire for a time period equal to the fire resistance rating of
the assembly and 8.8 to restrict the transfer of smoke, unless the requirements of 8.11.5 are met.
                Where sprinklers penetrate a single membrane of a fire resistance–rated assembly in buildings equipped
throughout with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, noncombustible escutcheon plates shall be permitted,
provided that the space around each sprinkler penetration does not exceed 1/2 in. (13 mm), measured between the
edge of the membrane and the sprinkler.
                Where the penetrating item uses a sleeve to penetrate the smoke barrier, the sleeve shall be securely set in
the smoke barrier, and the space between the item and the sleeve shall be filled with a material capable of restricting
the transfer of smoke in accordance with 8.11.5.2 or 8.11.5.3.
                Where designs take transmission of vibrations into consideration, any vibration isolation shall meet one of
the following conditions:
  (1) It shall be provided on either side of the smoke barrier.
  (2) It shall be designed for the specific purpose.
                               Currently, the Code lacks guidance on quantitative performance requirements for the
maximum total leakage that is acceptable for smoke barriers. In the absence of a comprehensive approach to
quantifying Smoke Barriers performance, the Building Construction and Life Safety Code already recognizes that there
are instances in Chapters 11 through 43 where leakage rated doors and dampers are required. What is still lacking is
identifying a performance level that is realistic and achievable for joints and penetrations in Smoke Barriers.
                   : This proposed Code change is intended to improve the Code regarding the requirements for smoke
leakage through penetrations and joints in smoke barriers. In response to the Committee reason, the proposal has been
modified to only require leakage rated penetration where leakage rated doors are also required. In these cases, this
                                2
proposal would allow 5 cfm/ft for individual through penetrations as one option, and would also allow an alternative
requirement for the cumulative total leakage of all through-penetrations in a given area of smoke barrier.  This approach
is also used in other Building Codes.
  Another Committee comment related to the fact that the previous proposal was not limited to new buildings. Since
NFPA 5000 predominantly applies to new construction, this should not be a concern. However, the revised version of
the proposal does differentiate this by referring to the occupancy Chapters to trigger the new requirement. In this way,
the requirements would apply to either new or existing buildings as applicable, depending upon the decision of the
Committee’s in the individual occupancy chapters.




  Printed on 9/16/2010                                         9

                                             Page 48 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                             NFPA 5000
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-96 Log #114 BLD-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
          Tony Crimi, A.C. Consulting Solutions, Inc. / Rep. International Firestop Council
                           5000-99
                   Revise text to read as follows:

            The provisions of Section 8.11.7 shall govern the materials and methods of construction used to protect joints
in between and at the perimeter of smoke barriers where smoke barriers meet other smoke barriers, the floor or roof
deck above, or the outside walls. The provisions of 8.11.7 shall not apply to approved existing materials and methods of
construction used to protect existing joints in smoke barriers, unless otherwise required by Chapters 11 through 43.
            Joints made within, between, or at the perimeter of smoke barriers shall be protected with a joint system that
is capable of limiting the transfer of smoke tested in accordance with the requirements of UL 2079 for air leakage. The
air leakage rate of the joint shall not exceed 5 cfm per lineal foot (0.00775 m3/s. = m) of joint at 0.30 inch (7.47 Pa) of
water for both the ambient temperature and elevated temperature tests.
            Joints made within or between smoke barriers shall be protected with a smoke-tight joint system that is
capable of limiting the transfer of smoke.
            Smoke barriers that are constructed as fire barriers shall be protected with a listed joint system that is
designed and tested to resist the spread of fire for a time period equal to the required fire resistance rating of the
assembly in accordance with Section 8.9 and to restrict the transfer of smoke in accordance with Section 8.11.7.2.
                              Currently, the Code lacks guidance on quantitative performance requirements for the
maximum total leakage that is acceptable for smoke barriers. In the absence of a comprehensive approach to
quantifying Smoke Barriers performance, the Building Construction & Safety Code already recognizes that there are
instances in Chapters 11 through 43 where leakage rated doors and dampers are required. What is still lacking is
identifying a performance level that is realistic and achievable for joints and penetrations in Smoke Barriers.
                  : The Committee reason for rejection is incorrect. NFPA 5000 applies almost exclusively to new
construction. Although it may be redundant, the language from NFPA 101 can easily be carried forward to make it
absolutely clear that existing approved materials and methods are not affected. The last sentence of 8.11.7.1 has been
modified in this proposal to states the following:
  “The provisions of 8.11.7 shall not apply to approved existing materials and methods of construction used to protect
existing joints in smoke barriers, unless otherwise required by Chapters 11 through 43.”
  Consequently, the proposal does differentiate between new and existing construction by referring to the occupancy
Chapters to trigger the Joint leakage and Joint treatment requirement. In this way, the requirements could apply to
either new or existing buildings, depending upon the decision of the Committee’s in the individual occupancy chapters.
Existing approved methods can continue to be used as installed.
  This proposed Code change is intended to improve the Code regarding the requirements for smoke leakage through
penetrations and joints in smoke barriers. This type of requirement already exists in other US Building Codes.




_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-97 Log #69 BLD-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
           Technical Correlating Committee on Building Code,
                               5000-99a
                      Reconsider the proposal in light of the negative ballots. If the action of Accept is to be retained,
provide technical justification for this significant technical change.
                  The egress time for a protect-in-place occupancy like health care may be longer than 20 minutes. The
change from “whichever is greater” to “whichever is less” would result in 20 minutes of required performance of the
smoke control system in an atrium of a hospital, for example.




  Printed on 9/16/2010                                       10

                                            Page 49 of 50
Report on Comments – June 2011                                                                          NFPA 5000
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-98 Log #70 BLD-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
          Technical Correlating Committee on Building Code,
                           5000-99d
                   The committee is asked to elaborate on the reason mentioned in the committee statement.
               The committee statement should provide a summary or brief explanation of all reason for rejection.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-100 Log #155 BLD-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
                               5000-100
                       Revise text to read as follows:
 Reconsider.
 8.12.3.1 When permitted by Chapters 11-43, where an atrium meeting all provisions of 8.12.3 is present and
appropriately located, occupancy separation shall not be required.
                   1 – As originally worded, the proposal allows the atrium to replace occupancy separation without
mention of location within the building relative to the occupancies and whether it is meant for vertical or horizontal
occupancy separation. It makes no distinction for occupancies of differing hazard levels.
 2 – As originally worded, an equivalency is implied between atria and occupancy separation, where the substantiation
has not technically documented an engineering equivalency.
 3 – The revised wording takes the proponents proposal only as far as the substantiation warrants.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-101 Log #169 BLD-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
                              5000-100c
                      Deleted Text
  Reconsider to Reject.
  Any convenience stairway connecting more than two stories
                   Escalator openings are understood to be sized for escalators while convenience stairs could
legitimately be placed in much larger convenience openings. The language of 8.12.4 does not permit convenience stairs
connecting more than two stories.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-104 Log #74 BLD-FIR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Technical Correlating Committee on Building Code,
                               5000-104b
                      Review the actions taken on Proposals 5000-104a, 5000-166, 5000-167, 5000-168, 5000-169, and
5000-170 to ensure there is a consistent treatment of this subject.
                  This proposal relates to the need to provide a separation between garages and living spaces in
residential occupancies. Each committee is being asked to review the base criteria proposed for chapter 8 and
determine if further correlation within the occupancy chapters is necessary.




  Printed on 9/16/2010                                      11

                                           Page 50 of 50

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:5
posted:8/24/2011
language:English
pages:50