First Revision No. 8085-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Global Input ]

First Revision No. 8085-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Global Input ]

*SEE WORD ATTACHMENT FOR NEW CHAPTER 56*

Supplemental Information

File Name Description Approved

NFPA_5000_Chapter_56_Security_Final.DOCX For staff use

5000_BSY_Global_SR-8085_Chapter_56-NEW.docx For ballot

Submitter Information Verification

Committee: BLD-BSY

Submittal Date: Thu Jul 26 11:40:00 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

During the past few years two workshops conducted by NFPA have addressed the need for asecurity component in the building code. This new chapter outlines security requirements for the builtenvironment. Some of the requirements for this new chapter were taken from NFPA 730, Guide forPremises Security, NFPA 731, Standard for the Installation of Electronic Premises Security Systemsand NFPA 914, Code for Fire Protection of Historic Structures (Annex D). This chapter also setsbaseline guidance for occupancy chapters to review and comment upon.

The committee does not view this as a final form. A Task Group has been formed from the BuildingSystems committee (BLD-BSY) which will work in conjunction with a Task Group from the NFPA101/5000 Correlating Committee to work on additional language and requirements for the SecondDraft. The Building Systems Technical Committee requests that other interested parties review thisdraft and provide comments prior to the Public Comment Closing Date.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8085-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results

This item has passed ballot

13 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

9 Affirmative All

0 Affirmative with Comments

0 Negative with Comments

0 Abstention

Not Returned

Ambrefe, William

Forner, Phil

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

1 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 1 of 717

Shingleton, Frank

Whitman, Steven J.

Affirmative All

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Clary, Shane M.

Hansen, Raymond N.

Novosel, Davor

Rickard, John A.

Siegel, Shelley

Smith, James B.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


2 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 2 of 717

Chapter 56 Security Systems and Features 56.1 General. 56.1.1 Scope. This chapter covers the application of active and passive security systems for the building area and exterior site as defined by the property lines. 56.1.2 Application. The requirements of this chapter shall apply to new buildings or portions thereof under rehabilitation. 56.2 Where Required. Where required by Chapters 16 through 31 and 33, the requirements set forth in this chapter shall apply. 56.3 Existing Systems. Existing installations of security systems and equipment shall be permitted to continue in use except where the authority having jurisdiction requires the retroactive approval of the security systems and equipment. 56.4* Integrated Testing. Where required by the authority having jurisdiction or another section of this Code, and where a security system is integrated with a life safety system, the integrated system shall be tested to verify the proper operation and function of such systems in accordance with NFPA 4. 56.5 Documentation. All required documentation regarding the design and procedures for inspection, testing, and maintenance of security systems shall be kept in a secured location on the premises for the life of the security systems. 56.6* Security Vulnerability Assessment. The building owner shall provide a security vulnerability assessment (SVA), prepared by a qualified individual, that assesses the status of an organization’s vulnerabilities, including but not limited to threat exposures, security features, and preparedness. 56.7 Electronic Premises Security. 56.7.1 Referenced Standards. Electronic premises security systems and equipment shall be designed, installed, and maintained in operating condition in accordance with the requirements of this chapter and NFPA 731. 56.7.2 When an electronic premises security system connects to a fire alarm system or other life safety systems, the requirements of other codes and standards pertaining to those systems shall be followed. [731:4.1.2]

Page 3 of 717

56.7.3 When an electronic premises security system is interconnected with an ancillary system, the ancillary system shall not interfere with the operation of the electronic premises security system. [731:4.1.3] 56.7.4 Priority of security system alarms over other signals shall be permitted where evaluated by the stakeholders through a risk analysis. 56.7.5* Zoning. Where required, the location of an operated initiating device shall be visibly indicated by building, floor, or other approved subdivision by annunciation, printout, or other approved means. [731:4.9.2] 56.8 Equipment. 56.8.1 Equipment constructed and installed in conformity with this Code and NFPA 731 shall be listed for the purpose for which it is used. 56.8.2 Premises security system components shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturers’ published installation instructions. 56.8.3 Equipment that utilizes initiating, annunciating, and remote control devices that provide signaling by means of low-power radio frequency shall operate in accordance with 47 CFR 15, “Radio Frequency Devices.” [731:4.2.3] 56.8.4* Equipment that has the physical appearance of a life safety device or appliance but does not perform its apparent life safety function shall be prohibited. [731:4.2.4] 56.8.5 A position sensor shall monitor the position of each portal for held-open or forced-open conditions. 56.9* Passive Security. (Reserved) 56.9.1 Fences and Other Physical Barriers. (Reserved) 56.9.2 Walls. (Reserved) 56.9.3 Roofs. (Reserved) 56.9.4 Protective Lighting. (Reserved) 56.9.5 Ironwork (e.g., bars and grilles). (Reserved) 56.9.6 Glazing Materials. (Reserved) 56.9.7 Passive Barriers. (Reserved) 56.9.8 Landscaping. (Reserved) 56.9.9 Locks. (Reserved) 56.9.10 Portals. (Reserved)

Page 4 of 717


Replace the term 'releasing operation' with 'releasing motion' wherever it appears in Chapter 11 andassociated Annex A provisions.


Committee: BLD-MEA

Submittal Date: Fri Jul 27 13:52:41 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The revision is intended for consistency with NFPA 101.

Response Message: FR-8098-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


3 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 5 of 717

Hoskins, Bryan Lawrence

Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.

Marcyjanik, Brian A.

Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


4 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 6 of 717


Global change for ASCE7

8.3.2.7.2 In buildings assigned to Seismic Design Category C, Seismic Design CategoryD, Seismic Design Category E, or Seismic Design Category F, as determined inaccordance with ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loadsand Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other

Structures , sufficient separation shall be provided between cantilevered HC fire walls andadjacent framing on each side and between double HC fire walls to allow independentmovements of the elements without contact. [221:5.7.2]

8.3.2.13.1 Locations Outside High Wind–Prone Regions. For buildings less than or equal to 60 ft (18

m) in height and located outside hurricane prone regions, as defined by ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design

Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, the roof surface adjacent to HC fire walls

for at least 25 ft (7620 mm) on each side shall be protected in accordance with 8.3.2.13.1.1 or 8.3.2.13.1.2.

[221:5.13.1]

8.3.2.13.2* Locations Within High Wind–Prone Regions. For buildings greater than 60 ft (18 m) in

height or located within hurricane prone regions, as defined by ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and

Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, the roof surface on each side of the roof adjacent to

HC fire walls for at least 25 ft (7620 mm) on each side shall be protected in accordance with 8.3.2.13.2.1 or

8.3.2.13.2.2. [221:5.13.2]

A.8.3.2.13.2For buildings within hurricane-prone areas as defined by ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design

Loadsand Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, the presence of roof gravel or slag is not

desirable as it can become wind-borne debris in a high wind event. In such cases, and where acceptable to

the authority having jurisdiction, gravel or slag should be embedded into a double flood coat of asphalt or

coal-tar to ensure full embedment. After cooling, any loose gravel or slag should be removed from the roof.

[221: A.5.13.2]

8.3.3.9.3In buildings assigned to Seismic Design Category C, Seismic Design Category D, Seismic Design

Category E, or Seismic Design Category F, as determined in accordance with ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum

Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, sufficient separation shall be

provided between cantilevered fire walls and adjacent framing on each side and between double walls to

allow independent movements of the elements without contact. [221:6.8.3]


Committee: BLD-BLC

Submittal Date: Mon Jul 30 10:35:18 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This change is a result of the task group work to update the references to ASCE/SEI 7 to reflect themost current edition (2016). Similar revisions are being submitted as TIAs for the 2018 Edition. NFPA5000 references an old edition of ASCE/SEI 7. During the 2018 development process, the newedition of ASCE/SEI 7 was not available so the reference to the 2010 edition was maintained. The2016 edition of ASCE/SEI 7 is now available and updates should reference the most currentinformation available. Similar updates were made in NFPA 221. These portions of NFPA 5000 areextracted from NFPA 221 and therefore, also need to be updated.


5 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 7 of 717

ResponseMessage:

FR-8118-NFPA 5000-2018

Public Input No. 124-NFPA 5000-2018 [Global Input]

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All

Al Zeyara, Nasser Ahmed

Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Johnson, James Tyler

Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.


6 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 8 of 717

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


7 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 9 of 717


See attached for updates to the references to ASCE 7 in 35.3.1.3 and 35.14.4.



FINAL_PI127.docx


Committee: BLD-SCM

Submittal Date: Wed Aug 01 08:50:58 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This is the result of work done by a task group update the references to ASCE 7 to reflect the mostcurrent edition of ASCE 7 (2016). This was also submitted as a TIA for the 2018 Edition. Previouseditions of NFPA 5000 and ASCE/SEI 7 did not address Tsunami loads. The 2016 Edition ofASCE/SEI 7 added a new section on Tsunami loads. Previously, NFPA 5000 did not provideguidance on Tsunamis.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8154-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.


8 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 10 of 717

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.

Hirschler, Marcelo M.

Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.

Affirmative with Comment

Caldwell, Benjamin H.

None


9 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 11 of 717

35.3.1.3 Tsunami Risk Category. For the purpose of tsunami design, tsunami risk categories shall be the

risk categories assigned in accordance with Table 35.3.1 as further modified in accordance with Section

6.4 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures.

35.14.4 Tsunami Loads and Effects. Buildings or other structures assigned to and located within

Tsunami Risk Category III or IV, in accordance with Section 35.3.1, and located within the tsunami design

zone shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Chapter 6 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design

Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures.

Page 12 of 717


See attached for updates on the references to ASCE 7 in Chapters 3, 32, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, and 44.



FINAL_PI134.docx


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This a result of the work done by a task group that worked to update the references to ASCE 7 toreflect the most current edition of ASCE 7 (2016). This is also being submitted as TIAs for the 2018Edition. NFPA 5000 references an old edition of ASCE/SEI 7. The 2016 edition of ASCE/SEI 7 isnow available and updates should be made to reference the most current information available.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8155-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.


10 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 13 of 717

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


11 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 14 of 717

SCM (Chapters 3, 32, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, and 44)

Chapter 3

A.3.3.68 Buildings. The term building is to be understood as if followed by the words “or portions

thereof” (see also 3.3.634, Structure). Each portion of a building that is separated from other portions by

a fire wall is considered to be a separate building. (This annex not is not extracted from ASCE/SEI 7,

Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures.)

3.3.117 Components and Cladding. Elements of the building envelope or elements of building

appurtenances and rooftop structures and equipment that do not qualify as part of the main wind‐force

resisting system [ASCE/SEI 7:26.2] (BLD‐SCM)

3.3.121.2 Reinforced Concrete. Concrete reinforced with no less reinforcement than the minimum

amount required by ACI 318, prestressed or nonprestressed, and designed on the assumption that the

two materials act together in resisting forces. [ASCE/SEI 7:11.2] (BLD‐SCM)

3.3.156 Design Earthquake. The earthquake effects that are two‐thirds of the risk‐

targetedcorresponding maximum considered earthquake effects. [ASCE/SEI 7:11.2] (BLD‐SCM)

3.3.217.2 Load Factor. A factor that accounts for deviations of the actual load from the nominal load, for

uncertainties in the analysis that transforms the load into a load effect, and for the probability that more

than one extreme load will occur simultaneously. [ASCE/SEI 7:1.2.1] (BLD‐SCM)

3.3.373 Limit State. A condition beyond which a structure or member becomes unfit for service and is

judged either to be no longer useful for its intended function (serviceability limited state) or to be

unsafe (strength limit state). [ASCE/SEI 7:1.2.1] (BLD‐SCM)

3.3.386 Loads. Forces or other actions that result from the weight of all building materials, occupants

and their possessions, environmental effects, differential movement, and restrained dimensional

changes. Permanent loads are those loads in which variations over time are rare or of small magnitude.

All other loads are variable loads. (See also 3.3.386.5, Nominal Loads.) [ASCE/SEI 7:1.2.1] (BLD‐SCM)

3.3.386.1 Dead Loads. Dead loads consist of the weight of all materials of construction incorporated into

the building including, but not limited to, walls, floors, roofs, ceilings, stairways, built‐in partitions,

finishes, cladding, and other similarly incorporated architectural and structural items and fixed service

equipment, including the weight of cranes and material handling systems. [ASCE/SEI 7:3.1.1] (BLD‐SCM)

3.3.386.4 Live Loads. Live loads are those A loads produced by the use and occupancy of the building or

other structure that does and do not include construction or environmental loads, such as wind load,

snow load, rain load, earthquake load, flood load, or dead load.

Roof Live Load: A live loads on a roof are those produced (1) during maintenance by workers,

equipment, and materials; and (2) during the life of the structure by movable objects, such as planters

or other similar small decorative appurtenances, that are not occupancy related. An occupancy‐related

live load on a roof such as rooftop assembly areas, rooftop decks, and vegetative or landscaped roofs

with occupiable areas, is considered to be a live load rather than a roof live loadand by people.

[ASCE/SEI 7:4.1] (BLD‐SCM)

Page 15 of 717

3.3.411 Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Ground Motion. The most severe earthquake effects

considered by this Code as defined in Chapter 11 of ASCE/SEI 7, Section 11.4.


A.3.3.475 Partition. A partition can be permanent or temporary. (This annex note is not extracted from

ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures.)

3.3.457 Openings. Apertures or holes in the building envelope that allow air to flow through the building

envelope and which that are designed as “open” during design winds as defined by ASCE/SEI 7.


3.3.567 Seismic Design Category. A classification assigned to a structure based on its Risk Occupancy

Category and the severity of the design earthquake ground motion at the site as defined in Section 11.4

of ASCE/SEI 7., Section 11.4. [ASCE/SEI 7:11.2] (BLD‐SCM)

3.3.585 Site Class. A classification assigned to a site based on the types of soils present and their

engineering properties as defined in Chapter 20 of ASCE/SEI 7., Section 20. [ASCE/SEI 7:11.2] (BLD‐SCM)

3.3.627.1 Design Strength. The product of the nominal strength and a resistance factor, . [ASCE/SEI

7:1.2.1] (BLD‐SCM)

3.3.677.1 Bearing Wall. Any wall meeting either of the following classifications: (1) any metal or wood

stud wall that supports more than 100 lb/linear ft (1400 1459 N/linear m) of vertical load in addition to

its own weight or (2) any concrete or masonry wall that supports more than 200 lb/linear ft (2900 2919

N/linear m) of vertical load in addition to its own weight. [ASCE/SEI 7:11.2] (BLD‐SCM)

3.3.677.11 Nonstructural Wall. All walls other than a bearing wall or shear walls. [ASCE/SEI 7:11.2]

(BLD‐SCM)

3.3.677.14 Shear Wall. A wall, bearing or nonbearing, designed to resist lateral seismic forces acting in

the plane of the wall (sometimes referred to as a vertical diaphragm). [ASCE/SEI 7:11.2] (BLD‐SCM)

Chapter 32

32.15 Rooftop Heliports. Rooftop heliports shall be designed according to NFPA 418, and the design loads of heliports shall be in accordance with 35.14.335.6.10.

Chapter 35

35.1.2.2 Basic Requirements. The basic requirements of strength, serviceability, self-straining forces, and analysis shall be in accordance with Section 1.3.1 through 1.3.6 excluding Section 1.3.1.3 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. 35.1.2.4 General Structural Integrity. The requirements for general structural integrity shall be in accordance with Sections 1.4.1 through 1.4.45 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. 35.1.2.8.1.2

Page 16 of 717

Drift limits applicable to earthquake loading shall be in accordance with Section 12.12 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. 35.2 Special Definitions. A list of special terms used in this chapter, which are extracted from ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, and are reprinted with the permission of ASCE, follows. (See flood-related definitions in Section 39.2). 35.2.6 Components and Cladding. Elements of the building envelope or elements of the building appurtenances and rooftop structures and equipment that do not qualify as part of the main wind-force resisting system. [ASCE/SEI 7:26.2] 35.2.7.1 Plain Concrete. Concrete that either is either unreinforced or contains less reinforcement than the minimum amount specified in ACI 318 for reinforced concrete. [ASCE/SEI 7:11.2] 35.2.7.2 Reinforced Concrete. Concrete reinforced with no less reinforcement than the minimum amount required by ACI 318, prestressed or nonprestressed, and designed on the assumption that the two materials act together in resisting forces. [ASCE/SEI 7:11.2] 35.2.8 Design Earthquake. The earthquake effects that are two-thirds of the corresponding risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER) effects. [ASCE/SEI 7:11.2] 35.2.12.1 Importance Factor (I). A factor that accounts for the degree of risk to human life, health, and welfare associated with damage to property or loss of use of or functionality. [ASCE/SEI 7:1.2.1] 35.2.12.2 Load Factor. A factor that accounts for deviations of the actual load from the nominal load, for uncertainties in the analysis that transforms the load into a load effect, and for the probability that more than one extreme load will occur simultaneously. [ASCE/SEI 7:1.2.1] 35.2.14 Limit State. A condition beyond which a structure or member becomes unfit for service and is judged either to be no longer useful for its intended function (serviceability limit state) or to be unsafe (strength limited state). [ASCE/SEI 7:1.2.1] 35.2.15 Loads. Forces or other actions that result from the weight of all building materials, occupants and their possessions, environmental effects, differential movement, and restrained dimensional changes. Permanent loads are those loads in which variations over time are rare or of small magnitude. All other loads are variable loads. (See also 3.3.384.5, Nominal Loads.) [ASCE/SEI 7:1.2.1] 35.2.15.1 Dead Loads. Dead loads consist of the weight of all materials of construction incorporated into the building including but not limited to walls, floors, roofs, ceilings, stairways, built-in partitions, finishes, cladding and other similarly incorporated architectural and structural items, and fixed service equipment including the weight of cranes and material handling systems. [ASCE/SEI 7:3.1.1] 35.2.16 Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion.

The most severe earthquake effects considered by this code as defined in Chapter 11 of ASCE/SEI 7., Section 11.4. [ASCE/SEI 7:11.2]

Page 17 of 717

35.2.18 Openings. Apertures or holes in the building envelope that allow air to flow through the building envelope and which that are designed as “open” during design winds as defined by ASCE/SEI 7. [ASCE/SEI 7:26.2] 35.2.20 Seismic Design Category. A classification assigned to a structure based on its Occupancy Risk Category and the severity of the design earthquake ground motion at the site as defined in Section 11.4 of ASCE/SEI 7., Section 11.4. [ASCE/SEI 7:11.2] 35.2.22 Site Class. A classification assigned to a site based on the types of soils present and their engineering properties as defined in ASCE/SEI 7, Section Chapter 20. [ASCE/SEI 7:11.2] 35.2.26.1 Bearing Wall. Any wall meeting either of the following classifications:

(1) any Any metal or wood stud wall that supports more than 100 lb/linear ft (1400 1459 N/linear m) of vertical load in addition to its own weight or (2) any Any concrete or masonry wall that supports more than 200 lb/linear ft (2900 2919 N/linear m) of vertical load in addition to its own weight. [ASCE/SEI 7:11.2]

35.2.26.6 Nonstructural Wall. All walls other than a bearing walls or shear walls. [ASCE/SEI 7:11.2] 35.2.26.7 Shear Wall. A wall, bearing or nonbearing, designed to resist lateral seismic forces acting in the plane of the wall (sometimes referred to as a vertical diaphragm). [ASCE/SEI 7:11.2] 35.3.1 Buildings and other structures shall be classified, based on the risk to human life, health, and welfare associated with their damage or failure by nature of their occupancy or use, according to Table 35.3.1 for the purposes of applying flood, wind, snow, earthquake, and ice provisions. Each building or other structure shall be assigned to the highest applicable risk category or categories. Table 35.3.1 Risk Category of Buildings and Other Structures for Wind, Snow, and Earthquake

Nature of Occupancy Risk

Category

A. Buildings and other structures that represent a low hazard to human life in the event of failure including, but not limited to, the following:

I

(1) Agricultural facilities

(2) Certain temporary facilities

(3) Minor storage facilities

B. All buildings and other structures, except those listed in Risk Categories I, III, and IV

II

C. Buildings and other structures that represent a substantial hazard to human life in the event of failure including, but not limited to, the following:

III

(1) Buildings and other structures where more than 300 people congregate in one area

Page 18 of 717


Category

(2) Buildings and other structures with day-care facilities with a capacity greater than 150

(3) Buildings and other structures with elementary school or secondary school with a capacity greater than 250

(4) Buildings and other structures with a capacity greater than 500 for colleges or adult education facilities

(5) Health care facilities with a capacity of 50 or more resident patients but that do not have surgery or emergency treatment facilities

(6) Jails and detention facilities

D. Buildings and other structures, not included in Risk Category IV, with potential to cause a substantial economic impact and/or mass disruption of day-to-day civilian life in the event of failure including, but not limited to, the following:

(1) Power-generating stations†

(2) Water treatment facilities

(3) Sewage treatment facilities

(4) Telecommunication centers

E. Buildings containing toxic gases that are required to comply with Protection Level 4 or Protection Level 5 in accordance with Chapter 34

F. Buildings and other structures designated as essential facilities including, but not limited to, the following:

IV

(1) Hospitals and other health care facilities having surgery or emergency treatment facilities

(2) Fire, rescue, and police stations and emergency vehicle garages

(3) Designated earthquake, hurricane, or other emergency shelters

(4) Designated emergency preparedness, communications, and operations centers and other facilities required for emergency response

(5) Power-generating stations and other public utility facilities required in an emergency

(6) Ancillary structures (including, but not limited to, communications towers, fuel storage tanks, cooling towers, electrical substation structures, fire water storage tanks, or other structures housing or supporting water or other fire suppression material or equipment) required for operation of Risk Category IV structures during an emergency

(7) Aviation control towers, air-traffic control centers, and emergency aircraft hangars

Page 19 of 717


Category

(8) Water storage facilities and pump structures required to maintain water pressure for fire suppression

(9) Buildings and other structures having critical national defense functions

G. Buildings containing highly toxic gases that are required to comply with Protection Level 4 or Protection Level 5 in accordance with Chapter 34, and buildings containing materials that are capable of detonation or deflagration that are required to comply with Protection Level 1 or Protection Level 5 in accordance with Chapter 34

†Cogeneration power plants that do not supply power on the national grid shall be designated Risk Category II. [ASCE/SEI 7: Table 1-1] 35.3.1.1* Minimum design loads for structures shall incorporate the applicable importance factors given in ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, Table 1.5-2. (See A.35.3.1.1.) A.35.3.1.1 ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, Table 1.5‐2, is reprinted in this section with the permission of ASCE/SEI. 35.3.2 Multiple Risk Categories. Where buildings or other structures are divided into portions with independent structural systems, the classification for each portion shall be permitted to be determined independently in accordance with ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, Section 1.5.2. 35.3.3 Multiple Use. Where a structure is occupied for by two or more occupancies not included in the same occupancy category, the structure shall be assigned the classification of the highest occupancy category corresponding to the various occupancies. Where structures have two or more portions that are structurally separated in accordance with Section 12.12.3 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, each portion shall be separately classified. Where a structurally separated portion of a structure provides required access to, provides required egress from, or shares life safety components with another portion having a higher occupancy category, both portions shall be assigned the higher occupancy category. 35.4.2.4 Wind Load. The following information related to wind loads shall be shown (see Section 35.9), regardless of whether wind loads govern the lateral design of the building:

(1(1) Risk category and MRI

(2) Basic wind speed (V, mph)

(3) Ground surface roughness (B, C, or D)

(4) Height

(5) Velocity pressure coefficient (Kz)

Page 20 of 717

(6) Building classification as enclosed, partially enclosed, or open, and protection of openings where required

(7) Internal pressure coefficient (GCpi)

(8) Effective wind area (EWA)

(9) External pressure coefficient (GCp)

(10) Topographic factor (Kzt)

(11) Elevation factor (Ke) if taken as other than 1.0

(12) Directionality factor (Kd)

(13) Wind design pressure (p)

) Basic wind speed (mph)

(2) Wind importance factor (I) and risk category

(3) Wind exposure — with wind exposure and applicable wind direction indicated if more than one wind exposure is utilized

(4) Building classification as enclosed, partially enclosed, or open, and protection of openings where required

(5) Topographic factor (Kzt)

(6) Wind design pressure (p) to be used for the design of exterior components and cladding not specifically designed by the responsible registered design professional — with p for each exposure indicated if more than one exposure is utilized

35.4.2.5 Earthquake Design Data. The following information related to seismic design shall be shown (see Section 35.10), regardless of whether seismic loads govern the lateral design of the building:

(1) Mapped maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration at short periods (Ss) and at a period of 1 second (S1)

(2) Site class

(3) Design earthquake spectral response acceleration at short periods (SDS) and at a period of 1 second (SD1)

(4) Risk category

(5) Seismic importance factor (I)

(6) Seismic design category

(7) Basic Designated seismic force–resisting system

(8) Analysis procedure

Page 21 of 717

35.5 Dead Loads. Dead loads shall be determined in accordance with Section 3.1 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. 35.5.1 Weights of Materials and Construction. In determining dead loads for the purposes of design, the actual weights of materials and constructions shall be used, provided that, in the absence of definite information, values approved by the authority having jurisdiction shall be used. 35.5.2 Weights of Fixed Service Equipment. In determining dead loads for the purpose of design, the weight of fixed service equipment, such as plumbing stacks and risers; electrical feeders; and heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning systems, shall be included. 35.6.1.2* Floors and other structural elements of buildings in the locations specified in Table 4-14.3-1 of ASCE/SEI 7 shall be designed to support the uniformly distributed live loads prescribed in 35.6.2 or the minimum concentrated loads prescribed in 35.6.3, whichever produces the greater stresses. A.35.6.1.2

Table A.35.6.1.2 is a verbatim extract of Table 4.3‐1 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings

and Other Structures. It is reprinted here with the permission of ASCE.

Table A.35.6.1.2 Minimum Uniformly Distributed Live Loads, LL, and Minimum Concentrated Live

Loads

Uniform, Lo Concentrated

Occupancy or Use psf (kN/m2) lb (kN)

Apartments (see residential)

Access floor systems

Office use 50 (2.4) 2000 (8.9)

Computer use 100 (4.79) 2000 (8.9)

Armories and drill rooms 150 (7.18)a

Assembly areas and theaters

Fixed seats (fastened to floors) 60 (2.87)a

Lobbies 100 (4.79)a

Movable seats 100 (4.79)a

Platforms (assembly) 100 (4.79)a

Stage floors 150 (7.18)a

Balconies and decks

1.5 times the live load for the

occupancy served. Not

required to exceed 100 psf

(4.79 kN/m2)

Catwalks for maintenance access 40 (1.92) 300 (1.33)

Corridors

First floor 100 (4.79)

Page 22 of 717



Other floors, same as occupancy served, except

as indicated

Dining rooms and restaurants 100 (4.79)a

Dwellings (see residential)

Elevator machine room grating [on area of 2 in.

by 2 in. (50 mm by 50 mm)] 300 (1.33)

Finish light floor plate construction [on area of 1

in. by 1 in. (25 mm by 25 mm)] 200 (0.89)

Fire escapes 100 (4.79)a

On single‐family dwellings only 40 (1.92)

Fixed ladders See Section 4.5 [of ASCE/SEI

7]

Garages Passenger vehicles only 40 (1.92)a, b, c

Trucks and buses

Handrails, guardrails, and grab bars See Section 4.5 [of ASCE/SEI 7]

Helipads 60 (2.87)d, e Nonreducible e, f, g

Hospitals

Operating rooms, laboratories 60 (2.87) 1000 (4.45)

Patient rooms 40 (1.92) 1000 (4.45)

Corridors above first floor 80 (3.83) 1000 (4.45)

Hotels (see residential)

Libraries

Reading rooms 60 (2.87) 1000 (4.45)

Stack rooms 150 (7.18)a, h 1000 (4.45)


Manufacturing

Light 125 (6.00)a 2000 (8.90)

Heavy 250 (11.97)a 3000 (13.40)

Office buildings

File and computer rooms shall be designed for

heavier loads based on anticipated occupancy

Lobbies and first floor corridors 100 (4.79) 2000 (8.90)

Offices 50 (2.40) 2000 (8.90)


Penal institutions

Cell blocks 40 (1.92)

Corridors 100 (4.79)

Recreational uses

Page 23 of 717



Bowling alleys, poolrooms, and similar uses 75 (3.59)a

Dance halls and ballrooms 100 (4.79)a

Gymnasiums 100 (4.79)a

Reviewing stands, grandstands, and bleachers 100 (4.79)a, k

Stadiums and arenas with fixed seats (fastened

to the floor) 60 (2.87)a, k

Residential

One‐ and two‐family dwellings

Uninhabitable attics without storage 10 (0.48)l

Uninhabitable attics with storage 20 (0.96)m

Habitable attics and sleeping areas 30 (1.44)

All other areas, except stairs 40 (1.92)

All other residential occupancies

Private rooms and corridors serving them 40 (1.92)

Public roomsa and corridors serving them 100 (4.79)

Roofs

Ordinary flat, pitched, and curved roofs 20 (0.96)n

Roofs used for roof gardens 100 (4.79)

Roofs used for assembly purposes Same as occupancy served

Roofs used for other occupancies o

Awnings and canopies

Fabric construction supported by a skeleton

structure 5 (0.24) nonreducible

300 (1.33) applied to

skeleton structure

Screen enclosure support frame

5 (0.24) nonreducible and

applied to the roof frame

members only, not the screen

200 (0.89) applied to

supporting roof frame

members only

All other construction 20 (0.96)

Primary roof members, exposed to a work floor

Single panel point of lower chord of roof trusses

or any point along primary structural members

supporting roofs over manufacturing, storage

warehouses, and repair garages

2000 (8.9)

All other primary roof members 300 (1.33)

All roof surfaces subject to maintenance workers 300 (1.33)

Schools

Classrooms 40 (1.92) 1000 (4.45)


First‐floor corridors 100 (4.79) 1000 (4.45)

Scuttles, skylight ribs, accessible ceilings 200 (0.89)

Page 24 of 717



Sidewalks, vehicular driveways, and yards

subject to trucking 250 (11.97)a, p 8000 (35.60)q

Stairs and exit ways 100 (4.79) 300r

One‐ and two‐family dwellings only 40 (1.92) 300r

Storage areas above ceilings 20 (0.96)

Storage warehouses (shall be designed for

heavier loads if required for anticipated storage)

Light 125 (6.00)a

Heavy 250 (11.97)a

Stores

Retail

First floor 100 (4.79) 1000 (4.45)

Upper floors 75 (3.59) 1000 (4.45)

Wholesale, all floors 125 (6.00)a 1000 (4.45)

Vehicle barriers See Section 4.5 [of ASCE/SEI

7]

Walkways and elevated platforms (other than

exit ways) 60 (2.87)

Yards and terraces, pedestrian 100 (4.79)a aLive load reduction for this use is not permitted by Section 4.7 [of ASCE SEI 7] unless specific exceptions

apply. bFloors in garages or portions of buildings used for the storage of motor vehicles shall be designed for

the uniformly distributed live loads of Table 4‐1 [Table A.35.6.1.2] or the following concentrated load:

(1) for garages restricted to passenger vehicles accommodating not more than nine passengers, 3000 lb

(13.35 kN) acting on an area of 4.5 in. by 4.5 in. (114 mm by 114 mm); and (2) for mechanical parking

structures without slab or deck that are used for storing passenger vehicles only, 2250 lb (10 kN) per

wheel. cDesign for trucks and buses shall be per AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications; however, provisions

for fatigue and dynamic load allowance are not required to be applied. dUniform load shall be 40 psf (1.92 kN/m2) where the design basis helicopter has a maximum take‐off

weight of 3000 lb (13.35 kN) or less. This load shall not be reduced. eLabeling of helicopter capacity shall be as required by the authority having jurisdiction. fTwo single concentrated loads, 8 ft (2.44 m) apart shall be applied on the landing area (representing the

helicopter's two main landing gear, whether skid type or wheeled type), each having a magnitude of

0.75 times the maximum take‐off weight of the helicopter and located to produce the maximum load

effect on the structural elements under consideration. The concentrated loads shall be applied over an

area of 8 in. by 8 in. (200 mm by 200 mm) and shall not be concurrent with other uniform or

concentrated live loads. gA single concentrated load of 3000 lb (13.35 kN) shall be applied over an area 4.5 in. by 4.5 in. (114 mm

by 114 mm), located so as to produce the maximum load effects on the structural elements under

Page 25 of 717

consideration. The concentrated load need not be assumed to act concurrently with other uniform or

concentrated lives loads. hThe loading applies to stack room floors that support nonmobile, double‐faced library book stacks,

subject to the following limitations: (1) the nominal book stack unit height shall not exceed 90 in. (2290

mm); (2) the nominal shelf depth shall not exceed 12 in. (305 mm) for each face; and (3) parallel rows of

double‐faced book stacks shall be separated by aisles not less than 36 in. (914 mm) wide. kIn addition to the vertical live loads, the design shall include horizontal swaying forces applied to each

row of the seats as follows: 24 lb per linear ft of seat applied in a direction parallel to each row of seats

and 10 lb per linear ft of seat applied in a direction perpendicular to each row of seats. The parallel and

perpendicular horizontal swaying forces need not be applied simultaneously. lUninhabitable attic areas without storage are those where the maximum clear height between the joist

and rafter is less than 42 in. (1067 mm), or where there are not two or more adjacent trusses with web

configurations capable of accommodating an assumed rectangle 42 in. (1067 mm) in height by 24 in.

(610 mm) in width, or greater, within the plane of the trusses. This live load need not be assumed to act

concurrently with any other live load requirement. mUninhabitable attic areas without storage are those where the maximum clear height between the joist

and rafter is 42 in. (1067 mm) or greater, or where there are two or more adjacent trusses with web

configurations capable of accommodating an assumed rectangle 42 in. (1067 mm) in height by 24 in.

(610 mm) in width, or greater, within the plane of the trusses. At the trusses, the live load need only be

applied to those portions of the bottom chords where both of the following conditions are met:

i. The attic area is accessible from an opening not less than 20 in. (508 mm) in width by 30 in. (762 mm)

in length that is located where the clear height in the attic is a minimum of 30 in. (762 mm); and

ii. The slope of the truss bottom chord is no greater than 2 units vertical to 12 units horizontal (9.5

percent slope).

The remaining portions of the bottom chords shall be designed for a uniformly distributed

nonconcurrent live load of not less than 10 lb/ft2 (0.48 kN/m3). n Where uniform roof live loads are reduced to less than 20 lb/ft2 (0.96 kN/m2) in accordance with

Section 4.8.1 [of ASCE/SEI 7] and are applied to the design of structural members arranged so as to

create continuity, the reduced roof live load shall be applied to adjacent spans or to alternate spans,

whichever produces the greatest unfavorable load effect. oRoofs used for other occupancies shall be designed for appropriate loads as approved by the authority

having jurisdiction. pOther uniform loads in accordance with an approved method, which contains provisions for truck

loadings, shall also be considered where appropriate. qThe concentrated wheel load shall be applied on an area of 4.5 in. by 4.5 in. (114 mm by 114 mm). rMinimum concentrated load on stair treads [on area of 2 in. by 2 in. (50 mm by 50 mm)] is to be applied

noncurrent with the uniform load.

Source: Reprinted with permission from ASCE/SEI 7.

35.6.2 Uniformly Distributed Live Loads. 35.6.2.1 The minimum, uniformly distributed live loads used in the design of buildings and other structures in pounds per square foot shall be as set forth in Table 4-14.3-1 shall be in accordance with Section 4.3 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures.

Page 26 of 717

35.6.2.2 The live loads in Table 4-14.3-1 of ASCE/SEI 7 shall be the minimum loads to be used for the occupancies listed. 35.6.2.3 Where the building will be subjected to greater live loads than those specified in Table 4-14.3-1Section 4.3 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, such loads shall be utilized for design including, but not limited to, the requirements in 35.6.2.1.14.3.1 through 35.6.2.3.31.14.2. 35.6.2.3.1 Partitions shall meet the requirements of 35.6.2.3.1.1 and 35.6.2.3.1.2. 35.6.2.3.1.1 In office buildings or other buildings where partitions will be erected or rearranged, provision for partition weight shall be made, regardless of whether partitions are shown on the plans. Partition load shall be not less than 15 psf (0.72 kN/m2). 35.6.2.3.1.2 The requirement of 35.6.2.3.1.1 shall not apply where the specified live load exceeds 80 psf (3.83 kN/m2). 35.6.2.3.2 1 Footboards in reviewing stands, grandstands, and bleachers shall be designed to resist 120 lb/linear ft (180 kg/linear m). 35.6.2.3.3 2

Reviewing stands, grandstands, bleachers, and supporting structures shall meet the requirements of Section 4.14 of ASCE 735.6.2.3.3.1 and 35.6.2.3.3.2.

35.6.2.3.3.1

Reviewing stands, grandstands, bleachers, and supporting structures shall be designed to resist a horizontal swaying force applied to the seats as follows:

(1) In a direction parallel to the length of the seats, 24 lb/linear ft (36 kg/linear m) of seats

(2) In a direction perpendicular to the length of the seats, 10 lb/linear ft (15 kg/linear m) of seats

35.6.2.3.3.2 Sway loads shall not be required to be applied in both directions simultaneously. 35.6.3 Concentrated Loads. 35.6.3.1 Provision shall be made in designing floors and other structural elements of buildings for a concentrated load as set forth in Table 4-14.3-1 in accordance with Section 4.4of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. 35.6.3.3.12 Stage floors shall meet the following requirements:

(1) Stage floors shall be designed to support not less than a 2000 lb (8.9 kN) concentrated load on a 1 ft2 (0.09 m2) area at any point.

(2) The concentrated load specified in 35.6.3.32(1) shall not be required to be applied simultaneously with the required uniform load.

Page 27 of 717

35.6.3.3.2 The concentrated load on stair treads shall be in accordance with Section 4.16 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. 35.6.4 Garage Loads, Sidewalks, Vehicular Driveways, and Yards Subject to Trucking. 35.6.4.1 Passenger Vehicle Garages Floors in garages or portions of a building used for the storage of motor vehicles shall be designed in accordance with Section 4.10.1 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. 35.6.4.2 Live Loads for Areas Subject to Truck, Bus, and Emergency Vehicle Traffic. 35.6.4.2.1 Minimum live loads for areas subject to truck, bus, and emergency vehicle traffic shall be as specified in Table 35.6.4.2.1 but shall be not less than 50 psf (2.4 kN/m2). Table 35.6.4.2.1 Uniform and Concentrated Loads

Loading Class† Uniform Load [lb/linear ft of lane

(kN/linear m of lane)] Concentrated Load‡ [lb (kN)]

For Moment

Design For Shear

Design

H20-44 and HS20-44

640 (9.3) 18,000 (80) 26,000 (115)

H15-44 and HS15-44

480 (7.0) 13,500 (60) 19,500 (87)

†An H loading class designates a two-axle truck with a semitrailer. An HS loading class designates a tractor truck with a semitrailer. The numbers following the letter classification indicate the gross weight, in tons, of the standard truck and the year the loadings were instituted. ‡See 35.6.4.2.2 for the loading of multiple spans. 35.6.4.2.2 The concentrated load and uniform load shall be uniformly distributed over a 10 ft (3050 mm) width on a line normal to the centerline of the lane placed within a lane 12 ft (3660 mm) in width. 35.6.4.2.2.1 The loads shall be placed within their individual lanes so as to produce the maximum stress in each structural member. 35.6.4.2.2.2 Single spans shall be designed for the uniform load in Table 35.6.4.1, and one simultaneous concentrated load shall be positioned to produce the maximum effect. 35.6.4.2.2.3 Multiple spans shall be designed for the uniform load in Table 35.6.4.1 on the spans, and two simultaneous concentrated loads in two spans shall be positioned to produce the maximum negative moment effect. 35.6.4.2.2.4 Multiple-span design loads, for other effects, shall be the same as for single spans. 35.6.4.3 Live Loads on Sidewalks, Vehicular Driveways, and Yards Subject to Trucking

Page 28 of 717

Live loads on sidewalks, vehicular driveways, and yards subject to trucking shall be in accordance with Section 4.15 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. 35.6.5 Handrails, Guardrails, Grab Bars, Vehicle Barrier Systems, and Fixed Ladders. 35.6.5.1 All required handrails, guardrails, grab bars, vehicle barrier systems, and fixed ladders shall be designed and constructed to the structural loading conditions in Section 4.5 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. 35.6.5.2 For guards in industrial and storage occupancy classifications, in areas that are not accessible to the general public and that have an occupant load not greater than 50, guards shall be permitted to be designed for the same loads as for one- and two-family dwellings. 35.6.6* Impact Loads. Provisions for the live loads specified in 35.6.2 shall be made in the structural design for occupancies and loads that involve vibration and impact forces, as required in Section 4.6 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. 35.6.7 Reduction in Uniform Live Loads. 35.6.7.1 Reductions in the minimum required design live load, except for roof uniform live loads, shall be permitted in accordance with Section 4.7 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. 35.6.7.2 Reductions in the minimum design roof uniform live loads shall be permitted in accordance with Section 4.8 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. 35.6.8 Crane Loads. All craneways and supporting construction shall be designed and constructed to comply with Section 4.9 in ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. 35.6.10 Helipad Loads. Loads on helipads shall be in accordance with Section 4.11 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other StructuresSection 4.11. 35.6.11 Uninhabitable Attics. Loads in uninhabitable attics shall be in accordance with Section 4.12 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. Section 4.12. 35.6.12 Library Stack Rooms. Loads in library stack rooms shall be in accordance with Section 4.13 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. Section 4.13. 35.6.13 Solar Panel LoadsSystems. Roof structures that support solar panel systems shall be designed in accordance with Section 4.17 of ASCE 7/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. Section 4.17. 35.6.14 Reviewing Stands, Grandstands, and Bleachers. 35.6.14.1 Footboards in reviewing stands, grandstands, and bleachers shall be designed to resist 120 lb/linear ft (180 kg/linear m).

Page 29 of 717

35.6.14.2 Reviewing stands, grandstands, bleachers, and supporting structures shall meet the requirements of Section 4.14 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. 35.7.2 Minimum Roof Live Loads. Ordinary roofs, either flat, pitched, or curved, shall be designed for the live loads as specified in Table 4.14.3-1 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. 35.7.3 Rain Loads. Rain loads, where utilized in the combination of loads specified in Chapter 35.15, shall be calculated in accordance with Chapter 8 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. 35.7.3.1 When any of the following conditions exist, the design calculations shall include verification of the prevention of ponding instability in accordance with Section 8.4 of ASCE/SEI 7.

(1) bays with a roof slope less than 1=4 in: per foot (1.19°) when the secondary members are perpendicular to the free draining edge, (2) bays with a roof slope less than 1 in. per foot (4.76°) when the secondary members are parallel to the free draining edge, (3) bays with a roof slope of 1 in. per foot (4.76°) and a span to spacing ratio for the secondary members greater than 16 when the secondary members are parallel to the free draining edge, (4) bays on which water accumulates (in whole or in part) when the primary drain system is blocked but the secondary drain system is functional.

For roofs with a slope less than 1⁄4 unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (1⁄4:12), the design calculations shall include verification of the prevention of ponding instability in accordance with Section 8.4 of ASCE/SEI 7. 35.7.3.2 Roofs with provisions for controlled drainage shall be designed in accordance with Section 8.5 of ASCE/SEI 7. 35.7.4 Special-Purpose Roofs. Roofs that have occupancy functions, such as roof gardens, assembly occupancies, or other special purposes, shall be permitted to have their uniformly distributed live load reduced in accordance with the requirements of Section 4.8.3 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. 35.8.1.2 Design Ground snow loads and design roof snow loads shall be determined in accordance with Section Chapter 7 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, but the design roof load shall be not less than that determined by Section 35.7. 35.8.2* Ground Snow Loads. The ground snow loads used in calculating the design snow loads for roofs shall be determined in accordance with Section 7.2 of ASCE/SEI 7. A.35.8.2

ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Section 7.2, is reprinted in this

section with the permission of ASCE/SEI. In addition, Table A.35.8.2 is a verbatim extract of ASCE/SEI 7,

Page 30 of 717

Table 7‐1, and Figure A.35.8.2 is an extract of ASCE/SEI 7, Figure 7‐1. Both have been reprinted here with

the permission of ASCE/SEI.

7.2 Ground Snow Loads, pg. Ground snow loads, pg, to be used in the determination of design snow

loads for roofs shall be as set forth in Figure 7‐1 [Figure A.35.8.2] for the contiguous United States and

Table 7‐1 [Table A.35.8.2] for Alaska. Site specific case studies shall be made to determine ground snow

loads in areas designated CS in Figure 7‐1. Ground snow loads for sites at elevations above the limits

indicated in Figure 7‐1 and for all sites within the CS areas shall be approved by the authority having

jurisdiction. Ground snow load determination for such sites shall be based on an extreme value

statistical analysis of data available in the vicinity of the site using a value with 2% annual probability of

being exceeded (50‐year mean recurrence interval).

Snow loads are zero for Hawaii, except in mountainous regions as determined by the authority having

jurisdiction.Figure A.35.8.2 Ground Snow Loads, pg, for the United States (lb/ft2). (Source: Reprinted

with permission from ASCE/SEI 7.)

Page 31 of 717

Page 32 of 717

Table A.35.8.2 Ground Snow Loads, pg, for Alaskan Locations

Location pg Location pg Location pg

lb/ft2 kN/m2 lb/ft2 kN/m2 lb/ft2 kN/m2

Adak 30 1.4 Galena 60 2.9 Petersburg 150 7.2

Anchorage 50 2.4 Gulkana 70 3.4 St. Paul 40 1.9

Angoon 70 3.4 Homer 40 1.9 Seward 50 2.4

Barrow 25 1.2 Juneau 60 2.9 Shemya 25 1.2

Barter 35 1.7 Kenai 70 3.4 Sitka 50 2.4

Page 33 of 717



Bethel 40 1.9 Kodiak 30 1.4 Talkeetna 120 5.8

Big Delta 50 2.4 Kotzebue 60 2.9 Unalakleet 50 2.4

Cold Bay 25 1.2 McGrath 70 3.4 Valdez 160 7.7

Cordova 100 4.8 Nenana 80 3.8 Whittier 300 14.4

Fairbanks 60 2.9 Nome 70 3.4 Wrangell 60 2.9

Fort Yukon 60 2.9 Palmer 50 2.4 Yakutat 150 7.2


Page 34 of 717









Page 35 of 717










Page 36 of 717









Page 37 of 717










Page 38 of 717









Page 39 of 717










Page 40 of 717









Page 41 of 717










35.9.1.3.1 Wind loads on every building or structure shall be determined by the provisions of ChapterS 26 through 31 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. 35.9.1.3.2 As an alternative to the requirement of 35.9.1.3.1, wind loads determined by the following shall be permitted, subject to the limitations therein:

(1) ANSI/NAAMM FP 1001, Guide Specifications for Design of Metal Flagpoles Manual

(2) Wind tunnel tests conducted in accordance with Section 6.6Chapter 31 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures

(3) TIA-222-G, Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Structures

(4) For bleachers and grandstands, the requirements of 35.9.1.5

(5) For residential structures, AISI S230

35.9.2 Basic Wind PressuresSpeed. 35.9.2.1* Based on the risk factors determined in Section 35.3, the basic wind speed used to calculate the wind loads shall be determined in accordance with Chapters 26 through 31Section 26.5.1 of ASCE/SEI 7. A.35.9.2.1

The maps shown in Figure A.35.9.2.1(a), Figure A.35.9.2.1(b), and Figure A.35.9.2.1(c)are extracted

directly from ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Figure 26.5‐1A,

Figure 26.5‐1B, and Figure 26.5‐1C. They are reprinted here with the permission of ASCE/SEI.

Figure A.35.9.2.1(a) Basic Wind Speeds for Occupancy Category II Buildings and Other Structures.

(Source: Reprinted with permission from ASCE/SEI 7.)

Page 42 of 717

Page 43 of 717

Page 44 of 717

Figure A.35.9.2.1(b) Basic Wind Speeds for Occupancy Category III and IV Buildings and Other

Structures. (Source: Reprinted with permission from ASCE/SEI 7.)

Page 45 of 717

Page 46 of 717

Figure A.35.9.2.1(c) Basic Wind Speeds for Occupancy Category I Buildings and Other Structures.

(Source: Reprinted with permission from ASCE/SEI 7.)

Page 47 of 717

35.9.2.2 Wind Load. The following information related to wind loads shall be used in the design and shown in all cases, regardless of whether wind loads govern the lateral design of the building:

(1) Risk category and MRI..

(2) Basic wind speed (V, mph). .

Page 48 of 717

Table 35.4.2.4 Wind Map Required

Risk Category MRI (years)

I 300

II 700

III 1700

IV 3000

Insert 300, 700, 1700 and 3000-year MRI wind maps from ASCE 7-16.

(3) Ground Surface Roughness. B, C or D as determined per ASCE 7. Note wind exposure and applicable wind direction indicated if more than one wind exposure is utilized. Large ground level openings, as defined in the ASCE/SEI 7 Commentary, that require the use of Exposure C in lieu of B, shall be considered. Use of the worst case exposure for the entire structure shall be permitted. For other cases, the upwind exposure shall be based on ground surface roughness that is determined from natural topography, vegetation, and constructed facilities each wind direction considered and shall be in accordance with ASCE/SEI 7, Section 26.7.

(4) Height.

(5) Velocity pressure coefficient (Kz) based on Surface Roughness and height.

(6) Building classification as enclosed, partially enclosed, or open, and protection of openings where required. Opening criteria for the classification used shall be in accordance with ASCE 7. (7) Internal pressure coefficient (GCpi) to reflect building classification in (6) and added or subtracted to provide the highest value of (p).

(8) Effective wind area (EWA).

(9) External pressure coefficient (GCp) based on specific geometry, zone location and EWA.

(10) Topographic factor (Kzt), in accordance with ASCE 7.

(11) Elevation factor (Ke) = 1.0 shall be permitted to be used for all locations. Other values used shall be in accordance with ASCE 7.

(12) Directionality Factor (Kd).

(13) Wind design pressure (p) to be used for the design of exterior components and cladding per EQ. 35.4.2.4 (a) and (b), with p for each exposure indicated if more than one exposure is utilized.

EQ. 35.4.2.4 (a) q = 0.00256(Kz)(Kzt)(Kd)(Ke)V2

EQ. 35.4.2.4 (b) p = q(GCp +/- GCpi)

35.9.3* Exposure.

Page 49 of 717

For each wind direction considered, the upwind exposure shall be based on ground surface roughness that is determined from natural topography, vegetation, and constructed facilities and shall be in accordance with ASCE/SEI 7, Section 26.7. A.35.9.3

The information that follows has been extracted verbatim from ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads for

Buildings and Other Structures, Sections 26.7 through 26.7.3, and is reprinted here with the permission

of ASCE/SEI. Information regarding the application of the exposures for the determination of wind loads

can be found in ASCE/SEI 7. Additional information to assist in the determination of the appropriate

exposure is contained in the commentary of ASCE/SEI 7.

26.7 Exposure. For each wind direction considered, the upwind exposure category shall be based on

ground surface roughness that is determined from natural topography, vegetation, and constructed

facilities.

26.7.1 Wind Directions and Sectors. For each selected wind direction at which the wind loads are to be

evaluated, the exposure of the building or structure shall be evaluated for the two upwind sectors

extending 45 degrees either side of the selected wind direction. The exposure in these two sectors shall

be determined in accordance with Sections 26.7.2 and 26.7.3 and the exposure whose use would result

in the highest wind loads shall be used to represent the winds from that direction.

26.7.2 Surface Roughness Categories. A ground surface roughness within each 45 degree sector shall be

determined for a distance upwind of the site as defined in Section 26.7.3 from the categories defined

below, for the purpose of assigning an exposure category as defined in Section 26.7.3.

Surface Roughness B: Urban and suburban areas, wooded areas or other terrain with numerous closely

spaced obstructions having the size of single family dwellings or larger.

Surface Roughness C: Open terrain with scattered obstructions having heights generally less than 30 ft

(9.1 m). This category includes flat open country and grasslands.

Surface Roughness D: Flat, unobstructed areas and water surfaces. This category includes smooth mud

flats, salt flats and unbroken ice.

26.7.3 Exposure Categories. Exposure B: For buildings with a mean roof height of less than or equal to

30 ft (9.1 m), Exposure B shall apply where the ground surface roughness, as defined by Surface

Roughness B, prevails in the upwind direction for a distance greater than 1500 ft (457 m). For buildings

with a mean roof height greater than 30 ft (9.1 m), Exposure B shall apply where Surface Roughness B

prevails in the upwind direction for a distance greater than 2600 ft (792 m) or 20 times the height of the

building, whichever is greater.

Exposure C: Exposure C shall apply for all cases where exposures B or D do not apply.

Exposure D: Exposure D shall apply where the ground surface roughness, as defined by Surface

Roughness D, prevails in the upwind direction for a distance of at least 5000 ft (1524 m) or 20 times the

building height, whichever is greater. Exposure D shall also apply where the ground surface roughness

immediately upwind of the site is B or C, and the site is within a distance of 600 ft (183 m) or 20 times

the building height, whichever is greater, from an Exposure D condition as defined in the previous

sentence. For a site located in the transition zone between exposure categories, the category resulting

in the largest wind forces shall be used.

For a site located in the transition zone between exposure categories, the category resulting in the

largest wind forces shall be used.

Exception: An intermediate exposure between the preceding categories is permitted in a transition zone

provided that it is determined by a rational analysis method defined in the recognized literature.

Page 50 of 717

11.5 Importance Factor and Occupancy Category.

11.5.1 Importance Factor: An importance factor, I, shall be assigned to each structure in accordance

with Table 11.5‐1 based on the Occupancy Category from Table 1‐1.

35.10.1 General. All structures and nonstructural components, and portions thereof, shall be designed and constructed to resist the effects of earthquake motions as prescribed by Sections Chapters 11 through 23 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. 35.10.2 Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motions. The maximum considered earthquake ground motions shall be as represented by the mapped spectral response acceleration at short periods (Ss) and at periods of 1 second (S1) obtained from Figure 22-1 through Figure 22-18 of ASCE/SEI 7. 35.10.3 Site Class. A site class shall be determined in accordance with Chapter 20 of ASCE/SEI 7. 35.10.4 Design Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters. Design earthquake spectral response acceleration parameters at short periods (SDS) and at periods of 1 second (SD1) shall be determined in accordance with Section 11.4.4 5 of ASCE/SEI 7. 35.10.5 Seismic Design Category. The seismic design category shall be determined in accordance with Section 11.6 of ASCE/SEI 7. 35.10.6 Seismic Force–Resisting System. The seismic force–resisting system used in the building or structure shall comply with Section 12.2.1 of ASCE/SEI 7. 35.10.7 Analysis Procedure. The analysis procedure used to evaluate the structure shall comply with Section 12.6 of ASCE/SEI 7. 35.10.8 2 Seismic Design of Steel Structures. The seismic design of steel structures shall be in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 44 of this Code. The provisions of Section 14.1 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, shall not apply. 35.11 Lateral Soil Loads. In the absence of a geotechnical soil analysis, soil loads in accordance with Section 3.2.1 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, Section 3.2.1in Table 35.11 shall be used as the minimum design lateral soil loads. Table 35.11 Lateral Soil Loads

Description of Backfill Materiala Unified Soil

Classificationa Design Lateral Soil Loadb [psf/ft

(kPa/m) of depth]

Well-graded, clean gravels; gravel–sand mixes

GW 30 (4.7)c

Poorly graded, clean gravels; gravel–sand mixes

GP 30 (4.7)c

Silty gravels; poorly graded gravel–sand mixes

GM 40 (6.3)c

Page 51 of 717

Description of Backfill Materiala Unified Soil

Classificationa Design Lateral Soil Loadb [psf/ft

(kPa/m) of depth]

Clayey gravels; poorly graded gravel and clay mixes

GC 45 (7.1)c

Well-graded, clean sands; gravelly sand mixes

SW 30 (4.7)c

Poorly graded, clean sands; sand–gravel mixes

SP 30 (4.7)c

Silty sands; poorly graded sand–silt mixes

SM 45 (7.1)d

Sand–silt clay mix with plastic fines SM-SC 45 (7.1)d

Clayey sands; poorly graded sand–clay mixes

SC 60 (9.4)d

Inorganic silts and clayey silts ML 45 (7.1)d

Mixture of inorganic silt and clay ML-CL 60 (9.4)d

Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity

CL 60 (9.4)d

Organic silts and silt clays, low plasticity

OL Unsuitable as backfill material

Inorganic clayey silts, elastic silts MH Unsuitable as backfill material

Inorganic clays of high plasticity CH Unsuitable as backfill material

Organic clays and silty clays OH Unsuitable as backfill material

a The definition and classification of soil materials are to be in accordance with ASTM D2487, Standard Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). b Design lateral soil loads are given for moist conditions for the specified soils at their optimum densities. Actual field conditions govern. Submerged or saturated soil pressures include the weight of the buoyant soil plus the hydrostatic load. c For relatively rigid walls, as when braced by floors, the design lateral soil load is to be increased for sand- and gravel-type soils to 60 psf/ft (9.4 kPa/m) of depth. Basement walls extending not more than 8 ft (2440 mm) below grade and supporting flexible floor systems are not considered as being relatively rigid walls. d For relatively rigid walls, as when braced by floors, the design lateral soil load is to be increased for silt- and clay-type soils to 100 psf/ft (15.7 kPa/m) of depth. 35.12* Flood Loads. 35.12.2 Design Flood Loads. Design flood loads shall be determined in accordance with Chapter 5 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. 35.13 Ice Loads — Atmospheric Icing Loads. Ice loads as a result of atmospheric icing shall be determined in accordance with Chapter 10 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures.

Page 52 of 717

35.14.2 Hydrostatic Uplift. 35.14.2.2 The loads required by 35.14.2.1 shall be determined in accordance with Section 3.2.2 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. 35.14.3 Heliport and Helistop Landing Areas. In addition to the other design requirements of this chapter, heliport and helistop landing or touchdown areas shall be designed for the maximum stress induced by any of the following:

(1) Dead load of the heliport and helistop landing or touchdown areas plus actual gross weight of the helicopter plus snow load

(2) Dead load of the heliport and helistop landing or touchdown areas plus two, single, concentrated impact loads meeting all of the following criteria:

(a) The impact loads shall be spaced a nominal 8 ft (2440 mm) apart, applied anywhere on the touchdown pad so as to represent each of the helicopter's two main landing gear, whether skid type or wheeled type.

(b) Each impact load shall have a magnitude of three-quarters of the gross weight of the helicopter.

(c) Both loads acting together shall have a magnitude of 11⁄2 times the gross weight of the helicopter.

(3) Dead load of the heliport and helistop landing or touchdown areas plus a uniform live load of 60 psf (2.87 kN/m2)

35.15.1 All buildings and other structures shall be designed using the provisions of Sections 2.1 through 2.4 and Section 2.6, as applicable, of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. 35.15.2 Either Section 2.3 and Section 2.6.1 or Section 2.4 and Section 2.6.2 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, shall be used exclusively for proportioning elements of a particular construction material throughout the structure.

Page 53 of 717

Chapter 36

36.1.1 In addition to the requiremetns fo this chapter, structures assigned to Seismic Design Category c,

Seismic Design Category E, and Seismic Design Category F shall comply with the applicable requirements

in ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures.

36.6.2.4 Thickness Based on Soil Loads, Unbalanced Backfill Height, and Wall Height. Subject to the

limitations of Chapter 14 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, Section 14, the thickness of foundation walls shall comply with the

requirements of Table 36.6.2.2(a) for plain masonry and plain concrete walls or Table 36.6.2.2(b), Table

36.6.2.2(c), and Table 36.6.2.2(d) for reinforced concrete and masonry walls.

36.6.2.5 Rubble Stone. Subject to the limitations of Chapter 14 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, Section 14, foundation walls of rough or random rubble stone shall be not less than 16 in. (405 mm) thick.

36.6.2.6 Foundation Walls.

Subject to the limitations of Chapter 14 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, Section 14, foundation walls constructed in accordance with Table 36.6.2.2(a), Table 36.6.2.2(b), Table 36.6.2.2(c), or Table 36.6.2.2(d) shall comply with all of

the following:

(1) Hollow and solid masonry units shall comply with ASTM C90, Standard Specification for

Loadbearing Concrete Masonry Units.

(2) Masonry shall be laid in running bond, and the mortar shall be Type M or Type S.

(3) Vertical reinforcement shall have a minimum yield strength of 60,000 psi (414 MPa).

(4) The specified location of the reinforcement shall equal or exceed the effective depth distance, d,

noted in Table 36.6.2.2(b), Table 36.6.2.2(c), or Table 36.6.2.2(d) and the following shall apply:

a. The distance shall be measured from the face of the soil side of the wall to the center of

vertical reinforcement

b. The reinforcement shall be placed within the tolerances specified in ACI 530.1/ASCE

6/TMS 602, Specifications for Masonry Structures, Article 3.4B7, for the specified

location.

(5) Grout shall have a specified compressive strength of not less than 2000 psi (13.8 MPa) at 28

days or shall comply with ASTM C476, Standard Specification for Grout for Masonry.

(6) Concrete shall have a specified compressive strength of not less than 2500 psi (17.2 MPa) at 28

days.

Chapter 38

38.4.2.1 For buildings less than or equal to 60 ft (18 m) in height and located outside hurricane‐prone

regions, as defined by ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and

Other Structures, the roof surface shall be protected in accordance with 38.4.2.1.1 or 38.4.2.1.2.

38.4.2.2 For buildings greater than 60 ft (18 m) in height or located within hurricane‐prone regions, as

defined by ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, the roof surface shall be protected in accordance with 38.4.2.2.1 through 38.4.2.2.2.

A.38.9.15.5 The FM Data Sheet 1‐35, Green Roofs, does not recommend the use of vegetative roof systems in locations where the design wind speed (VASD) is greater than or equal to 100 mph (45 m/s).

Page 54 of 717

That is approximately equivalent to an ultimate wind speed (VUSD) of 126 mph (57 m/s) in ASCE/SEI 7‐16, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. The reason for this limitation is to reduce or eliminate the likelihood that growth media will become windborne debris and damage windows on adjacent buildings during a wind event. This FM Data Sheet 1‐35 wind restriction should not be in effect provided the saturated particle density (SPD) of the aggregate portion of the growth media complies with Table A.38.9.15.5. Most growth media used in vegetative roofs is lighter than typical roof aggregate used on top of roof covers; however, it is usually a type that will retain much moisture, thus increasing its weight. The dry aggregate portion of the growth media is usually 65 percent to 75 percent of the volume of a typical engineered growth media. The typical size (0.3 in. to 0.5 in.) of vegetative roof growth media is similar to that of roof aggregate used on the multi‐ply roof covers. Window glass comes in a variety of types including annealed, heat strengthened, fully tempered, and laminated. All else being equal, the weakest of which is annealed. Annealed glass was chosen as it could qualify all other types. Limited testing done at FM Global in 2016 using 1⁄4 in. (6.4 mm) annealed glass indicates that green roof systems could be used in locations where VASD is greater than or equal to 100 mph (45 m/s, ASCE/SEI 7‐05) or VUSD is greater than or equal to 126 mph (57 m/s) in ASCE/SEI 7‐10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, or ASCE/SEI 7‐16, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, for the conditions in Table A.38.9.15.5. Where any variables including SPD or size of the aggregate portion of the growth media exceed the limitations of Table A.38.9.15.5, testing can be conducted to determine the acceptability of the proposed growth media. Test procedures and pass/fail criteria can be in accordance with Florida Building Code TAS 201, Impact Test Procedures, and TAS 203, Criteria for Testing Products Subject to Cyclic Wind Pressure Loading; or ASTM E1886, Standard Test Method for Performance of Exterior Windows, Curtain Walls, Doors, and Impact Protective Systems Impacted by Missile(s) and Exposed to Cyclic Pressure Differentials, and ASTM E1996, Standard Specification for Performance of Exterior Windows, Curtain Walls, Doors, and Impact Protective Systems Impacted by Windborne Debris in Hurricanes. In either case, the small missile (Missile Level A) criteria should be used; however, the proposed size and SPD of the aggregate portion of the growth media should be substituted for the steel ball normally used in the test. Table A.38.9.15.5 Acceptable Aggregate Size and Density

Saturated Particle Density (SPD) [lb/in.3 (g/ml)]

Aggregate Size (Approximately 100% Passing Sieve Size of ...)

Conclusions

SPD ≤ 0.051 (1.4) 1⁄2 in. (12.5 mm)* Acceptable

0.051 (1.4) < SPD ≤ 0.062 (1.7) 3⁄8 in. (9.5 mm) Acceptable

SPD > 0.062 (1.7) Testing is needed.

*Aggregate size numbers 8, 89, 9, and 10 per ASTM D448, Standard Classification for Sizes of Aggregate for Road and Bridge Construction, require 100 percent of the aggregate to pass a 1⁄2 in. sieve test. Aggregate size numbers 7 and 78 require at least 90 percent to pass a 1⁄2 in. sieve and 100 percent to pass a 3⁄4 in. sieve test. Sizes 7 and 78 only allow a minimal amount of aggregate above a 1⁄2 in. and could also be accepted. The SPD can be determined by submerging a sample of the proposed aggregate portion of the growth media into a calibrated beaker of water at 70°F (+/−2°F) for 7 days. A er removing the samples from the beaker, the reduction in volume should be noted and the samples should be weighed immediately. The sample weight should be divided by the reduction in volume to determine the SPD.

Chapter 39

Page 55 of 717

39.2.10 Flood Load. See Chapter 5 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for

Buildings and Other Structures, Chapter 5.

A.40.2.3.3 Section 11A.1 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, Section 11A.1, provides nationally recognized guidance for quality assurance for structures subject to earthquake ground motions.

Chapter 41

41.2.4.3 Concrete piles, and caisson supporting structures assigned to Seismic Design Category D

through Seismic Design Catefory F shall comply with ACI 318 if not in conflict with the requirements of

Chapter 36 of this Code and Section 14.2.3 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria

for Buildings and Other Structures.

41.5 Seismic Requirements. Modifications to ACI 318 requirements shall be in accordance with Chapter

14 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, Chapter 14, and the additional provisions of this section.

41.5.1.2 Anchors designed to resist wall out‐of‐plane forces with design strengths equal to or greater

than the force determined in accordance with Equation 12.11‐1 or 12.14‐10 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, Equation 12.11‐1 or 12.14‐10 shall be deemed to satisfy the overstrength requirement in ACI 318.

Chapter 44

44.2.2.1.1.2 Where a response modification coefficient, R, in accordance with Table 12.2‐1 of ASCE/SEI

7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, Table 12.2‐1, is

used for the design of structural steel buildings assigned to Seismic Design Category B or Seismic Design

Category C, the seismic force‐resisting system shall be designed and detailed in accordance with the

provisions of AISC 341, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, except as permitted in

44.2.2.1.1.3

44.2.2.1.1.3 In Table 12.2‐1 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, Table 12.2‐1, the response modification coefficient, R, designated for

“steel systems not specifically detailed for seismic resistance, excluding cantilever column systems” shall

be permitted to be used for systems designed and detailed in accordance with the provisions of AISC

360 only.

44.2.2.1.2 Seismic Design Category D, Seismic Design Category E, or Seismic Design Category F. Seismic

force‐resisting systems in structural steel buildings assigned to Seismic Design Category D, Seismic

Design Category E, or Seismic Design Category F shall be designed and detailed in accordance with AISC

341, except as permitted in Table15.4‐1 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, Table 15.4.1. 44.2.2.2 Structural Steel Members. The design, detailing, fabrication, and erection of structural steel

members in seismic force‐resisting systems other than those covered in 44.2.2.1, including struts,

collectors, chords, and foundation elements, shall be in accordance with AISC 341, Seismic Provisions for

Structural Steel Buildings, where either of the following applies:

Page 56 of 717

(1) The structure is assigned to Seismic Design Category D, Seismic Design Catefory E, or Seismic

Design Category F, except as permitted in Table 15.4‐1 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, Table 15.4‐1.

(2) A response modification coefficient, R, greater than 3 in accordance with Table 12.2‐1 of

ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, Table 12.2‐1, is used for the design of the structure assigned to Seismic Design

Category B or Seismic Design Category C.

44.3.2 Seismic Requirements for Composite Structural Steel and Concrete Construction. Where a

response modification coefficient, R, in accordance with Table 12.2‐1 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design

Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, Table 12.2‐1, is used as part of a system

of structural steel acting compositely with reinforced concrete, the structure shall be designed and

detailed in accordance with the provisions of AISC 341, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings

44.6.4 Where required by ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and

Other Structures, the seismic design of steel storage racks shall also be in accordance with the

requirements of Section 15.5.3 of ASCE/SEI 7.

44.7.3 Seismic Requirements for Cold‐Formed Steel Structures. Where a response modification

coefficient, R, in accordance with Table 12.2‐1 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated

Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, Table 12.2‐1, is used for the design of cold‐formed steel

structures, the structures shall be designed and detailed in accordance with the requirements of AISI

S100, North American Specification for the Design of Cold‐Formed Steel Structural Members; and for

cold‐formed steel special bolted moment frames, AISI‐S400, North American Standard for Seismic Design

of Cold‐Formed Steel Structural Systems.

44.8.1.1.1.1 Except as permitted in 44.8.1.1.1.2, when a response modification coefficient, R, in

accordance with Table 12.2‐2 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings

and Other Structures, is used for the design of cold‐formed steel light‐frame construction assigned to

seismic design category B or C, the seismic force‐resisting system shall be designed and detailed in

accordance with the requirements of AISI S400, North American Standard for Seismic Design of Cold‐

Formed Steel Structural Systems

44.8.1.1.1.2 Response modifications for coefficient, R, for “Steel systems not specifically detailed for

seismic resistance excluding cantilever column systems” per Table 12.2‐1 in ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum

Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, shall be permitted for systems

designed and detailed in accordance with AISI S240, North American Standard for Cold‐Formed Steel

Structural Framing, and need not be designed and detailed in accordance with AISI S400, North

American Standard for Seismic Design of Cold‐Formed Steel Structural Systems.

Page 57 of 717


Reorganize 11.2.1.5 as shown in the attachments.



5000--11.2.1.5_Reorg_map.docx

5000-2018_Chapter_11-reorg.docx


Committee: BLD-MEA

Submittal Date: Thu Aug 02 12:07:25 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The revisions are intended for consistency with revisions to NFPA 101.


Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.


12 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 58 of 717

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


13 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 59 of 717

11.2.1.5 Locks, Latches, and Alarm Devices. 11.2.1.5.1

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

11.2.1.5.3 [renumbered to 11.2.1.5.2] Locks, if provided, shall not require the use of a key, a tool, or special knowledge or effort for operation from the egress side. 11.2.1.5.10* [move to 11.2.1.5.3] A latch or other fastening device on a door leaf shall be provided with a releasing device having an obvious method of operation and that is readily operated under all lighting conditions. 11.2.1.5.10.1 [11.2.1.5.3.1] The releasing mechanism for any latch shall be located not less than 34 in. (865 mm), and not more than 48 in. (1220 mm), above the finished floor. 11.2.1.5.10.2 [11.2.1.5.3.2] The releasing mechanism shall open the door leaf with not more than one releasing operation, unless otherwise specified in 11.2.1.5.10.3. 11.2.1.5.3.3-NEW 11.2.1.5.10.3* [11.2.1.5.3.4] Egress door assemblies from individual living units and guest rooms of residential occupancies shall be permitted to be provided with devices, including automatic latching devices, that require not more than one additional releasing operation, provided that such device is operable from the inside without the use of a key or tool and is mounted at a height not exceeding 48 in. (1220 mm) above the finished floor. 11.2.1.5.4

The requirements of 11.2.1.5.1 and 11.2.1.5.3 shall not apply where otherwise provided in Chapters 19 through 21.

11.2.1.5.2* [move to 11.2.1.5.5] The requirement of 11.2.1.5.1 shall not apply to door leaves of listed fire door assemblies after exposure to elevated temperature in accordance with the listing based on laboratory fire test procedures. 11.2.1.5.5 Key-Operated Locks. [renumbered to 11.2.1.5.6] 11.2.1.5.7 [move to 11.2.1.5.6.1] Where permitted in Chapters 16 through 31, and 33 through 34, key operation shall be permitted, provided that the key cannot be removed when the door leaf is locked from the side from which egress is to be made. 11.2.1.5.5.16.2*

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

(1) The alternative specified in 11.2.1.5.5.1 is permitted in Chapters 16 through 31 for the specific occupancy.

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

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

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

Commented [HG1]: Changes in FR-8100


Formatted: Font: Bold


Page 60 of 717

11.2.1.5.5.26.3

The alternative provisions of 11.2.1.5.5.1 shall be permitted to be revoked by the authority having jurisdiction for cause.

11.2.1.5.8* [move to 11.2.1.5.7] Every door assembly in a stair enclosure serving more than four stories, unless permitted by 11.2.1.5.8.2, shall meet one of the following criteria:

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

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

(3) Selected re-entry shall be provided in accordance with 11.2.1.5.8.1.

11.2.1.5.8.1 [11.2.1.5.7.1] Door assemblies on stair enclosures shall be permitted to be equipped with hardware that prevents re-entry into the interior of the building, provided that all of the following criteria are met:

(1) There shall be not less than two levels where it is possible to leave the stair enclosure to access another exit.

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

(3) Re-entry shall be possible on the top, or next to top, story that allows access to another exit.

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

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

11.2.1.5.8.2 [11.2.1.5.7.2] The requirement of 11.2.1.5.8 shall not apply to the following:

(1) Stair enclosures serving a building permitted to have a single exit in accordance with Chapters 15 through 31 and 33 through 34

(2) Stair enclosures in health care occupancies where otherwise provided in Chapter 19

(3) Stair enclosures in detention and correctional occupancies where otherwise provided in Chapter 21

11.2.1.5.9 [11.2.1.5.8] If a stair enclosure allows access to the roof of the building, the door assembly to the roof either shall be kept locked or shall allow re-entry from the roof. 11.2.1.5.11 [move to 11.2.1.5.9] Where pairs of door leaves are required in a means of egress, one of the following criteria shall be met:

(1) Each leaf of the pair shall be provided with a releasing device that does not depend on the release of one door before the other.

(2) Approved automatic flush bolts shall be used and arranged such that both of the following criteria are met:

(a) The door leaf equipped with the automatic flush bolts shall have no doorknob or surface-mounted hardware.

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

(3) The door leaf equipped with the automatic flush bolts shall have no doorknob or surface-mounted hardware on the egress side of the door.

(4) Unlatching of any leaf shall not require more than one operation. 11.2.1.5.12* [move to 11.2.1.5.10]




Page 61 of 717

Devices shall not be installed in connection with any door assembly on which panic hardware or fire exit hardware is required where such devices prevent or are intended to prevent the free use of the door leaf for purposes of egress, unless otherwise provided in 11.2.1.6. 11.2.1.5.6 Door Hardware-Release of Electrically Locked Egress Door Assemblies. [move to 11.2.1.6.3]

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

(1) The hardware for egress side occupant release of the electrical lock is affixed to the door leaf.

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

(3) The hardware is capable of being operated with one hand in the direction of egress.

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

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

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


Page 62 of 717

11.2.1.5 Locks, Latches, and Alarm Devices. 11.2.1.5.1

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

11.2.1.5.2* [move to 11.2.1.5.5]

The requirement of 11.2.1.5.1 shall not apply to door leaves of listed fire door assemblies after exposure to elevated temperature in accordance with the listing based on laboratory fire test procedures.

11.2.1.5.3 [renumbered to 11.2.1.5.2]

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

11.2.1.5.4

The requirements of 11.2.1.5.1 and 11.2.1.5.3 shall not apply where otherwise provided in Chapters 19 through 21.

11.2.1.5.5 Key-Operated Locks. [renumbered to 11.2.1.5.6] 11.2.1.5.5.16.2*

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

(1) The alternative specified in 11.2.1.5.5.1 is permitted in Chapters 16 through 31 for the specific occupancy.

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



11.2.1.5.5.26.3

The alternative provisions of 11.2.1.5.5.1 shall be permitted to be revoked by the authority having jurisdiction for cause.

11.2.1.5.6 Door Hardware-Release of Electrically Locked Egress Door Assemblies. [move to 11.2.1.6.3]

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

(1) The hardware for egress side occupant release of the electrical lock is affixed to the door leaf.

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


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

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


11.2.1.5.7 [move to 11.2.1.5.6.1]

Where permitted in Chapters 16 through 31, and 33 through 34, key operation shall be permitted, provided that the key cannot be removed when the door leaf is locked from the side from which egress is to be made.

11.2.1.5.8* [move to 11.2.1.5.7]

Page 63 of 717

Every door assembly in a stair enclosure serving more than four stories, unless permitted by 11.2.1.5.8.2, shall meet one of the following criteria:


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

(3) Selected re-entry shall be provided in accordance with 11.2.1.5.8.1.

11.2.1.5.8.1 [11.2.1.5.7.1]

Door assemblies on stair enclosures shall be permitted to be equipped with hardware that prevents re-entry into the interior of the building, provided that all of the following criteria are met:

(1) There shall be not less than two levels where it is possible to leave the stair enclosure to access another exit.

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

(3) Re-entry shall be possible on the top, or next to top, story that allows access to another exit.

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

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

11.2.1.5.8.2 [11.2.1.5.7.2]

The requirement of 11.2.1.5.8 shall not apply to the following:

(1) Stair enclosures serving a building permitted to have a single exit in accordance with Chapters 15 through 31 and 33 through 34



11.2.1.5.9 [11.2.1.5.8]

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

11.2.1.5.10* [move to 11.2.1.5.3]

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

11.2.1.5.10.1 [11.2.1.5.3.1]

The releasing mechanism for any latch shall be located not less than 34 in. (865 mm), and not more than 48 in. (1220 mm), above the finished floor.

11.2.1.5.10.2 [11.2.1.5.3.2]

The releasing mechanism shall open the door leaf with not more than one releasing operation, unless otherwise specified in 11.2.1.5.10.3.

11.2.1.5.10.3* [11.2.1.5.3.4]

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

11.2.1.5.11 [move to 11.2.1.5.9]

Where pairs of door leaves are required in a means of egress, one of the following criteria shall be met:

Page 64 of 717

(1) Each leaf of the pair shall be provided with a releasing device that does not depend on the release of one door before the other.

(2) Approved automatic flush bolts shall be used and arranged such that both of the following criteria are met:

(a) The door leaf equipped with the automatic flush bolts shall have no doorknob or surface-mounted hardware.

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

(3) The door leaf equipped with the automatic flush bolts shall have no doorknob or surface-mounted hardware on the egress side of the door.

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

11.2.1.5.12* [move to 11.2.1.5.10]

Devices shall not be installed in connection with any door assembly on which panic hardware or fire exit hardware is required where such devices prevent or are intended to prevent the free use of the door leaf for purposes of egress, unless otherwise provided in 11.2.1.6.

Page 65 of 717


Revise Chapters 2, 5, Annex A, and Annex H as indicated in the attachment.



FUN_TIA_to_submit2.1530034419397.docx


Committee: BLD-FUN

Submittal Date: Fri Aug 03 10:42:34 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This is being submitted on behalf of a task group that worked to update the references to ASCE 7 toreflect the most current edition of ASCE 7 (2016). These proposals are also being submitted as TIAsfor the 2018 Edition. NFPA 5000 references an old edition of ASCE/SEI 7. During the developmentprocess, the new edition of ASCE/SEI 7 was not available so the reference to the 2010 edition wasmaintained. The 2016 edition of ASCE/SEI 7 is now available and updates should be made toreference the most current information available.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8220-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


20 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

17 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cheng, Amy Y.

Hopkins, Mark

Laramee, Scott T.

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Carson, Wayne G. Chip

Finnegan, Daniel P.


14 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 66 of 717

Frable, David W.

Groner, Norman E.

Jacoby, David J.

Jelenewicz, Chris

Klein, David P.

Lathrop, James K.

Mundy, Jr., James M.

Murga, Ricardo

Pauls, Jake

Puchovsky, Milosh T.

Roberts, Jon G.

Tyree, David P.

Vann, Joshua


15 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 67 of 717

FUN (Chapters 2, 3, and 5)

Chapter 2

2.3.7 ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures,

20160.

Chapter 5

5.5.3.1 Serviceability Scenario. Buildings shall be designed and constructed to provide serviceability performance, as presented in 5.2.3.2, under dead load and in combination with live, impact, soil and hydrostatic pressure, rain, flood, wind, ice, snow, and earthquake loads having the mean recurrence intervals indicated in Table 5.5.3.1. The following combinations of load shall be considered, or, alternatively, the loads and load combinations specified in ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, shall be permitted to be used:

(1) Dead

(2) Dead and floor live and impact

(3) Dead and floor live and roof live or snow or rain

(4) Dead and floor live and wind or earthquake

(5) Dead and wind or earthquake

(6) In hurricane-prone regions, dead and wind and flood

(7) In other areas, dead and flood

Table 5.5.3.1 Serviceability Level Mean Recurrence Intervals for Transient Loads (yr)

Load Type† Occupancy Risk Category‡ I II III IV

Live 50 50 50 50

Snow 50 50 100 100

Wind NA 10 2520 2520

Earthquake NA 25 50 100

Flood 100 100 100 100

NA: Not applicable. † Loading includes deflection and vibration. ‡ Occupancy Risk categories are as defined in ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and

Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. 5.5.3.2 Immediate Occupancy Scenario.

Page 68 of 717

Buildings and their nonstructural components shall be designed and constructed to provide the immediate occupancy performance level, as presented in 5.2.3.3, under dead load in combination with live loads having the mean recurrence intervals indicated in Table 5.5.3.1 and wind, earthquake, and floodand earthquake loads having the mean recurrence intervals indicated in Table 5.5.3.2. Building components and cladding systems shall be designed to provide immediate occupancy performance under dead load in combination with the wind loads indicated in Table 5.5.3.2. The following load combinations shall be used:

(1) Dead and floor live and earthquake (2) Dead and wind or earthquake

Table 5.5.3.2 Immediate Occupancy Level Mean Recurrence Intervals for Transient Loads (yr)

Load Typea Occupancy Risk Categoryb I II III IV

Windc 25 50 100 100

Earthquake NA 50 100 2/3MCER200

Floodd NA 100 100 100

NA: Not applicable. a Loading includes deflection and vibration. b Occupancy Risk categories are as defined in ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and

Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. c In hurricane-prone areas, wind speed is based on both hurricane simulation techniques and 500‐year wind speed records. d In hurricane-prone areas, flood height is determined in conjunction with the hurricane wind surge. 5.5.3.2.1 The effects of soil and hydrostatic pressure loads shall be considered concurrently with dead loads in the

load combinations specified in 5.5.3.2(1) and (2).

5.5.3.2.2 Seventy‐five percent of the effects of floor live and wind loads, or floor live and earthquake loads, shall

be permitted to be used when considered in combination.

5.5.3.3 Collapse Prevention Scenarios. 5.5.3.3.1 Buildings shall be designed to resist collapse, and their components shall be designed to resist failure as presented in 5.2.3.4 under dead load in combination with other loads. The minimum acceptable annual probability of failure for structural elements, components, and their connections under the influence of dead, earth and fluid pressure, ice, live, operational, rain, snow, and wind loads shall be as indicated in Table 5.5.3.3.1(a) and Table 5.5.3.3.1(b), as appropriate to their risk category and the mode and consequences of failure. Table 5.5.3.3.1(a) Acceptable Target Reliability (Maximum Annual Probability of Failure, PF) and Associated Reliability Indexes (β)† for Load Conditions That Do Not Include Earthquake,sTsunami, or Extraordinary Events

Page 69 of 717

Failure Mode and Consequences Risk Category I II III IV

Failure that is not sudden and does not lead to widespread progression of damage

PF = 1.25 × 10-4 /yr

PF = 3.0 × 10-5 /yr

PF = 1.25 × 10-5 /yr

PF = 5.0 × 10-6 /yr

β = 2.5 β = 3.0 β = 3.25 β = 3.5

Failure that is either sudden or leads to widespread progression of damage

PF = 3.0 × 10-5 /yr

PF = 5.0 × 10-6 /yr

PF = 2.0 × 10-6 /yr

PF = 7.0 × 10-7 /yr

β = 3.0 β = 3.5 β = 3.75 β = 4.0

Failure that is sudden and results in widespread progression of damage

PF = 5.0 × 10-6 /yr

PF = 7.0 × 10-7 /yr

PF = 2.5 × 10-7 /yr

PF = 1.0 × 10-7 /yr

β = 3.5 β = 4.0 β = 4.25 β = 4.5

PF: Probability of failure. †The reliability indices are provided for a 50-year service period, while the probabilities of failure have been annualized. Table 5.5.3.3.1(b) Collapse Prevention Level Minimum Intensities for Earthquake (MCE) Shaking (multiple of MCE acceleration)

Component Occupancy Risk Category† I II III IV

Structure and structural components 0.67 1.0 1.25 1.5

Nonstructural components 0.67 0.67 0.83 1.0

Note: Maximum considered earthquake (MCE) shaking is as defined in ASCE/SEI 7. †Occupancy categories are as defined in ASCE/SEI 7. 5.5.3.3.1.1 The effects of soil and hydrostatic pressure loads shall be considered concurrently with dead loads in the load combinations specified in 5.5.3.3.1(1) and (2). 5.5.3.3.1.2 Seventy five percent of the effects of floor live and wind loads, or floor live and earthquake loads, shall be permitted to be used when considered in combination. 5.5.3.3.2 Buildings shall be designed to resist collapse and other life-threatening structural failure under dead, live and seismic loading associated with maximum considered earthquake shakingground motion, MCER, as defined in ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for

Buildings and Other Structures, with conditional probabilities of failure not greater than those indicated in Table 5.5.3.3.2, as appropriate to the structure’s risk category and failure mode. Table 5.5.3.3.2 Acceptable Target Reliability (Conditional Probability of Failure) Under Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) ShakingGround Motion Hazard

Risk Category I and Risk Category II

Total or partial structural collapse 10 percent conditioned on the occurrence of maximum considered earthquake shaking

Page 70 of 717

Risk Category I and Risk Category II

Failure of Ordinary Noncritical Structural Members Caused by Earthquakethat could result in endangerment of individual lives

25 percent conditioned on the occurrence of maximum considered earthquake shaking

Risk Category III


Failure of Ordinary Noncritical Structural Members Caused

by Earthquakethat could result in endangerment of individual lives


Risk Category IV


Failure of Ordinary Noncritical Structural Members Caused

by Earthquakethat could result in endangerment of individual lives


5.5.3.3.3*

High-rise buildings of Risk Category III or Risk Category IV, as defined in ASCE/SEI 7, Table 1‐Table 35.3.1,ASCE/SEI 7, Table 1-1, shall be designed and constructed to resist collapse, and their components shall be designed to resist failure for the conditions specified in 5.5.3.3.3.1 and 5.5.3.3.3.2. A.5.5.3.3.3 Table 35.3.1 summarizes the occupancy categories of Table 1-1 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.

Annex H

ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, 2005, and 2010, 2016 with Supplement 1, 2017. ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, 2016 with

Supplement 1, 2017.

Page 71 of 717

First Revision No. 8049-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Detail ]

10.2.3.6.3 [add new]

Factory-applied fire-retardant-coated products shall possess the desired degree of permanecy andshall be maintained to retain the effectiveness of the treatment under the service conditionsencountered in actual use.


Committee: BLD-INT

Submittal Date: Tue Jul 24 17:10:07 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The requirement for permanence of the treatment is within NFPA 101 but is missing fromNFPA 5000.


Public Input No. 44-NFPA 5000-2018 [Section No. 10.2.3.7]

Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

11 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Babrauskas, Vytenis

Carrigan, Matthew

Evans, Michael W.

Affirmative All

Chen, Tiffney Arlene-Cates

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Fitch, William E.


Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry


Richardson, Dennis A.

Richardson, James R.


16 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 72 of 717

Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.

Negative with Comment

Newman, Kathleen A.

Remove, "Factory Applied". There are many compliant flame-retardants on the market that can be applied on-siteor by, "Licensed Applicators". Eliminating other application processes limits the consumer's options. Firecompliance for steel also can be applied on-site.


17 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 73 of 717

First Revision No. 8148-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Detail ]

37.1.5.1

Add " or the 16 ft (4.9 m) parallel panel test described in ANSI/FM 4880, American National Standard

for Evaluating the Fire Performance of Insulated Building Panel Assemblies and Interior Finish Materials, "between "NFPA 285" and "unless otherwise..."

ADD 37.1.5.1.1

When window openings are designed as part of the installed assembly, the edge of the opening shall beprotected as follows:

(1) When the assembly is tested in accordance with NFPA 285, provide the same protection asprovided for the actual test.

(2) When the assembly is tested per ANSI/FM 4880, American National Standard for Evaluating theFire Performance of Insulated Building Panel Assemblies and Interior Finish Materials , providegypsum wallboard, fire-retardant-treated wood, or minimum 20 gauge [0.03595 in. (0.9 mm)]corrosion-resistant steel flashing around the window opening, fastened at a maximum spacing of16 in. (406 mm) on center into the wall structure using minimum No. 10 (5 mm) screws.


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

ANSI/FM 4880 is a consensus fire test standard that can be used to test fire exposure to theinterior or exterior side of exterior walls. The 16 ft parallel panel test as described in ANSI/FM 4880is an acceptable alternative to NFPA 285. Protection against fire exposure to the wall assemblycross-section around window openings must be provided in the installation.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8148-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

18 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.


18 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 74 of 717

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



FM 4880 test does not have a window opening as part of the current test standard. How a window is added is notdefined and should be defined before approval as equal to NFPA 285. The following addition (see (2) below) ofSTEEL flashing around the test sample window opening is unacceptable and does not represent field/actualbuilding conditions. Melting temperature of steel much higher than aluminum, so test would not represent likelyworst case scenario. Also, not inline with recent revisions to NFPA 285. (2) When the assembly was tested perANSI/FM 4880 provide minmum 20 gage (0.03595 in., 0.9 mm) steel flashng around the window opening,fastened at a maximum spacing of 16 in. (406 mm) on center into the wall structure using minimum no. 10 (5 mm)screws.

Manley, Bonnie E.

There are too many substantial differences between FM4880 and NFPA 285, which have not been addressed bythe new language. Therefore, FM 4880 should not be used as an alternative to NFPA 285.


19 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 75 of 717

First Revision No. 8388-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Section No. 3.3.10 ]

3.3.11 Aerosol Products .

A product that is dispensed from an aerosol container by a propellant A nonrefillable combination of anaerosol container, aerosol propellant, and aerosol valve, with or without a base product, that is dispensedthrough the aerosol valve . [30B,2015 2019 ] (BLD-IND)


Committee: BLD-IND


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Extract update.


Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron


20 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 76 of 717

Klein, Andrew S.

Krantz, Sr., Neal W.

Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd

Lozano-Rosales, Roberto

McLaughlin, Patrick A.

Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.

Skinker, Cleveland B.

Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


21 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 77 of 717

First Revision No. 8041-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Section No. 3.3.35.8.1 ]

3.3.35.8.1* Gross Floor Area.

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


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision clarifies the intent of the application of the term 'gross floor area' and bettercorrelates with the definition of the term 'net floor area'. The revision is intended for consistencywith revisions to NFPA 101.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8041-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.


22 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 78 of 717

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


23 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 79 of 717

First Revision No. 8207-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Sections 3.3.38.1.1, 3.3.38.1.2 ]

3.3.38.1.1 Fire Door Assembly.

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

3.3.38.1.2 Floor Fire Door Assembly.

A combination of a fire door, a frame, hardware, and other accessories installed in a horizontal plane,which together provide a specific degree of fire protection to a through-opening in a fire resistance–ratedfloor. [288, 2012 80, 2019 ] (BLD-FIR)


Committee: BLD-FIR


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Extract update. Text reflects the most current edition of the source document, NFPA 80, 2019edition. NFPA 288 no longer defines the term 'floor fire door assembly'. Per the 2018 edition of theNFPA Manual of Style, the term resides in NFPA 80.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8207-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Graupmann, Joseph

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All

Alday, Eddie Dewayne

Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.


24 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 80 of 717

Goldhammer, Edward S.

Gump, Jack A.

Hall, William J.

Higgins, Joseph Patrick

Hopper, Howard

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon

Koffel, William E.

McHugh, Jr., William J.

Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Shino, Gregory K.

Stashak, Catherine L.

Wittasek, Nathan B.

Zivnuska, Alexander Frederick


25 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 81 of 717

First Revision No. 8208-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Section No. 3.3.38.2 ]

3.3.38.2 Fire Window Assembly.

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


Committee: BLD-FIR


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

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


Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Graupmann, Joseph

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All


Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.


Gump, Jack A.

Hall, William J.


Hopper, Howard


26 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 82 of 717

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon

Koffel, William E.


Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.



27 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 83 of 717


3.3.68.16* Special Amusement Building.

A building or portion thereof that is temporary, permanent, or mobile and contains a device ride or systemthat conveys passengers or provides a walkway along, around, or over a course in any direction as a formof amusement, entertainment, or education arranged so that the egress path is not readily apparent dueto visual or audio distractions or an intentionally confounded egress path, or is not readily available due tothe mode of conveyance through the building or structure. (BLD-AXM)


Committee: BLD-AXM

Submittal Date: Tue Aug 21 14:48:57 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The revision is intended for consistency with changes to NFPA 101 (see 101 FR-6696).


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.

Thomas, Jr., Elbert R.

Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.


28 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 84 of 717

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.

Scandaliato, Steven J.

Schweitzer, Charles J.

Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Washburn, Janet A.


29 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 85 of 717


3.3.125.1 Aerosol Container.

A pressurized metal can or plastic container, up to a maximum size of 1000 ml ( 33.8 fl oz (1000 ml ), or apressurized glass container bottle , up to a maximum size of 118 ml ( 4 fl oz (118 ml ), that is designed andintended to dispense its contents an aerosol . [30B,2015 2019 ] (BLD-IND)


Committee: BLD-IND


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron


30 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 86 of 717

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


31 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 87 of 717

First Revision No. 8066-NFPA 5000-2018 [ New Section after 3.3.241 ]

3.3.241 Fire-Retardant Coating.

A coating that reduces the flame spread index of Douglas fir, or of any other tested combustible surfaceto which it is applied, when tested in accordance with a test for assessing surface burningcharacteristics. [ 703, 2021] (BLD-SCM)


Committee: BLD-SCM

Submittal Date: Wed Jul 25 12:41:31 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Fire-Retardant Coatings are referenced in this Code and should be defined. This isextracted from 703.


Public Input No. 207-NFPA 5000-2018 [New Section after 3.3.241]

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.


32 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 88 of 717

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


33 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 89 of 717

First Revision No. 8087-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Section No. 3.3.336.2 [Excluding any Sub-

Sections] ]

A structure, transportable in one or more sections which, that in the traveling mode is 8 body-ft (2.4 m) or

more in width or 40 body-ft (12.2 m) or more in length or, when erected that on site, is 320 ft2 (29.7 m2) ormore and which , is built on a permanent chassis and , is designed to be used as a dwelling, with orwithout a permanent foundation, when whether or not connected to the required utilities, and includesplumbing, heating, air-conditioning, and electrical systems contained therein; except that such . Suchterms shall include any structure which that meets all the requirements of this paragraph except the sizerequirements and with respect to which the manufacturer voluntarily files a certification required by theregulatory agency. Calculations used to determine the number of square feet in a structure are based onthe structure’s exterior dimensions, include all expandable rooms, cabinets, and other projectionscontaining interior space, but do not include bay windows. [501:1.2.14 1.2.13 ] (BLD-BSY)


Committee: BLD-BSY


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Extracted most current definition from NFPA 501 to account for minor editorial changes.


Ballot Results


13 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

9 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Ambrefe, William

Forner, Phil

Shingleton, Frank

Whitman, Steven J.

Affirmative All

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Clary, Shane M.

Hansen, Raymond N.

Novosel, Davor

Rickard, John A.

Siegel, Shelley


34 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 90 of 717

Smith, James B.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


35 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 91 of 717


3.3.409* Mass Timber.

Construction elements of Type IV construction that are solid, built-up, panelized, or engineered woodproducts. (BLD-BLC)

A.3.3.409 Mass Timber.

The minimum allowable dimensions for mass timber are found in 7.2.5.5 .


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This definition is necessary to describe a new concept in construction materials and to make ituseful in the code. The term "construction" was used to align the verbiage of Table 7.2.1.1.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8024-NFPA 5000-2018

Public Input No. 204-NFPA 5000-2018 [New Section after 3.3]

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.


36 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 92 of 717

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


Alfawakhiri, Farid

The definition is not necessary as it effectively duplicates, and is redundant to, the current definition of Type IVConstruction and "heavy timber" contained in Table 7.2.1.1 and Section 7.2.5. The minimum dimensions in 7.2.5.5already belong to Type IV (2HH) where "H" denotes "heavy timber members" according to the footnote of Table7.2.1.1. All of the terms used in proposed 3.3.409 to define “mass timber”, such as “solid”, “built-up”, “panelized”,“engineered wood”, are also used for “heavy timber”.

Hall, William J.

Testing for this product has been limited to residential fire loads at 550 MJ/M2. Exposed and open multi-floor havenot been tested at all.

Abstention

Koffel, William E.

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


37 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 93 of 717


3.3.421 Metal Composite Panel Wall.

See 3.3.679.9 .


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The definition of Metal Composite Panel Wall was deleted. This pointer to that definition alsoneeded to be deleted.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8065-NFPA 5000-2018

Public Input No. 48-NFPA 5000-2018 [Section No. 3.3.419]

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.


38 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 94 of 717

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


39 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 95 of 717


3.3.447.5* Detention and Correctional Occupancy.

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


Committee: BLD-DET

Submittal Date: Mon Aug 20 14:46:43 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

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

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

ResponseMessage:

FR-8334-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


16 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

11 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Kelly, John

Lumley, Troy A.

Patterson, Van Hoover

Stapleton, Jr., James A.

Affirmative All

Aler, Clay P.

Bollig, Tracy

Collins, Peter J.

DiMascio, Michael

Gaw, Randy

Heffernan, Rick


40 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 96 of 717

Perry, Robert R.

Poole, Jack

Schultz, Terry

Young, Sichel

Youngberg, Garrick


Kruszelnicki, Michael

The word "housed" is still used in 21.1.1.3. I suggest that using the definition of 21.1.1.3 would be sufficient. Theterm "confined or housed" is a more inclusive statement and can extend to vocational environments.


41 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 97 of 717


3.3.635.11* Parking Structure.

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

3.3.635.11.1 Parking Structure, Assisted Mechanical Type Parking Structure .

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

3.3.635.11.2 Parking Structure, Automated Type Parking Structure .

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

3.3.635.11.3 Parking Structure, Enclosed Parking Structure .

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

3.3.635.11.4 Parking Structure, Open Parking Structure .

A parking structure that meets the requirements of 30.8.1.3. [ 88A, 2019] (BLD-IND)

3.3.635.11.5 Parking Structure, Ramp Type Parking Structure .

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


Committee: BLD-IND


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All


42 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 98 of 717

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


43 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 99 of 717


3.3.640.3 Non-Patient Care Suite (Heath Care and Ambulatory Health Care Occupancies).

A suite within a health care or ambulatory health care occupancy health care suite that is not intended forpatient sleeping or treating patients care . (BLD-HEA)


Committee: BLD-HEA

Submittal Date: Wed Sep 05 09:54:03 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The revision is intended for consistency with revisions to NFPA 101.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.


44 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 100 of 717

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.

Roberts, Richard Jay

Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.

Widdekind, Michael D.


Farraher, Martin J.

Agree with technical committee


45 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 101 of 717


3.3.640.4 Patient Care Non-Sleeping Suite (Health Care and Ambulatory Health Care Occupancies).

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


Committee: BLD-HEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.


46 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 102 of 717

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



47 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 103 of 717


3.3.640.5 Patient Care Sleeping Suite (Health Care Occupancies).

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


Committee: BLD-HEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.


48 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 104 of 717

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



49 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 105 of 717


3.3.640.2 Patient Health Care Suite (Health Care and Ambulatory Health Care Occupancies).

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


Committee: BLD-HEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.


50 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 106 of 717

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



51 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 107 of 717


3.3.676 Vision Panel.

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


Committee: BLD-FIR


Committee Statement

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


Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Graupmann, Joseph

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All


Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.


Gump, Jack A.

Hall, William J.


Hopper, Howard


52 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 108 of 717

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon

Koffel, William E.


Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.



53 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 109 of 717


3.3.680.9 Metal Composite Panel Wall.

Nonbearing wall built between columns and piers wholly supported at each story and comprised of anexterior and interior metal panel housing a foam or other insulating material. (BLD-SCM)


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This definition is for a term that is actually not used in the code. Moreover, the definition has thepotential to cause confusion because it talks about "housing a foam" and the definition of "metalcomposite material" explains that MCMs are not allowed to contain foamed plastics.

3.3.408.10 Metal Composite Material (MCM). A factory manufactured panel consisting of metalskins bonded to both faces of a core made of any plastic other than foamed plastic insulation asdefined in 3.3.354.1. (BLD-SCM)

ResponseMessage:

FR-8064-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.


54 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 110 of 717

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


55 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 111 of 717


3.3.692.3 Fire-Retardant Coatings.

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


Committee: BLD-INT


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Fire retardant coatings are used within NFPA 5000 and should be defined per NFPA 703.



Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

11 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Babrauskas, Vytenis

Carrigan, Matthew

Evans, Michael W.

Affirmative All


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Fitch, William E.


Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry




Siegel, Shelley


56 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 112 of 717

Sloan, Dwayne E.


Newman, Kathleen A.

ok


57 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 113 of 717


6.2.1.1*

Multiple occupancies, as defined in 6.2.2.1, shall comply with the requirements of 6.2.1 and one of thefollowing:

(1) Mixed occupancies — 6.2.3

(2) Separated occupancies — 6.2.4

A.6.2.1.1

Where a building is subdivided for occupancy by multiple tenants, the presence of rated fire barriersbetween occupancies and independent exit access for each occupancy does not mandate the use ofthe separated occupancy provisions of 6.2.4 .


Committee: BLD-FUN


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The proposed Annex A language is in response to a Formal Interpretation request on NFPA 101regarding the application of mixed and separated occupancy provisions that did not achieve therequired agreement in accordance with the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPAStandards. The proposed revision provides the needed clarification.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8214-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


20 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

17 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cheng, Amy Y.

Hopkins, Mark

Laramee, Scott T.

Affirmative All



58 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 114 of 717

Alfawakhiri, Farid


Finnegan, Daniel P.

Frable, David W.

Groner, Norman E.

Jacoby, David J.

Jelenewicz, Chris

Klein, David P.

Lathrop, James K.


Murga, Ricardo

Pauls, Jake


Roberts, Jon G.

Tyree, David P.

Vann, Joshua


59 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 115 of 717

First Revision No. 8215-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Sections 6.2.4.7, 6.2.4.8 ]

6.2.4.7

Where the occupancy separation is horizontal, structural members supporting the separation shall beprotected by an equivalent fire-resistive construction.

6.2.4.8

The type of construction required for the building shall be determined in accordance with Section 7.4 .


Committee: BLD-FUN


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The revision editorially deletes duplicated provisions (6.2.4.5 and 6.2.4.6).


Ballot Results


20 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

17 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cheng, Amy Y.

Hopkins, Mark

Laramee, Scott T.

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid


Finnegan, Daniel P.

Frable, David W.

Groner, Norman E.

Jacoby, David J.

Jelenewicz, Chris

Klein, David P.

Lathrop, James K.


60 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 116 of 717


Murga, Ricardo

Pauls, Jake


Roberts, Jon G.

Tyree, David P.

Vann, Joshua


61 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 117 of 717


7.2.5.2 Exterior Wall Separation.

7.2.5.2.1

Exterior walls greater than 30 ft (9.1 m) from the property line shall be permitted to be of heavy timberconstruction, provided that the 2-hour rating required by Table 7.2.1.1 is maintained and such wallscontain no combustible concealed spaces.

7.2.5.2.2

Exterior walls of buildings in accordance with 7.2.5.6.1.1 or 7.2.5.6.1.2 shall be permitted to belocated any distance from the property line and shall be constructed as required therein, includingpermitted concealed spaces.


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This is one in a series of modifications based upon inclusion of Mass Timber in the Code.

Last cycle, a proposal for a taller, mass timber building was submitted. The committee rejected thesecond draft revisions and the concept stating, in part "wait for the results of the committees lookinginto it". ICC created a Tall Wood Building Ad Hoc Committee (TWB) which, for about two years, hasbeen studying the science of taller mass timber buildings. The TWB reviewed information,publications, testing and testimony. They submitted a series of proposals to the ICC code changeprocess to permit taller mass timber buildings. The Code Development Committee approved theseproposals 13-1. Now this creates a disconnect between that code and the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code,particularly for Health Care types of occupancies. This proposal is similar to the TWB proposal but ithas distinctive differences. It is intended to mollify those differences so that little or no differences existbetween the documents. First, it does not create new types of construction. Instead it introduces"Special Requirements" for the new mass timber construction. Within the existing section on SpecialRequirements, two conditions are described: one in which the fire resistive rating of the Type IV masstimber is similar to Type I (332) and which requires limited combustible material protecting the masstimber and a second, which is similar to Type II (222) but requires no gypsum wall board (except onoutside of exterior walls) to achieve its fire resistance rating. Second, it is consistent with the TWBdraft proposal which was voted upon by the TWB and published on its web page at the ICC web site.It is acknowledged that at its last meeting, just days before the deadline, the TWB changed some ofthe values for height in stories and area permitted in hopes of assuaging concerns. This does notreflect those last minute attempts attempts. The supporting material, including video of the various firetests and the final report on those tests, E119 reports, and many of the research papers available atthe TWB site are also available at www.awc.org/tallmasstimber.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8022-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



62 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 118 of 717


1 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Given that buildings in 7.2.5.6.1.1 and 7.2.5.6.1.2 are intended to be higher and larger than traditional Type IV(2HH) Construction, and such buildings contain exposed wood and combustible exterior walls, these buildingwould pose higher risks to neighboring properties. Therefore, appropriate specified distances to property linesshould be maintained for combustible exterior walls, similar to 7.2.5.2.1. Also, the blanket undefined permission ofconcealed spaces is inappropriate - it should be either deleted, or it should be specific to allowed exceptions withappropriate references to specific provisions in the code.

Hall, William J.



63 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 119 of 717

Abstention

Koffel, William E.

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


64 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 120 of 717


7.2.5.6 Special Requirements — Type IV Construction.

The special requirements in 7.2.5.6.1 through 7.2.5.6.8 shall apply to Type IV construction.

7.2.5.6.1 Structural Elements.

Structural elements shall be of heavy timber members (sawn or glued-laminated), cross-laminated timber,or fire-resistance-rated construction as set forth in Table 7.2.1.1 when materials other than heavy timber orcross-laminated timber are used.

7.2.5.6.1.1

In buildings protected throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with55.3.1.1 (1), Type IV construction with mass timber construction elements having fire resistance ratingsrequired for Type I(332) shall be permitted as follows:

(1) The fire resistance rating of construction elements and connections shall be provided as follows:

(a) Two-thirds of the required fire resistance rating of construction elements shall be provided bygypsum wallboard in accordance with Section 4.4.2 of AWC TR10, Calculating the FireResistance of Exposed Wood Members.

(b) Wood connections, including connectors, fasteners, and members, shall be protected fromfire exposure for the required fire resistance time in accordance with Section 4.5 of AWCTR10, Calculating the Fire Resistance of Exposed Wood Members.

(2) All elements of the exterior wall, other than mass timber elements and the water-resistive barrier,shall be as follows:

(a) Exterior wall elements shall be noncombustible or limited-combustible materials.

(b) The provisions of 7.2.5.6.8 shall not be permitted.

(3) In buildings equal to or less than 180 ft (54.9 m) in height, exit enclosures, elevator hoistways, andother shafts shall be permitted to be constructed of mass timber elements.

(4) In buildings greater than 180 ft (54.9 m) but less than or equal to 270 ft (82.3 m) in height, exitenclosures, elevator hoistways, and other shafts shall be constructed of noncombustible orlimited-combustible materials.

7.2.5.6.1.2

In buildings protected throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with55.3.1.1 (1), Type IV construction with mass timber construction elements having fire resistance ratingsrequired for Type II(222) shall be permitted as follows:

(1) The fire resistance rating of construction elements shall be provided as specified in Chapter 4 ofAWC TR10, Calculating the Fire Resistance of Exposed Wood Members.

(2) In buildings less than 85 ft (25.9 m) in height, exit enclosures, elevator hoistways, and other shaftsshall be permitted to be constructed of mass timber elements.

(3) In buildings greater than 85 ft (25.9 m) but equal to or less than 180 ft (54.9 m) in height, two-thirds of the required fire resistance rating of construction elements for exit enclosures, elevatorhoistways, and other shafts shall be provided by gypsum wallboard in accordance with Section4.4.2 of AWC TR10, Calculating the Fire Resistance of Exposed Wood Members .

(4) The fire resistance rating of wood connections, including connectors, fasteners, and members,shall be protected from fire exposure for the required fire resistance time in accordance withSection 4.5 of AWC TR10, Calculating the Fire Resistance of Exposed Wood Members.

(5) All elements of the exterior wall, other than mass timber elements and the water-resistive barrier,shall be as follows:

(a) Exterior wall elements shall be noncombustible or limited-combustible materials.

(b) The provisions of 7.2.5.6.8 shall not be permitted.

7.2.5.6.2 Columns, Arches, Beams, and Roof Decking.


65 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 121 of 717

7.2.5.6.2.1

Where horizontal separation of 20 ft (6100 mm) or more is provided, wood columns, arches, beams, androof decking conforming to the requirements for heavy timber in 7.2.5.5 shall be permitted to be used onthe exterior of the building.

7.2.5.6.2.2

Mass timber elements of columns, beams, roof decking, and exterior walls of buildings in accordancewith 7.2.5.6.1.1 or 7.2.5.6.1.2 shall be permitted where the building is of any separation distance.

7.2.5.6.3 Partitions.

7.2.5.6.3.1

Permanent partitions shall be permitted to be of solid wood construction formed by not less than twolayers of matched boards of 1 in. (25 mm) nominal thickness or of 1-hour fire-resistance-rated constructionas set forth in Table 7.2.1.1.

7.2.5.6.3.2

Permanent partitions of buildings in accordance with 7.2.5.6.1.1 or 7.2.5.6.1.2 shall have partitions ofmass timber, limited-combustible materials, or noncombustible materials.

7.2.5.6.4 Floors.

7.2.5.6.4.1

Floors shall be permitted to be of heavy timber, masonry, concrete, wood, or steel and shall beconstructed as required in Chapter 8.

7.2.5.6.4.2

Floors of buildings in accordance with 7.2.5.6.1.1 shall be of mass timber covered with a minimum of 1in. (25 mm) of noncombustible materials or be constructed of noncombustible material.

7.2.5.6.5 Roofs.

7.2.5.6.5.1

Roofs of 1-hour fire-resistance-rated construction shall be permitted.

7.2.5.6.5.2

Roofs of buildings in accordance with 7.2.5.6.1.1 or 7.2.5.6.1.2 shall be permitted to be constructedwith treads and risers of solid mass timber.

7.2.5.6.6 Stairways.

7.2.5.6.6.1

Stairways of buildings in accordance with 7.2.5.6.1.1 or 7.2.5.6.1.2 shall be permitted to be constructedwith wood treads and risers of not less than 2 in. (51 mm) nominal thickness solid mass timber .

7.2.5.6.6.2

Where built-on, laminated, or plank inclines are required for floors, stairways shall be permitted to be 1 in.(25 mm) nominal thickness or shall be permitted to be constructed as required for buildings of Type I orType II construction.


66 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 122 of 717

7.2.5.6.7 Exterior Walls.

Exterior walls having a required fire resistance rating of 2 hours or less shall be permitted to beconstructed with any of the following materials shall meet at least one of the following requirements :

(1) In buildings complying with 7.2.5.6.1.1 , exterior walls having a required fire resistance rating of 3hours or less shall be permitted to be constructed with any of the following materials:

(a) Noncombustible material shall be permitted.

(b) Limited-combustible material shall be permitted.

(c) Mass timber complying with Chapter 45 , provided the exterior surface of the mass timber isprotected by at least one layer of 5 ⁄8 in. (16 mm) Type X gypsum board

(2) In buildings complying with 7.2.5.6.1.2 , exterior walls having a required fire resistance rating of 2hours or less shall be permitted to be constructed with any of the following materials:

(a) Noncombustible material

(b) Limited-combustible material

(c) Mass timber complying with Chapter 45, provided the exterior surface of the mass timber isprotected by at least one layer of 5 ⁄8 in. (16 mm) Type X gypsum board

(3) Other exterior walls having a required fire resistance rating of 2 hours or less shall be permitted to beconstructed with any of the following materials:

(a) Noncombustible material shall be permitted.

(b) Limited-combustible material shall be permitted.

(c) Fire-retardant-treated wood shall be permitted. Approved fire-retardant-treated wood framingshall be permitted within the assembly of exterior walls having a horizontal separation of not lessthan 60 in. (1525 mm), provided that the fire resistance rating is maintained and the exposedouter and inner faces of such walls are constructed of limited-combustible or noncombustiblematerials.

(d) Cross-laminated timber complying with 45.5.7 shall be permitted provided that the exteriorsurface of the cross-laminated timber is protected by one of the following:

i. Fire-retardant-treated wood not less than 15⁄32 in. (12 mm) thick

ii. Gypsum Type X gypsum board not less than 1 ⁄2 5 ⁄8 in. (12.7 16 mm) thick

iii. Noncombustible material

7.2.5.6.8 Exterior Nonbearing Walls.

Exterior nonbearing walls shall be permitted when tested in accordance with and meeting meet theconditions of acceptance of NFPA 285.


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Last cycle, a proposal for a taller, mass timber building was submitted. The committee rejected thesecond draft revisions and the concept stating, in part "wait for the results of the committees lookinginto it". ICC created a Tall Wood Building Ad Hoc Committee (TWB) which, for about two years, hasbeen studying the science of taller mass timber buildings. The TWB reviewed information,publications, testing and testimony. They submitted a series of proposals to the ICC code changeprocess to permit taller mass timber buildings. The Code Development Committee approved theseproposals 13-1. Now this creates a disconnect between that code and the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code,particularly for Health Care types of occupancies. This proposal is similar to the TWB proposal but ithas distinctive differences. It is intended to mollify those differences so that little or no differences existbetween the documents. First, it does not create new types of construction. Instead it introduces"Special Requirements" for the new mass timber construction. Within the existing section on SpecialRequirements, two conditions are described: one in which the fire resistive rating of the Type IV masstimber is similar to Type I (332) and which requires limited combustible material protecting the mass


67 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 123 of 717

timber and a second, which is similar to Type II (222) but requires no gypsum wall board (except onoutside of exterior walls) to achieve its fire resistance rating. Second, it is consistent with the TWBdraft proposal which was voted upon by the TWB and published on its web page at the ICC web site.It is acknowledged that at its last meeting, just days before the deadline, the TWB changed some ofthe values for height in stories and area permitted in hopes of assuaging concerns. This does notreflect those last minute attempts attempts. The supporting material, including video of the various firetests and the final report on those tests, E119 reports, and many of the research papers available atthe TWB site are also available at www.awc.org/tallmasstimber.

Certain alternative wall types introduced in previous cycles were outside the scope of NFPA 285. TheFire Tests Committee is revising 285 to accommodate those materials. This change will allow thebuilding code to rely upon the most recent fire test.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8119-NFPA 5000-2018

Public Input No. 203-NFPA 5000-2018 [Section No. 7.2.5.6.8]

Public Input No. 206-NFPA 5000-2018 [Sections 7.2.5.6.1, 7.2.5.6.2, 7.2.5.6.3, 7.2.5.6.4, 7.2.5....]

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Johnson, Aaron

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe


68 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 124 of 717

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


Alfawakhiri, Farid

As noted in out negative to 5000 FR-8024 (definition of mass timber) we do not agree that this term is useful inthe NFPA 5000 code. We would suggest that when referencing to the new types of heavy timber the reference toType IV (332) and Type IV (222) be used instead. *****Section 7.2.5.6.1.1(1)(b) needs to be further clarified what itmeans in regard to “wood connections.” In the current market this could mean two things; 1) wood dowels or 2)metal fasteners. This needs to be cleaned up. *****Sections 7.2.5.6.1.1(2) is not clear in the intent with thelanguage “…and the provisions of Section 7.2.5.6.8 (Exterior walls and NFPA 285) shall not be permitted.” Samething in section 7.2.5.6.1.2(5). This needs a clean-up.

Hall, William J.



It is my personal opinion that NFPA 5000 should not go outside of the recommendations set forward by the ICCTWB in regards to allowable heights and areas for Type IV Construction. ICC TWB have done thorough researchon the subject, and I don't believe that there is sufficient data and evidence to exceed their recommendations.

Abstention

Koffel, William E.



69 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 125 of 717


7.3.2.2 Residential Buildings.

7.3.2.2.1

The fire resistance rating requirements of Table 7.3.2.1 shall not apply to exterior walls of one- and two-family dwellings having a horizontal separation of more than 60 in. (1525 mm). that have a horizontalseparation of more than 36 in. (1525 mm) and that are protected throughout with an automatic sprinklersystem in accordance with 22.3.5.2 .

7.3.2.2.2

For residential subdivision developments where all dwellings are equipped throughout with an automaticsprinkler system installed in accordance with 22.3.5.2 , the fire separation distance for non-fire-resistance-rated exterior walls and for fire-resistance-rated projections shall be permitted to be reducedto 0 ft (0 mm), and unlimited unprotected openings and penetrations shall be permitted where theadjoining lot provides an open setback yard that is 6 ft (1830 mm) or more in width on the opposite sideof the property line.


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This change correlates to the IRC, Table R302.1(2) footnote a. and provide the same level ofprotection for sprinklered dwelling and subdivisions in areas not using the IRC.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8026-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

26 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Chrisman, Mark


70 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 126 of 717

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Proposed title "Residential Buildings" for section 7.3.2.2 is too broad. The section covers exceptions for one- andtwo- family dwellings only


71 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 127 of 717


7.3.5.5

The area of unprotected openings permitted by Table 7.3.5(a) and Table 7.3.5(b) shall be permitted to bedoubled under either of the following conditions:

(1) Where the building is protected throughout with an approved, electrically supervised automaticsprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13 , NFPA 13D , and NFPA 13R 55.3.1.1 and electricallysupervised in accordance with 55.3.2

(2) Where the openings are protected with a fire window assembly or other listed opening protectiveshaving a fire protection rating in accordance with Table 7.3.5.5

Table 7.3.5.5 Minimum Fire Protection Ratings for Exterior Opening Protectives

Wall Fire Resistance

Rating

(hr)

Fire Protection

Rating

(hr)

2 11⁄2

1 ¾


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This correlates with other sections of NFPA 5000 and other model building and life safety codes asit points to the supervision section and not the specific sprinkler installation standard. This allows foruniform enforcement by eliminating an interpretation of permitting locking valves open (permitted byNFPA 13) and provides for consistent installation.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8027-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled


72 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 128 of 717

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


73 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 129 of 717


7.4.1.4.3 Small Board and Care Occupancies.

For board and care occupancies, the values in Table 7.4.1 for sprinklered buildings shall also apply tobuildings four or fewer stories in height above grade plane that are protected throughout with anapproved, electrically supervised sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13R 55.3.1.1 (2) andelectrically supervised in accordance with 55.3.2 .


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This correlates with other sections of NFPA 5000 and other model building and life safety codes asit points to the supervision section and not the specific sprinkler installation standard. This allows foruniform enforcement by eliminating an interpretation of permitting locking valves open (permitted byNFPA 13 and NFPA 13R) and provides for consistent installation.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8028-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.


74 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 130 of 717

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


75 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 131 of 717


7.4.3.6.2 Aircraft Hangars.

The height of one-story aircraft hangars shall not be limited where the building is surrounded by publicspace, streets, or permanent open yards not less in width than 11⁄2 times the height of the building andwhere the building is protected with an approved, electrically supervised sprinkler system in accordancewith NFPA 13 55.3.1.1 (1) and electrically supervised in accordance with 55.3.2 . (See Chapters 29 and30 for special occupancy requirements.)


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This correlates with other sections of NFPA 5000 and other model building and life safety codes asit points to the supervision section and sprinkler installation standard section. This allows foruniform enforcement by eliminating an interpretation of permitting locking valves open (permitted byNFPA 13) and provides for consistent installation.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8029-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.


76 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 132 of 717

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


77 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 133 of 717


7.4.3.6.3* Low Hazard Industrial Processes Requiring Unusual Heights.

Buildings and structures of Type I or Type II construction, or buildings and structures protected throughoutwith an approved, electrically supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13 , thatare 55.3.1.1 (1) and electrically supervised in accordance with 55.3.2 , designed to house low hazardindustrial processes that require unusual heights to accommodate craneways or special machinery andequipment shall be permitted to be unlimited in height.


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This correlates with other sections of NFPA 5000 and other model building and life safety codes asit points to the supervision section and sprinkler system section within the document, not thespecific sprinkler installation standard. This allows for uniform enforcement by eliminating aninterpretation of permitting locking valves open (permitted by NFPA 13) and provides for consistentinstallation.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8030-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.


78 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 134 of 717

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


79 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 135 of 717


7.4.3.6.5 Enclosed Parking Structures with Occupancies Above.

A basement or first story above grade plane of a building shall be considered as a separate and distinctbuilding for the purpose of determining the limitation on the number of stories and construction type,provided that all of the following conditions are met:

(1) The basement or first story above grade plane shall be of Type I construction and shall be separatedfrom the building above with a horizontal assembly having a minimum 3-hour fire resistance rating.

(2) Shaft, stairway, ramp, or escalator enclosures through the horizontal assembly shall comply witheither of the following conditions:

(a) The enclosures shall have not less than a 2-hour fire resistance rating with opening protectives inaccordance with Table 8.7.2.2.

(b) Where the walls below the horizontal assembly have a minimum 3-hour fire resistance rating withopening protectives as required for walls forming a 3-hour fire barrier, the enclosure wallsextending above the horizontal assembly shall be permitted to have a 1-hour fire resistancerating, provided that all of the following conditions are met:

i. The building above the horizontal assembly is not required to be of Type I construction.

ii. The enclosure connects less than four stories above the horizontal assembly.

iii. The enclosure opening protectives above the horizontal assembly have a minimum 1-hourfire protection rating.

(3) The building above the horizontal assembly shall contain only business, mercantile, storage, orresidential occupancies or assembly occupancies having an assembly room with an occupant load ofless than 300.

(4) The building below the horizontal assembly shall be an enclosed or open parking structure used forthe parking and storage of private motor vehicles, unless otherwise permitted by the following:

(a) Entry lobbies, mechanical rooms, and similar uses incidental to the operation of the building shallbe permitted.

(b) Business, mercantile, and assembly occupancies having an assembly room with an occupantload of less than 300 shall be permitted in addition to those uses incidental to the operation of thebuilding (including storage areas), provided that the entire structure below the horizontalassembly is protected throughout by an approved, electrically supervised automatic sprinklersystem installed in accordance with NFPA 13 55.3.1.1 (1) and electrically supervised inaccordance with 55.3.2 .

(5) The maximum building height in feet shall not exceed the limits set forth in Table 7.4.1 for the leastrestrictive type of construction involved.


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-8031-NFPA 5000-2018


80 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 136 of 717


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


81 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 137 of 717


82 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 138 of 717

First Revision No. 8123-NFPA 5000-2018 [ New Section after 7.5 ]

7.5.3 Type IV Mass Timber Increase.

7.5.3.1

Type IV mass timber buildings complying with 7.2.5.6.1.1 shall be permitted to have the increasesdescribed in 7.5.3.1.1 through 7.5.3.1.3 .

7.5.3.1.1

The allowable building height shall not exceed 270 ft (82.3 m).

7.5.3.1.2

The allowable number of stories in accordance with Table 7.4.1 shall not exceed four times the numberof stories permitted for Type IV(2HH) and 24 stories for residential occupancies.

7.5.3.1.3

For high hazard contents requiring Protection Level 1 through Protection Level 5, the height shall notexceed the number of stories permitted for Type IV(2HH).

7.5.3.2

Type IV mass timber buildings complying with 7.2.5.6.1.2 shall be permitted to have the increasesdescribed in 7.5.3.2.1 through 7.5.3.2.3 .

7.5.3.2.1

The allowable building height shall not exceed 180 ft (54.9 m).

7.5.3.2.2

The allowable number of stories in accordance with Table 7.4.1 shall not exceed two times the numberof stories permitted for Type IV(2HH) and 12 stories for residential occupancies.

7.5.3.2.3

For high hazard contents requiring Protection Level 1 through Protection Level 5, the height shall notexceed the number of stories permitted for Type IV(2HH).


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision is based on the Fire Protection Research Foundation, ATF, and other industry tests thathave been performed for mass timber. Residential was used in place of specific occupancies tocorrelate with Table 7.4.1. Additional restrictions for high hazard contents are necessary because ofthe unique characteristics of these types of contents and the combustibility of mass timber

ICC created a Tall Wood Building Ad Hoc Committee (TWB) which, for about two years, has beenstudying the science of taller mass timber buildings. The TWB reviewed information, publications,testing and testimony. They submitted a series of proposals to the ICC code change process to permittaller mass timber buildings. The Code Development Committee approved these proposals 13-1. Nowthis creates a disconnect between that code and the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code, particularly forHealth Care types of occupancies. This proposal is similar to the TWB proposal but it has distinctivedifferences. It is intended to mollify those differences so that little or no differences exist between thedocuments. First, it does not create new types of construction. Instead it introduces "SpecialRequirements" for the new mass timber construction. Within the existing section on SpecialRequirements, two conditions are described: one in which the fire resistive rating of the Type IV masstimber is similar to Type I (332) and which requires limited combustible material protecting the masstimber and a second, which is similar to Type II (222) but requires no gypsum wall board (except onoutside of exterior walls) to achieve its fire resistance rating. Second, it is consistent with the TWB


83 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 139 of 717

draft proposal which was voted upon by the TWB and published on its web page at the ICC web site.It is acknowledged that at its last meeting, just days before the deadline, the TWB changed some ofthe values for height in stories and area permitted in hopes of assuaging concerns. This does notreflect those last minute attempts attempts. The supporting material, including video of the various firetests and the final report on those tests, E119 reports, and many of the research papers available atthe TWB site are also available at www.awc.org/tallmasstimber

ResponseMessage:

FR-8123-NFPA 5000-2018

Public Input No. 234-NFPA 5000-2018 [New Section after 7.5]

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Johnson, Aaron

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.


84 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 140 of 717

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


Alfawakhiri, Farid

The proposed provisions arbitrarily assign multiplier values to the fire resistance rated heavy timber constructiontypes. Our first objection is to the allowable heights in feet that can be permitted for Type IV (332) and Type IV(222) appear high. The values proposed take the values from Type I (332) and Type II (222) constructioncategories and assume that just because the fire protection in hours is the same that the allowable height shouldalso be equivalent. However, Types IV (332) and IV (222) categories fail to take into account that both theexposed and protected heavy timber categories allow the timber to contribute to the fire resistance, meaning that itcould provide a contribution to the fuel load. Types I and II constructions do not make that contribution to fuel load.Therefore, we would recommend that the maximum allowable heights be reduced to 180 feet for IV (332) and 85feet for Type IV (222) constructions, respectively. Our observation about the allowable stories is that the proposedmultipliers of “4” for Type IV (332), and “2” for Type IV (222), are also high. We feel that the use of constantmultipliers for all occupancies, except high hazard, is not consistent with the methods used in the past to developthe remainder of the values for all other construction types and their respective occupancy story height value. Werecommend that the BLC mass timber task group re-examine PI-234 proposal and return with a public commentthat has more in common with the current Table 7.4.1 format arrangement.

Hall, William J.




Abstention

Koffel, William E.



85 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 141 of 717


7.5.2 Residential Sprinkler Increase.

For buildings classified as residential occupancies provided with an approved, electrically supervisedautomatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13R 55.3.1.1 (2) and electrically supervised inaccordance with 55.3.2 , the allowable height for nonsprinklered buildings shall be permitted to beincreased by 20 ft (6.1 m) and the allowable number of stories for nonsprinklered buildings shall bepermitted to be increased by one story, provided that the building does not exceed 60 ft (18 m) in heightabove grade plane and the number of stories does not exceed four.


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-8122-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.


86 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 142 of 717

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


87 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 143 of 717


7.6.1.3 Type IV Mass Timber Increase.

7.6.1.3.1

The allowable area per story of Type IV mass timber buildings complying with 7.2.5.6.1.1 shall bepermitted to be increased by three times the allowable area permitted for Type IV(2HH).

7.6.1.3.2

The allowable area per story of Type IV mass timber buildings complying with 7.2.5.6.1.2 shall bepermitted to be increased by two times the allowable area permitted for Type IV(2HH).


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision is based on the Fire Protection Research Foundation, ATF, and other industry tests thathave been performed for mass timber.

ICC created a Tall Wood Building Ad Hoc Committee (TWB) which, for about two years, has beenstudying the science of taller mass timber buildings. The TWB reviewed information, publications,testing and testimony. They submitted a series of proposals to the ICC code change process to permittaller mass timber buildings. The Code Development Committee approved these proposals 13-1. Nowthis creates a disconnect between that code and the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code, particularly forHealth Care types of occupancies. This proposal is similar to the TWB proposal but it has distinctivedifferences. It is intended to mollify those differences so that little or no differences exist between thedocuments. First, it does not create new types of construction. Instead it introduces "SpecialRequirements" for the new mass timber construction. Within the existing section on SpecialRequirements, two conditions are described: one in which the fire resistive rating of the Type IV masstimber is similar to Type I (332) and which requires limited combustible material protecting the masstimber and a second, which is similar to Type II (222) but requires no gypsum wall board (except onoutside of exterior walls) to achieve its fire resistance rating. Second, it is consistent with the TWBdraft proposal which was voted upon by the TWB and published on its web page at the ICC web site.It is acknowledged that at its last meeting, just days before the deadline, the TWB changed some ofthe values for height in stories and area permitted in hopes of assuaging concerns. This does notreflect those last minute attempts attempts. The supporting material, including video of the various firetests and the final report on those tests, E119 reports, and many of the research papers available atthe TWB site are also available at www.awc.org/tallmasstimber.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8023-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



1 Abstention


88 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 144 of 717

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Johnson, Aaron

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


Alfawakhiri, Farid

We believe the proposed provisions arbitrarily assign multiplier values to the fire resistance rated heavy timberconstruction types. When comparing the end results of the application of the multipliers to Type IV (2HH) we findthat the maximum allowable areas in some cases exceed the sq. ft. values for the comparative Type I (332) andType II (222) cells. However, the IV (332) and IV (222) categories fail to take into account that both the exposedand protected heavy timber categories allow the timber to contribute to the fire protection, meaning that it couldprovide a contribution to the fuel load. Types I and II constructions do not make that contribution to fuel load. Werecommend that the BLC mass timber task group re-examine PI-235 proposal and return with a public commentthat has more in common with the current Table 7.4.1 format arrangement.

Hall, William J.





89 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 145 of 717

Abstention

Koffel, William E.



90 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 146 of 717


7.6.2.2 Automatic Sprinkler System Protection Increase.

Buildings other than those containing high hazard contents requiring Protection Level 1 or ProtectionLevel 2, as specified in Chapter 34, and protected with an approved, electrically supervised automaticsprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13 55.3.1.1 (1) and electrically supervised in accordance with55.3.2 shall be permitted to have the following automatic sprinkler system protection increase (Is) appliedto the allowable area per story:

(1) 200 percent (Is = 200) for buildings where the number of stories is two or more

(2) 300 percent (Is = 300) for one-story buildings


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-8033-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark


91 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 147 of 717

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


92 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 148 of 717

First Revision No. 8034-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Sections 7.6.3.2, 7.6.3.3, 7.6.3.4, 7.6.3.5,

7.6.3.6, 7.6.3... ]

7.6.3.2 Sprinklered One-Story Building.

7.6.3.2.1

A one-story building used for business, industrial occupancies with ordinary hazard contents, ormercantile occupancies, and assembly uses intended for viewing of indoor sporting events with spectatorseating, shall not be limited in area where the building is provided with an approved, electricallysupervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13 55.3.1.1 (1) and electricallysupervised in accordance with 55.3.2 , and is surrounded and adjoined by public ways or yards not lessthan 60 ft (18 m) in width.

7.6.3.2.2

Sprinkler protection specified in 7.6.3.2.1 shall not be required in areas occupied for indoor participantsports, such as tennis, skating, swimming, and equestrian activities, provided that the following conditionsare met:

(1) Exit doors directly to the outside are provided for occupants of the participant sports areas.

(2) The building is equipped with a fire alarm system with manual fire alarm boxes installed inaccordance with Section 55.2.

7.6.3.3 Sprinklered One- or Two-Story Storage Building.

A one- or two-story building used for storage of ordinary hazard contents shall not be limited in area,provided that both of the following requirements are met:

(1) The entire building is protected throughout with an approved, electrically supervised automaticsprinkler system installed in accordance with NFPA 13 55.3.1.1 (1) and electrically supervised inaccordance with 55.3.2 .

(2) The exterior walls face public ways or yards not less than 60 ft (18 m) in width.

7.6.3.4 Sprinklered Two-Story Building.

A two-story building used for business, industrial, or mercantile occupancies shall not be limited in areawhere the building is provided with an approved, electrically supervised automatic sprinkler systeminstalled in accordance with NFPA 13 55.3.1.1 (1) and electrically supervised in accordance with 55.3.2 ,and is surrounded and adjoined by public ways or yards not less than 60 ft (18 m) in width.

7.6.3.5 Reduced Open Space.

The permanent open space of 60 ft (18 m) required in 7.6.3.1 through 7.6.3.4, 7.6.3.8, and 7.6.3.9 shall bepermitted to be reduced to not less than 40 ft (12.2 m), provided that the following requirements are met:

(1) The reduced open space shall not be permitted for more than 75 percent of the perimeter of thebuilding.

(2) The exterior wall facing the reduced open space shall have a minimum fire resistance rating of3 hours.

(3) Openings in the exterior wall, facing the reduced open space, shall have opening protectives with afire protection rating of 3 hours.

7.6.3.6 High Hazard Contents.

High hazard contents required to comply with Protection Level 2, Protection Level 3, Protection Level 4, orProtection Level 5 in accordance with Chapter 34, other than deflagration hazards that are required to bestored in detached buildings, shall be permitted in unlimited area buildings in accordance with thelimitations of 7.6.3.6.1 through 7.6.3.6.4.

7.6.3.6.1

Fire areas located at the perimeter of the unlimited area building shall not exceed 10 percent of the areaof the building nor the area limitations specified in Table 7.4.1, as modified by Section 7.6, based on thepercentage of the perimeter of the fire area that fronts on a street or other unoccupied space.


93 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 149 of 717

7.6.3.6.2

Fire areas other than those specified in 7.6.3.6.1 shall not exceed 25 percent of the area limitationsspecified in Table 7.4.1.

7.6.3.6.3

Fire-resistance-rating requirements of fire barrier assemblies shall be in accordance with Table 34.3.2.3.

7.6.3.6.4

High hazard contents required to comply with Protection Level 2, Protection Level 3, Protection Level 4, orProtection Level 5 shall not be located higher than the height limits specified in Table 7.4.1.

7.6.3.7 Sprinklered One-Story Educational Building.

A one-story building of Type II(111), Type II(000), Type III(211), or Type IV construction used foreducational occupancies shall not be limited in area where the following criteria are met:

(1) Each classroom shall have not less than two means of egress, with one of the means of egress beinga direct exit to the outside of the building.

(2) The building shall be equipped throughout with an approved, electrically supervised automaticsprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13 55.3.1.1 (1) and electrically supervised in accordancewith 55.3.2 .

(3) The building shall be surrounded and adjoined by public ways or yards not less than 60 ft (18 m) inwidth.

7.6.3.8 Sprinklered One-Story Motion Picture Theaters.

One-story motion picture theaters in buildings of Type II or Type III(211) construction shall not be limited inarea where the buildings is provided with an approved, electrically supervised automatic sprinkler systemthroughout in accordance with NFPA 13 55.3.1.1 (1) and electrically supervised in accordance with55.3.2 , and is surrounded and adjoined by public ways or yards not less than 60 ft (18 m) in width.

7.6.3.9 Sprinklered One-Story Assembly Building.

A one-story assembly building used as an auditorium, church, community hall, dance hall, exhibition hall,gymnasium, lecture hall, indoor swimming pool, or tennis court of Type II construction shall not be limitedin area where all the following criteria are met:

(1) The building shall not have a theatrical stage other than a raised platform.


(3) The assembly floor shall be located as follows:

(a) At, or within, 21 in. (535 mm) of the level of the exterior exit discharge accessible from the mainentrance/exit

(b) Within 21 in. (535 mm) of the level of the exterior exit discharge accessible from any of therequired exits for buildings that do not have a main entrance/exit

(4) All exits and exit discharges shall be level or provided with ramps to a public way.



Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:



94 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 150 of 717

ResponseMessage:

FR-8034-NFPA 5000-2018

Public Input No. 147-NFPA 5000-2018 [Sections 7.6.3.2, 7.6.3.3, 7.6.3.4, 7.6.3.5, 7.6.3.6, 7.6.3...]

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.


95 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 151 of 717

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


96 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 152 of 717


8.3.1 General.

8.3.1.1* Design Loads.

8.3.1.1.1

All walls and their supports shall be designed for loads in accordance with ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum DesignLoads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures , [and Chapter 35 of this Code,] and to

withstand a minimum uniform load of 5 lbf/ft2 (0.24 kPa) from either direction for allowable stress design

or 8 lb/ft 2 (0.38 kPa) for strength design. Lateral loads shall be applied perpendicular to the face of thewall from either direction . [221:4.2 4.2.1 ]

8.3.1.1.2

Loads used in design of walls during fire exposure shall be in accordance with the requirements ofSection 4.3 or Section 4.4 of NFPA 221 . [ 221: 4.2.2]

8.3.1.2 Ducts and Air-Transfer Openings.

The provisions of 8.8.8 shall govern the materials and methods of construction used to protect ducts andair-transfer openings in walls.

8.3.1.3* Double Wall Assemblies.

Where either wall of a double wall is laterally supported by a building frame with a fire resistance ratingless than that required for the wall, double wall assemblies shall be considered to have a combinedassembly fire resistance rating as specified in Table 8.3.1.3. [221:4.5 4.6 ]

Table 8.3.1.3 Fire Resistance Ratings for Double Wall Assemblies

Fire Resistance Rating of

Each Wall

(hr)

Equivalent to Single Wall

(hr)

3 4

2 3

1 2

[221:Table 4.5 Table 4.6 ]

A.8.3.1.3

Double walls are very common with unprotected frames. The individual walls separate the buildingframe that laterally supports them from a fire exposure on the opposite side. However, collapse of therespective building frame and wall on the side of fire origin could occur within 1⁄2 hour or less. Table8.3.1.3 estimates that about 1 hour will transpire between fire origin, collapse of the respective buildingframe and wall, and rekindling of the fire. [ 221: A4.6]

Table 8.3.1.3 is not intended to apply where the building frames are fire resistance rated and would notcollapse in an uncontrolled fire. [221: A.4.5 A.4.6 ]

8.3.1.4* Impact Damage.

[ 221: 4.6]

8.3.1.4.1

Where the wall is subject to impact damage from moving vehicles or the handling of merchandise or otheractivity, protection against impact damage shall be provided for an appropriate height but not less than60 in. (1525 mm) from the finished floor. [221:4.6.1 4.7.1 ]


97 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 153 of 717

8.3.1.4.2

Where the fire-protective covering of a structural element required to have a fire resistance rating by8.3.2.4.3 or 8.3.3.5.3 is subject to impact damage from moving vehicles, the handling of merchandise, orother activity, protection against impact damage shall be provided for an appropriate height but not lessthan 60 in. (1525 mm) from the finished floor. [221:4.6.2 4.7.2 ]

8.3.1.5 Joints.

The provisions of Section 8.9 shall govern the materials and methods of construction used to protect jointswithin or between walls.

8.3.1.6 Opening Protectives.

The provisions of Section 8.7 shall govern the materials and methods of construction used to protectopenings in walls.

8.3.1.7 Penetrations.

The provisions of Section 8.8 shall govern the materials and methods of construction used to protectthrough-penetrations and membrane penetrations, including fire dampers for ducts and air-transferopenings.


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Many of these sections are extracted from NFPA 221. The sections were updated to reflectthe current language and sections of NFPA 221.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8156-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.


98 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 154 of 717

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


99 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 155 of 717


8.3.2.13.1 Locations Roofs Outside High Wind–Prone Regions Exposures .

For buildings less than or equal to 60 ft (18 m) in height and located outside hurricane prone regions, asdefined by ASCE/SEI 7, the The roof surface adjacent to HC fire walls for at least 25 ft (7620 mm) oneach side shall be protected in accordance with 8.3.2.13.1.1 or 8.3.2.13.1.2. [221:5.13.1]

8.3.2.13.1.1

For single-ply membranes, gravel ballast or concrete paver blocks shall provide complete membranecoverage and shall be installed in accordance with ANSI/SPRI RP-4, Wind Design Standard for BallastedSingle-Ply Roofing Systems. [221:5.13.1.1]

8.3.2.13.1.2

Built-up and modified bitumen roofs shall be surfaced with gravel or slag applied at a minimum rate of

4 lb/ft2 (19 kg/m2) and embedded in a flood coat of hot asphalt or coal tar. [221:5.13.1.2]


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This section is extracted from NFPA 221. These revisions align with changes made to thecorresponding sections in NFPA 221.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8157-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.


100 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 156 of 717

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


101 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 157 of 717


8.3.2.13.2* Locations Within High Wind–Prone Regions.

For buildings greater than 60 ft (18 m) in height or located within hurricane high wind– prone regions, asdefined by ASCE/SEI 7, the roof surface on each side of the roof adjacent to HC fire walls for at least25 ft (7620 mm) on each side shall be protected in accordance with 8.3.2.13.2.1 or 8.3.2.13.2.2.[221:5.13.2]

8.3.2.13.2.1

For single-ply membranes, concrete paver blocks shall provide complete membrane coverage and shallbe installed in accordance with ANSI/SPRI RP-4, Wind Design Standard for Ballasted Single-Ply RoofingSystems . [221:5.13.2.1]

8.3.2.13.2.2*

Built-up and modified bitumen roofs adjacent to HC fire walls shall be surfaced with gravel or slag

embedded in a flood coat of hot asphalt or coal-tar and applied at a minimum rate of 4 lb/ft2 (19 kg/m2).[221:5.13.2.2]

A.8.3.2.13.2.2

Alternatively, a coating such as bentonite clay asphalt emulsion coating applied at 9 gal/100 ft 2 (34.1

L/9.3 m 2 ) with 3 lb/100 ft 2 (1.4 kg/9.3 m 2 ) of glass fiber reinforcement should provide comparableexterior roof surface protection to that of gravel or slag. [ 221: A.5.13.2.2]

8.3.2.13.2.2.1

Gravel or slag shall be embedded into a double flood coat of hot asphalt or coal-tar to ensure fullembedment. [221:5.13.2.2.1]

8.3.2.13.2.2.2

After cooling, any loose gravel or slag shall be removed from the roof. [221:5.13.2.2.2]

8.3.2.13.2.2.3

All graveled roofs greater than 60 ft (18 m) in height shall have a minimum parapet height of 24 in.(610 mm). [221:5.13.2.2.3]


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-8158-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned


102 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 158 of 717

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


103 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 159 of 717

First Revision No. 8117-NFPA 5000-2018 [ New Section after 8.3.2.15 ]

8.3.2.16 Insulation.

8.3.2.16.1

Insulation and siding applied to the exterior of the vertical surface and top of fire walls and HC fire wallsthat are required to extend above the roof surface shall consist of noncombustible materials that havebeen reported as passing ASTM E136, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a VerticalTube Furnace at 750°C , or ASTM E2652, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a TubeFurnace with a Cone-shaped Airflow Stabilizer, at 750°C . [ 221: 4.12.1]

8.3.2.16.2

Flashing and cant materials located at the roof surface, and wood nailers used to secure the capflashing on top of the HC fire walls and fire walls, shall be exempt from this provision. [ 221: 4.12.2]


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Recent trends with the national model energy codes illustrate that the provisions are being modifiedto require that fire walls (e.g. such as high challenge fire walls and fire walls that penetrate the roofsurface) be insulated in order to mitigate the effects of thermal bridging. Currently NFPA 221 is silentconcerning roofing insulation(s) being applied to the fire walls that extend above a roof surface.

This necessitates a modification to the NFPA 221 standard to ensure that said insulations applied tothose fire walls do not act as a fire wick thus allowing the fire to traverse from one roof to another viathe insulation or siding, thus negating the design intent of fire walls to impede a fire. This revisionadds the language of NFPA 221, Section 4 “General Requirements”, for the insulations to be testedand pass in accordance with ASTM E136 in order for the insulations to be applied to the surfaces ofthe portions of a fire wall that extends above the roof(s) to NFPA 5000.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8117-NFPA 5000-2018

Public Input No. 63-NFPA 5000-2018 [New Section after 8.3.2.15]

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled


104 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 160 of 717

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


105 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 161 of 717


8.3.3.3.3* Design Loads.

8.3.3.3.3.1

All walls and their supports shall be designed for loads in accordance with Chapter 35 of this CodeASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures , and to

withstand a minimum uniform load of 5 lbf/ft2 (0.24 kPa) for allowable stress design or 8 lbf 2 (0.38 kPa)for strength design. Lateral loads shall be applied perpendicular to the face of the wall from eitherdirection applied perpendicular to the face of the wall . [221:4.2 4.2.1 ]

8.3.3.3.3.2



Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-8159-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.


106 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 162 of 717

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


107 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 163 of 717


8.4.2* Design Loads.

8.4.2.1

All walls and their supports shall be designed for loads in accordance with Chapter 35 of this CodeASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures , and to

withstand a minimum uniform load of 5 lbf/ft2 (0.24 kPa) for allowable stress design or 8 lbf 2 (0.38 kPa)for strength design. Lateral loads shall be applied perpendicular to the face of the wall from eitherdirection applied perpendicular to the face of the wall . [221:4.2 4.2.1 ]

8.4.2.2



Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-8184-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.


108 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 164 of 717

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


109 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 165 of 717



110 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 166 of 717

8.7.2.2


111 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 167 of 717

The minimum fire protection rating for opening protectives in fire barriers, fire-rated smoke barriers, andfire-rated smoke partitions shall be in accordance with Table 8.7.2.2.

Opening protectives shall have a minimum fire protection rating as specified in Table 8.7.2.2.

Table 8.7.2.2 Minimum Fire Ratings for Opening Protectives in Fire-Resistance-Rated Assemblies andFire-Rated Glazing Markings

Component

Walls

and

Partitions

(hr)

Fire Door

Assemblies

(hr)

DoorVision

Panel

Maximum

Size

(in.2)

Fire-Rated

Glazing

Marking

DoorVision

Panel

Minimum Side

Light/Transom

Assembly Rating

(hr)

Fire-Rated G

Marking

Light/Tran

Pane

Firep P rotection

Firer R esistance

Fire

p P rotection r

Elevatorhoistways 2 11⁄2 155 in.2c

D-H-90 or

D-H-W-90 NP 2 NP D

1 1 155 in.2f

D-H-60 or

D-H-W-60 NP 1 NP

Elevatorlobby (per7.2.13.4) 1 1 100 in.2c

≤100 in.2,

D-H-T-60or

D-H-W-60 NP 1 NP

>100 in.2,

D-H-W-60

Verticalshafts(includingstairways,exits, andrefusechutes) 2 11⁄2

Maximumsize tested

D-H-90 or

D-H-W-90 NP 2 NP D

1 1Maximumsize tested

D-H-60 or

D-H-W-60 NP 1 NP

Replacementpanels inexistingverticalshafts 1⁄2 1⁄3

Maximumsize tested

D-20 or

D-W-20 1⁄3 1⁄3 D-H-20

Horizontalexits 2 11⁄2

Maximumsize tested

D-H-90 or

D-H-W-90 NP 2 NP D

Horizontalexits servedby bridgesbetweenbuildings

2 3⁄4Maximum

size

testedd

D-H-45 or

D-H-W-45

3⁄4d 3⁄4d D-H-45

Exit access

corridorse 1 1⁄3Maximumsize tested

D-20 or

D-W-203⁄4 3⁄4 D-H-45

1⁄2 1⁄3Maximumsize tested

D-20 or

D-W-201⁄3 1⁄3 D-H-20


112 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 168 of 717

Component

Walls

and

Partitions

(hr)

Fire Door

Assemblies

(hr)

DoorVision

Panel

Maximum

Size

(in.2)

Fire-Rated

Glazing

Marking

DoorVision

Panel

Minimum Side

Light/Transom

Assembly Rating

(hr)

Fire-Rated G

Marking

Light/Tran

Pane

Firep P rotection

Firer R esistance

Fire

p P rotection r

Smoke

barrierse 1 1⁄3Maximumsize tested

D-20 or

D-W-203⁄4 3⁄4 D-H-45

Smoke

partitionse,f1⁄2 1⁄2

Maximumsize tested

D-20 or

D-W-201⁄2 1⁄2 D-H-20

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

NP: Not permitted.

aFire-resistance-rated glazing tested to NFPA 251 shall be permitted in the maximum size tested (see8.7.7.7 ).

bFire-rated glazing in exterior windows shall be marked in accordance with Table 8.7.7.2.

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

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

eFire doors are not required to have a hose stream test per NFPA 252; UL 10B, Standard for Fire Tests ofDoor Assemblies; or UL 10C, Standard for Positive Pressure Fire Tests of Door Assemblies.

fFor residential board and care, see 32.2.3.1 and 33.2.3.1.


Committee: BLD-FIR


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Even though the title of 8.7.2.2 and the title of Table 8.7.2.2 include the adjective “minimum“, somestakeholders are interpreting the fire rating for opening protectives must match the rating identified inthis table; and that an opening protective with a fire rating exceeding the minimum is not acceptable.Suggest inserting “minimum” here to help communicate it’s perfectly acceptable to install openingprotectives with fire ratings of longer duration than required. Text is consistent with the title and intentof the Table.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8202-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



0 Abstention


113 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 169 of 717

Not Returned

Cook, David

Graupmann, Joseph

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All


Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.


Gump, Jack A.

Hall, William J.


Hopper, Howard

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon

Koffel, William E.


Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.



114 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 170 of 717


8.7.7.9

The total combined area of fire protection glazing in fire-rated window assemblies and fire-rated doorassemblies used in fire barriers shall not exceed 25 percent of the area of the fire barrier that is commonwith any room.


Committee: BLD-FIR


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision clarifies the application of section 8.7.7.9 for use with fire-protection rated glazing.The 25% allowance is not intended to apply to fire-resistance rated glazing.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8210-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Graupmann, Joseph

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All


Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.


Gump, Jack A.

Hall, William J.


115 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 171 of 717


Hopper, Howard

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon

Koffel, William E.


Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.



116 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 172 of 717


8.8.6.1

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


Committee: BLD-FIR


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The current text allowing a transition at 36 inches is not supported by fire testing. Some listingsdo contain a dimension and those should be permitted in accordance with the listing.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8185-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Graupmann, Joseph

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All


Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.


Gump, Jack A.


117 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 173 of 717

Hall, William J.


Hopper, Howard

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon


Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.



Hugo, Jeffrey M.

The noted fire testing in the reason statement should be provided to make this determination. Does the size,schedule, type, fire-resistance, with/without flowing or stagnant water validate or substantiate this claim for allnonmetallic pipe and tube? There is a big difference of PVC DWV Schedule 10 versus a water-filled CPVC pipe at36 inches.

Abstention

Koffel, William E.

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


118 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 174 of 717


8.8.8.4.1 Access.

Fire Except as provided in 8.8.8.4.2 , fire and smoke dampers shall be provided with an approved meansof access, as follows:

(1) The means of access shall be large enough an access door that is not less than 12 in. (305 mm)square or provided with a removable duct section to allow inspection and maintenance of the damperand its operating parts.

(2) The access shall not affect the integrity of fire-resistance-rated assemblies.

(3) The access openings shall not reduce the fire resistance rating of the assembly.

(4) Access doors in ducts shall be tight-fitting and suitable for the required duct construction.

(5) Access and maintenance shall comply with the requirements of the mechanical code.

8.8.8.4.2

Where space constraints or physical barriers restrict access to a damper for periodic inspection andtesting, the damper shall be a single- or multi-blade-type damper and shall comply with the remoteinspection requirements of NFPA 80 or NFPA 105 .


Committee: BLD-FIR


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision accomplishes two objectives:

1. By providing a minimum size of the access door, the subjective language of the current edition iseliminated. How does the design professional or authority having jurisdiction determine what is"large enough"? The 12 inch square requirement already exists in NFPA 80-2016 (19.2.3).

2. An alternative to access doors is provided which is remote inspection capability.

Remote inspection of fire and smoke dampers is now specifically permitted by NFPA 80 and NFPA105. Providing dampers with remote inspection capabilities is an acceptable alternative to providingaccess doors and should increase the likelihood that dampers are properly inspected and tested asrequired by NFPA 80 and NFPA 105.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8190-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



1 Abstention


119 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 175 of 717

Not Returned

Cook, David

Graupmann, Joseph

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All


Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.


Gump, Jack A.

Hall, William J.


Hopper, Howard

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon


Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.


Abstention

Koffel, William E.

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


120 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 176 of 717


8.10.3.6

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


Committee: BLD-FIR


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

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

ResponseMessage:

FR-8203-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Graupmann, Joseph

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All


Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.



121 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 177 of 717

Gump, Jack A.

Hall, William J.


Hopper, Howard

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon

Koffel, William E.


Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.



122 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 178 of 717


8.12.2 Communicating Space.

Unless prohibited by Chapters 15 through 31 and 33 through 34, unenclosed floor openings forming acommunicating space between floor levels shall be permitted, provided that the following conditions aremet:

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

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

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

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

(b) The area is open and provided with automatic smoke detection in accordance with Section55.2 .

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

(a) In buildings protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance withSection 55.3, a smoke barrier in accordance with Section 8.11 shall be permitted to serve as theseparation required by 8.12.2(4).

(5) The communicating space has ordinary hazard contents protected throughout by an approvedautomatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 55.3 or has only low hazard contents. (SeeChapter 6.)

(6) Egress capacity is sufficient to provide for all the occupants of all levels within the communicatingspace to simultaneously egress the communicating space by considering it as single floor area indetermining the required egress capacity.

(7)

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



8.12.2_5000_.docxTerra list not displaying correctly. See attached for clean text with track changes. For staff use


Committee: BLD-FIR


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

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

ResponseMessage:

FR-8204-NFPA 5000-2018

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


123 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 179 of 717

Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Graupmann, Joseph

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All


Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.


Gump, Jack A.

Hall, William J.


Hopper, Howard

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon

Koffel, William E.


Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.



124 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 180 of 717

8.12.2 Communicating Space. Unless prohibited by Chapters 15 through 31 and 33 through 34, unenclosed floor openings forming a communicating space between floor levels shall be permitted, provided that the following conditions are met:

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

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

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

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

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

(4) The communicating space is separated from the remainder of the building by fire barriers with not less than a 1-hour fire resistance rating, unless one of the following is met:

(a) In buildings protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 55.3, a smoke barrier in accordance with Section 8.11 shall be permitted to serve as the separation required by 8.12.2(4).

(5) The communicating space has ordinary hazard contents protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 55.3 or has only low hazard contents. (See Chapter 6.)

(6) Egress capacity is sufficient to provide for all the occupants of all levels within the communicating space to simultaneously egress the communicating space by considering it as single floor area in determining the required egress capacity.

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

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

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

Page 181 of 717


8.12.3* Atrium.

Unless prohibited by Chapters 15 through 31 and 33 through 34, an atrium shall be permitted, providedthat all of the following conditions are met:

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

(a) Any number of levels of the building shall be permitted to open directly to the atrium withoutenclosure based on the results of the engineering analysis required in 8.12.3(5).

(b)

(2) Access to exits is permitted to be within the atrium, and exit discharge in accordance with 11.7.2 ispermitted to be within the atrium.

(3) The occupancy within the space meets the specifications for classification as low- or ordinary-hazardcontents. (See Chapter 6.)

(4) The entire building is protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system inaccordance with Section 55.3.

(5)

(6)

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

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

ii. The automatic sprinklers specified in 8.12.3(1)(b)(i) are located at a distance from the glasswall not to exceed 12 in. (305 mm) and arranged so that the entire surface of the glass iswet upon operation of the sprinklers.

iii.

iv. The automatic sprinklers specified in 8.12.3(1)(b)(i) are not required on the atrium side of theglass wall and the inoperable window where there is no walkway or other floor area on theatrium side above the main floor level.

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

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

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

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

A.8.12.3(1)(b)iii.

If the glass is in a location hazardous to human impact, it should comply with 16 CFR1201 or ANSI Z97.1, Safety Glazing Materials Used in Buildings — SafetyPerformance Specifications and Methods of Test . A retention system can includegasketing, framing, or fixed framing. ( See 46.5.2 . )

* An engineering analysis is performed that demonstrates that the building is designed to keep thesmoke layer interface above the highest unprotected opening to adjoining spaces, or 6 ft (1830 mm)above the highest floor level of exit access open to the atrium, for a period equal to 1 1 ⁄2 1.5 timesthe calculated egress time or 20 minutes, whichever is greater.

* An engineered smoke control system is installed to meet the requirements of 8.12.3(5) and isindependently activated by each of the following:

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

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


125 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 182 of 717



8.12.3_5000_.docxTerra not displaying list correctly, see attached for correct revisions. For staff use.


Committee: BLD-FIR


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

8.12.3(1)(b)(iii): The revised text addresses and resolves the following issues: Ceramic glass isappropriate for these installations and is not included; Although a gasket/framing system is requiredthat will enable the glass to survive deflection without breaking before (and presumably after) thesprinklers begin to operate, there is no test standard specified to provide any certainty that the glassand framing system will perform as required; If the glass and framing system is located in an areaconsidered hazardous to human impact, there is no requirement that it meet either 16 C.F.R. section1201 or ANSI Z97.1 to ensure that safety glazing is being installed in that location.

8.12.3(6) The phrase “initiation of a smoke detector” is added to the activation requirements for asmoke control system. Smoke control shall be activated by either a smoke detector or fire sprinklersystem. Smoke detection, as a means to activate the smoke control system, provides earlieractivation of the system which provides extended egress times. In many atria, the ceiling is highenough that a sprinkler in the atrium will have a very delayed activation, or may never activate, due tocooling of the smoke plume from entrainment of conditioned air. The fire would be significantlydeveloped before the temperature near the ceiling will activate a sprinkler. Beam detectors across theatrium, or spot detectors in areas open to the atrium, provide significantly earlier activation of thesmoke control system vs waiting for sprinkler activation. Adding smoke detection as an activationmethod correlates with NFPA 5000 Section 55.7.4, which covers all smoke control systems requiredby other sections.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8191-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Graupmann, Joseph

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All



126 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 183 of 717

Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.


Gump, Jack A.

Hall, William J.


Hopper, Howard

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon

Koffel, William E.


Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.



Hugo, Jeffrey M.

See comments in FR 6597 in NFPA 101 FIR.


127 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 184 of 717


8.15.1*

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

(1) Enclosure of Separating the area from other parts of the building with a fire barrier without windowsthat has a having a fire resistance rating of not less than 1 hour fire resistance rating in accordancewith Section 8.4 and without windows

(2) Protection of the area with automatic extinguishing systems in accordance with Chapter 55

(3) Application of both 8.15.1(1) and (2) where the hazard is severe or where otherwise specified byChapters 15 through 31 and 33 through 34


Committee: BLD-FIR


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision intends to clarify that a 1-hour fire resistance rated hazardous area is permitted to beprovided with a window in an exterior wall. The text clarifies that the hazardous area should beseparated from portions of the interior of the building (see language in 11.1.3.2 for exit enclosures).This requirement, as written in the current code is more restrictive than an exit as it requires fullenclosure, which could be interpreted to mean providing enclosure even on exterior walls, which wasnot the intent of the provision. Additional revisions were made to the original submittal to clarify theintent and still address the submitter's request.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8205-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Graupmann, Joseph

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All



128 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 185 of 717

Cahanin, Gregory J.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.


Gump, Jack A.

Hall, William J.


Hopper, Howard

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon

Koffel, William E.


Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.



129 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 186 of 717


10.1.1 Application.

Interior finish for buildings shall comply with this chapter. The interior finish provisions set forth in thischapter shall apply to new buildings.


Committee: BLD-INT


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Consistency with NFPA 101.



Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

11 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Babrauskas, Vytenis

Carrigan, Matthew

Evans, Michael W.

Affirmative All


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Fitch, William E.


Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry




Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.


130 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 187 of 717


Newman, Kathleen A.

ok


131 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 188 of 717


10.2.1.5

Fire-retardant coatings shall be in accordance with 10.2.6 10.2.3.6 .


Committee: BLD-INT


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Correcting a reference to the wrong section. 10.3.2.6 addresses FR Coatings.

PI 91 was resolved. PI 91 does not prohibit fire retardant coatings being used. It is simply apointer to the section for finding the requirements.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8037-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

11 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Babrauskas, Vytenis

Carrigan, Matthew

Evans, Michael W.

Affirmative All


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Fitch, William E.


Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry




132 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 189 of 717


Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.


Newman, Kathleen A.

ok


133 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 190 of 717

First Revision No. 8039-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Section No. 10.2.3 [Excluding any Sub-

Sections] ]

When Where interior wall or ceiling finish is required elsewhere in this Code to be classified for fireperformance and smoke development, it shall be classified in accordance with 10.2.3.1 or 10.2.3.3, exceptas indicated in 10.2.4.


Committee: BLD-INT


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Editorial correction.



Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

11 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Babrauskas, Vytenis

Carrigan, Matthew

Evans, Michael W.

Affirmative All


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Fitch, William E.


Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry




Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.


134 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 191 of 717


Newman, Kathleen A.

ok


135 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 192 of 717


10.2.3.1.2*

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

A.10.2.3.1.2

The converse is not true. Class A materials do not automatically comply with NFPA 286 .


Committee: BLD-INT


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

If a material complies with Class A, it will automatically comply with the requirements of aClass B or Class C material. This is also described in 10.2.3.3.3.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8044-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

11 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Babrauskas, Vytenis

Carrigan, Matthew

Evans, Michael W.

Affirmative All


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Fitch, William E.


Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry


136 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 193 of 717




Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.


Newman, Kathleen A.

Class B and C ratings have different requirements than Class A ratings. This will eliminate any potential Class Bor C rated materials from being used in a Class B or C rated requirements. Sec. 10.2.3.3 and 10.2.3.3.2 makes itvery clear that a higher rated material can be used.


137 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 194 of 717


10.2.3.6 Fire-Retardant Coatings.

10.2.3.6.1

Fire Field applied fire -retardant coatings shall not be used to obtain compliance with the interior finishrequirements of this Code.

10.2.3.6.2*

Surfaces of walls, partitions, columns, and ceilings shall be permitted to be finished with factory-appliedfire-retardant-coated products that have been listed and labeled to demonstrate compliance with therequirements of ASTM E2768, Standard Test Method for Extended Duration Surface BurningCharacteristics of Building Materials, on the coated surface.

Detail FR-8049

10.2.3.6.3

Factory-applied fire-retardant-coated products shall possess the desired degree of permanecy and shallbe maintained to retain the effectiveness of the treatment under the service conditions encountered inactual use.



5000_INT_FR-8038_10.2.3.6.docx For staff use--FINAL


Committee: BLD-INT


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Limiting section 10.2.3.6 to field applied applications creates consistency with the existing10.2.3.7 section. Factory applied coatings have specific requirements. The entire section wasreformatted to create one section on FR coatings.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8038-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

11 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Babrauskas, Vytenis


138 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 195 of 717

Carrigan, Matthew

Evans, Michael W.

Affirmative All


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Fitch, William E.


Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry




Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.


Newman, Kathleen A.

This is my public input. My input is to remove 10.2.3.6 so that fire-retardant coatings can be used to meet thiscode. There are many fire-retardant coatings that currently exist on the market today that can be applied in thefield by a Certified Licensed Applicator, much like fire-retardants for steel. 10.2.3.6.2 is an entire new section thatwas added, but is not shown underlined as a new section. 10.2.3.3 references ASTM E84; 2768 should NOT beadded as the standard for flame-retardants.


139 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 196 of 717


10.2.4.1 Thickness Exemption.

10.2.4.1.1

The provisions of 10.2.3 shall not apply to materials having a total thickness of less than 1⁄28 in. (0.9 mm)that are applied directly to the surface of walls and ceilings where both all of the following conditions aremet:

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

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

(3)

10.2.4.1.2

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


Committee: BLD-INT


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: This clarifies that the thickness exemption does not apply to textile or vinyl materials.



Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

10 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

* The material applied is not one of the following:

(a) A textile wall or ceiling covering

(b) An expanded vinyl wall or ceiling covering

A.10.2.4.1.1(3)

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


140 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 197 of 717

Babrauskas, Vytenis

Carrigan, Matthew

Evans, Michael W.

Affirmative All


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Fitch, William E.

Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry




Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.



UL 723 should probably be added after ASTM E84.

Newman, Kathleen A.

ok


141 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 198 of 717


10.2.4.3.1

Cellular or foamed plastic materials shall not be used as interior wall and ceiling finish unless specificallypermitted by 10.2.4.3.3or through 10.2.4.3.4.


Committee: BLD-INT


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: This allows the requirements in 10.2.4.3.3 to be used.


Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

10 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Babrauskas, Vytenis

Carrigan, Matthew

Evans, Michael W.

Affirmative All


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Fitch, William E.

Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry




Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.



142 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 199 of 717


This contains an editorial error: it should say 10.2.4.3.2 through 10.2.4.3.4 and not 10.2.4.3.3 through 10.2.4.3.4,as stated in the corresponding PI. This is clearly a typographical error.

Newman, Kathleen A.

ok


143 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 200 of 717

First Revision No. 8040-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Section No. 10.2.4.3.3 [Excluding any Sub-

Sections] ]

Cellular or foamed plastic materials meeting the definition of foamed plastic insulation shall be permittedwhere subjected to large-scale fire tests that substantiate their combustibility and smoke releasecharacteristics of the material for the use intended under actual fire conditions.


Committee: BLD-INT


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Consistency with 101


Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

11 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Babrauskas, Vytenis

Carrigan, Matthew

Evans, Michael W.

Affirmative All


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Fitch, William E.


Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry




Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.


144 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 201 of 717


Newman, Kathleen A.

ok


145 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 202 of 717

First Revision No. 8052-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Section No. 10.2.4.3.3.1 ]

10.2.4.3.3.1

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

(1) NFPA 286 with the acceptance criteria of 10.2.3.4

(2) UL 1715, Standard for Fire Test of Interior Finish Material, [( including smoke measurements, with

total smoke release not to exceed 10,764 ft2 (1000 m2)]

(3) UL 1040, Standard for Fire Test of Insulated Wall Construction

(4) FM Approval 4880, Class 1 Fire Rating of Insulated Wall or Wall and Roof/Ceiling Panels, InteriorFinish Materials, or Coatings and Exterior Wall Systems ANSI/FM 4880, American NationalStandard for Evaluating the Fire Performance of Insulated Building Panel Assemblies and InteriorFinish Materials


Committee: BLD-INT


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Update to the correct FM title.


Public Input No. 37-NFPA 5000-2018 [Section No. 10.2.4.3.3.1]

Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

11 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Babrauskas, Vytenis

Carrigan, Matthew

Evans, Michael W.

Affirmative All


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Fitch, William E.



146 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 203 of 717

Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry




Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.


Newman, Kathleen A.

ok


147 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 204 of 717


10.2.4.3.3.3*

Cellular or foamed plastic materials tested in accordance with UL 1040, Standard for Fire Test of InsulatedWall Construction, or ANSI/ FM Approval 4880, Class 1 Fire Rating of Insulated Wall or Wall andRoof/Ceiling Panels, Interior Finish Materials, or Coatings and Exterior Wall Systems American NationalStandard for Evaluating the Fire Performance of Insulated Building Panel Assemblies and Interior FinishMaterials , shall also be tested for smoke release using NFPA 286, with the acceptance criterion criteria of10.2.3.2.

A.10.2.4.3.3.3

Both NFPA 286 and UL 1715, Standard for Fire Test of Interior Finish Material, contain smokeobscuration criteria. UL 1040, Standard for Fire Test of Insulated Wall Construction, and ANSI/ FMApproval 4880, Class 1 Fire Rating of Insulated Wall or Wall and Roof/Ceiling Panels, Interior FinishMaterials, or Coatings and Exterior Wall Systems American National Standard for Evaluating the FirePerformance of Insulated Building Panel Assemblies and Interior Finish Materials , do not. Smokeobscuration is an important component of the fire performance of cellular or foamed plastic materials.



5000_INT_FR-8053_A.10.2.4.3.3.3.docx For staff use


Committee: BLD-INT


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Update to FM title.



Public Input No. 41-NFPA 5000-2018 [Section No. A.10.2.4.3.3.3]

Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

11 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Babrauskas, Vytenis


148 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 205 of 717

Carrigan, Matthew

Evans, Michael W.

Affirmative All


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Fitch, William E.


Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry




Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.


Newman, Kathleen A.

ok


149 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 206 of 717


10.2.4.7 Expanded Vinyl Ceiling Coverings.

Where used as interior ceiling finish materials, expanded vinyl materials shall be tested in the mannerintended for use, using the product mounting system, including adhesive, and shall either meet one of thefollowing :

(1) Comply with the requirements of 10.2.3.1, or

(2) Meet the requirements of Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E84, Standard Test Methodfor Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, or UL 723, Standard for Test for SurfaceBurning Characteristics of Building Materials, using the specimen preparation and mounting methodof ASTM E2404, Standard Practice for Specimen Preparation and Mounting of Textile, Paper orPolymeric (including Vinyl) and Wood Wall or Ceiling Coverings, Facings and Veneers to AssessSurface Burning Characteristics, and used on the ceilings of rooms or areas protected by anapproved automatic sprinkler system


Committee: BLD-INT


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Creates consistency with NFPA 101.



Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

11 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Babrauskas, Vytenis

Carrigan, Matthew

Evans, Michael W.

Affirmative All


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Fitch, William E.



150 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 207 of 717

Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry




Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.


Newman, Kathleen A.

ok


151 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 208 of 717


10.2.4.10.1

For new installations, site Site -fabricated stretch systems containing all three components described inthe definition in Chapter 3 shall be tested in the manner intended for use and shall comply with therequirements of 10.2.3.1 or with the requirements of Class A in accordance with 10.2.3.3.


Committee: BLD-INT


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision addresses three issues:

1. as this is the building code, it automatically refers to new installations and that phrase isproposed to be deleted.

2. the information about Class A is clarification because the interpretation is unclear but thesesystems were always intended to meet Class A in ASTM E84. This was made clear by themanufacturers when they approached ASTM E5 to create Practice ASTM E2573.

3. The reference to testing to ASTM E84 should be to section 10.2.3.3.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8055-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

11 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Babrauskas, Vytenis

Carrigan, Matthew

Evans, Michael W.

Affirmative All


Dawe, Nicholas A.

Fitch, William E.



152 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 209 of 717

Lathrop, James K.

Paszczuk, Henry




Siegel, Shelley

Sloan, Dwayne E.


Newman, Kathleen A.

Class B and C ratings are referenced in 10.2.3.3. Adding Class A eliminates any potential Class B or C ratedmaterials from being used in a Class B or C rated requirement. 10.2.3.3 includes all class ratings.


153 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 210 of 717


11.2.1.4.5 Door Unlatching and Leaf Operating Forces.

11.2.1.4.5.1

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

11.2.1.4.5.2

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

(1) Opening The door opening forces for interior side-hinged or pivoted-swinging door leaves withoutclosers shall not be more than exceed 5 lbf (22 N).

(2) The door opening forces for horizontal-sliding door leaves in detention and correctional occupanciesshall be as provided in 21.2.11.

(3) The opening forces for power-operated door leaves shall be as provided in 11.2.1.9.

11.2.1.4.5.3

The forces specified in 11.2.1.4.5.2 shall be applied at the latch stile.


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The revision is intended for consistency with revisions to NFPA 101 (FR-6503).


Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.


154 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 211 of 717

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


155 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 212 of 717


11.2.1.5.2

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


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


156 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 213 of 717


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


157 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 214 of 717


11.2.1.5.7.2*

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

(1) The alternative specified in 11.2.1.5.5.2 11.2.1.5.7.2 is permitted in Chapters 16 through 31 for thespecific occupancy.

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




Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.


158 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 215 of 717

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


159 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 216 of 717


11.2.1.6.3 Door Hardware Release of Electrically Locked Egress Door Assemblies.

11.2.1.6.3.1

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

(1) The hardware for egress-side occupant release of the electrical lock is affixed to the door leaf.

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


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

(5)


11.2.1.6.3.2

The provisions of 11.2.1.6.1 for delayed-egress electrical locking systems and the provisions of11.2.1.6.2 for sensor-release of electrical locking systems shall not apply to door assemblies with doorhardware release of electrically locked egress doors.



5000_MEA_FR-8102_A.11.2.1.5.6_5_.docx For staff use


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision is intended for consistency with revisions to NFPA 101 (FR-6588).

Annex: The revision deletes the first part of the power supplies sentence as it conflicts with Item(4), which requires the operation of releasing door hardware to directly interrupt the power supplyto the electric lock.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8102-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


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

A.11.2.1.6.3.1(5)

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


160 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 217 of 717

32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


161 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 218 of 717


11.2.1.5.8* Stair Enclosure Re-entry.

Every door assembly in a stair enclosure serving more than four stories, unless permitted by11.2.1.5.6.2 11.2.1.5.8.2 , shall meet one of the following criteria conditions :


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

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

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

(c) Door hardware shall be listed in accordance with UL 294, Standard for Access Control SystemUnits .

(3) Selected re-entry shall be provided in accordance with 11.2.1.5.6.1 11.2.1.5.8.1 .

11.2.1.5.8.1

Door assemblies on stair enclosures shall be permitted to be equipped with hardware that prevents re-entry into the interior of the building, provided that all of the following criteria are met:

(1) There shall be not less than two levels where it is possible to leave the stair enclosure to accessanother exit.

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

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

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

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

11.2.1.5.8.2

The requirement of 11.2.1.5.6 11.2.1.5.8 shall not apply to the following:

(1) Stair enclosures serving a building permitted to have a single exit in accordance with Chapters 15through 31 and 33 through 34




Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results



162 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 219 of 717

32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


163 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 220 of 717


11.2.1.5.9

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


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


164 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 221 of 717


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


165 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 222 of 717


11.2.1.5.3* Latch-Release Devices.

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

A.11.2.1.5.3

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

11.2.1.5.3.1

The releasing mechanism for any latch locks and latches shall be located not less than 34 in. (865 mm)and not more than 48 in. (1220 mm) above the finished floor.

Global FR-8098

11.2.1.5.3.2*

The operation of the releasing mechanism shall open release all latching and all locking devices of thedoor leaf with not more than one releasing operation motion in a single linear or rotational direction ,unless otherwise specified in 11.2.1.5.3.5 11.2.1.5.5 .

A.11.2.1.5.3.2

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

11.2.1.5.3.3

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



5000_MEA_FR-8105_A.11.2.1.5.10.docx For staff use


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement

Committee The revision is intended for consistency with revisions to NFPA 101 (FR-6571). Annex: The


166 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 223 of 717

Statement: revision is intended for consistency with revisions to NFPA 101 (FR-6560).

ResponseMessage:

FR-8105-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois


167 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 224 of 717

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


168 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 225 of 717


Global FR-8098

11.2.1.5.11*

Devices shall not be installed in connection with any door assembly on which panic hardware or fire exithardware is requiredOn doors required to release all latching and all locking devices of the door leaf withnot more than one releasing motion in accordance with 11.2.1.5.3.2 , devices shall not be installed inconnection with any door assembly where such devices prevent or are intended to prevent the free use ofthe door leaf for purposes of egress, unless otherwise provided in 11.2.1.6.


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven


169 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 226 of 717

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


170 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 227 of 717


11.2.1.6.1* Delayed-Egress Electrical Locking Systems.

A.11.2.1.6.1

Delayed-egress electrical locking systems function as the name suggests: these electrical lockingsystems delay egress through the door. However, 11.2.1.6.1.1 (1) and 11.2.1.6.1.1 (2) identifysituations where the delay of these locking systems must be deactivated, facilitating immediate andunobstructed egress. Delayed-egress electrical locking systems are most commonly installed wherethere are concerns for internal security, such as theft from a store through required perimeter exits.Delayed-egress electrical locking systems might also be installed where occupants might benefit bybeing protected from their actions.


171 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 228 of 717

11.2.1.6.1.1

Approved delayed-egress electrical locking systems shall be permitted to be installed on door assembliesserving low- and ordinary-hazard contents in buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervisedautomatic fire detection system in accordance with Section 55.2, or an approved, electrically supervisedautomatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 55.3, and where permitted in Chapters 15 through31 and 33, provided that the criteria of 11.2.1.6.1.2 through 11.2.1.6.1.8 all of the following are met.

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

(a) Approved, electrically supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 55.3 .

(b) Not more than one heat detector of an approved, supervised automatic fire detection system inaccordance with Section 55.2 .

(c) Not more than two smoke detectors of an approved, supervised automatic fire detection systemin accordance with Section 55.2 .

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

(3)

(4)

(5) The egress side of doors equipped with a delayed-egress electrical locking systems shall beprovided with emergency lighting in accordance with Section 11.9.

(6) Hardware shall be listed in accordance with UL 294, Standard for Access Control System Units.

* An irreversible process shall release the electrical lock in the direction of egress within 15 seconds,or 30 seconds where approved by the authority having jurisdiction, upon application of a force to therelease device required in 11.2.1.5.11 under all of the following conditions:

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

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

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

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

A.11.2.1.6.1.1(3)

It is not the intent to require a direct physical or electrical connection between the door releasedevice and the lock. It is the intent to allow door movement initiated by operating the doorrelease device required in 11.2.1.5.3 as the primary option to initiate the irreversible process.

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

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

* On the door leaf adjacent to the release device in the direction of egress, there shall be a specialsign that complies with 11.10.8.1 and 11.10.8.2 and reads as follows: A readily visible, durable signthat conforms to the visual characters requirements of ICC/ANSI A117.1, Accessible and UsableBuildings and Facilities , shall be located on the door leaf adjacent to the release device in thedirection of egress, and shall read as follows:

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

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


172 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 229 of 717

11.2.1.6.1.2

The provisions of 11.2.1.6.2 for sensor-release of electrical locking systems and 11.2.1.6.3 for doorhardware release of electrically locked egress door assemblies shall not apply to door assemblies withdelayed-egress electrical locking systems.

11.2.1.6.1.3

The delay of the delayed egress electrical locking system shall deactivate allowing unobstructed egressupon actuation of an approved, electrically supervised automatic sprinkler system installed inaccordance with Section 55.3 , or upon the actuation of any heat detector or not more than two smokedetectors of an approved, supervised automatic fire detection system installed in accordance withSection 55.2 .

11.2.1.6.1.4

The delay of the delayed egress electrical locking system shall deactivate allowing unobstructed egressupon loss of power controlling the lock or locking mechanism.

11.2.1.6.1.5

An irreversible process shall release the electrical lock in the direction of egress within 15 seconds uponapplication of a force to the release device required in 11.2.1.5.10 that shall not be required to exceed15 lbf (67 N) nor be required to be continuously applied for more than 3 seconds. The initiation of therelease process shall activate an audible signal in the vicinity of the door opening. Once the lock hasbeen released by the application of force to the releasing device, rearming the delay electronics shall beby manual means only.

11.2.1.6.1.6

Where approved by the authority having jurisdiction, a delay not exceeding 30 seconds shall bepermitted.

11.2.1.6.1.7*

On the door leaf adjacent to the release device in the direction of egress, there shall be a special signthat complies with 11.10.8.1 and 11.10.8.2 and reads as follows:

PUSH UNTIL ALARM SOUNDS, DOOR CAN BE OPENED IN 15 SECONDS for doors that swingin the direction of egress travel

PULL UNTIL ALARM SOUNDS, DOOR CAN BE OPENED IN 15 SECONDS for doors that swingagainst the direction of egress travel

11.2.1.6.1.8

The egress side of doors equipped with a delayed egress electrical locking system shall be providedwith emergency lighting in accordance with Section 11.9 .

11.2.1.6.1.9

Hardware shall be listed in accordance with UL 294, Standard for Access Control System Units .


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All


173 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 230 of 717



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


174 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 231 of 717


11.2.1.6.4* Elevator Lobby Exit Access Door Assemblies Locking.

A.11.2.1.6.4

The electrical locking provisions of 11.2.1.6.4 for elevator lobby exit access door assemblies aresimilar to, but different from, the electrical locking systems of 11.2.1.6.1 , 11.2.1.6.2 , and11.2.1.6.3 .

On doors to tenant spaces from the elevator lobby, it is not the intent to prohibit these doors from beingequipped with access control systems, such as card readers controlling access to the tenant spaces,provided that the door leading from the elevator lobby is not in the path to the exit access required by11.2.1.6.1 .

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


175 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 232 of 717

11.2.1.6.4.1

Where permitted in Chapters 16 through 31, door assemblies separating the elevator lobby from the exitaccess required by 11.4.1.6.1 shall be permitted to be electrically locked, provided that all the followingcriteria are met:

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

(2) The building is protected throughout by a fire alarm system in accordance with Section 55.2.

(3) The building is protected throughout by an approved, electrically supervised automatic sprinklersystem in accordance with Section 55.3.

(4) Waterflow in the sprinkler system required by 11.2.1.6.4(3) is arranged to initiate the building firealarm system.

(5) The elevator lobby is protected by an approved, supervised smoke detection system in accordancewith Section 55.2.

(6) Detection of smoke by the detection system required by 11.2.1.6.4(5) is arranged to initiate thebuilding fire alarm system and notify building occupants.

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

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

(9) Once unlocked, the elevator lobby doors remain electrically unlocked until the building fire alarmsystem has been manually reset.

(10) Where the elevator lobby doors remain mechanically latched after being electrically unlocked, latch-releasing hardware in accordance with 11.2.1.5.5 11.2.1.5.7 is affixed to the doors leaves .

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

(12) The central control point staff required by 11.2.1.6.4(11) is capable, trained, and authorized to provideemergency assistance.

The provisions of 11.2.1.6.1 for delayed egress electrical locking systems are not applied to theelevator lobby doors.

11.2.1.6.4.2

Elevator lobby exit access doors equipped with electrical locking systems shall not be required tocomply with 11.2.1.6.1 , 11.2.1.6.2 , or 11.2.1.6.3 .


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision is intended for consistency with revisions to NFPA 101 (FR-6546). Deleteassociated annext to (14). The revision is intended for consistency with revisions to NFPA 101(FR-6563).

* The provisions of 11.2.1.6.2 for sensor-release of electrical locking systems are not applied tothe elevator lobby doors.

A.11.2.1.6.3(14)

It is not the intent to prohibit elevator lobby doors from being equipped with card accesssystems for gaining access, for example, to tenant spaces. It is the sensor-release of electricallocking system described in 11.2.1.6.2 that is prohibited from being installed on the same dooras the lock addressed by 11.2.1.6.4 .


176 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 233 of 717

ResponseMessage:

FR-8109-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.


177 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 234 of 717

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


178 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 235 of 717

First Revision No. 8110-NFPA 5000-2018 [ New Section after 11.2.1.7.1 ]

11.2.1.7.2

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


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.


179 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 236 of 717

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


Saks, Kenneth

See my similar comment on NFPA 101 - this section should include pivot doors as well. This also contradictsFR-8111.


180 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 237 of 717


11.2.1.7.1

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

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

(2) It shall be mounted not less than 34 in. (865 mm) and not more than 48 in. (1220 mm) above thefloor.

(3) It shall be constructed so that a horizontal force not to exceed 15 lbf (67 N) actuates the cross bar orpush pad and latches.


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher


181 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 238 of 717

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


Saks, Kenneth

During next revision, this should be cleaned up so that sub-section 1 only pertains to side-hinged doors andbetter correlates with FR-8110.


182 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 239 of 717

First Revision No. 8112-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Section No. 11.2.1.9.1 [Excluding any Sub-

Sections] ]

Where means of egress door leaves are operated by power upon the approach of a person, or areprovided with power-assisted manual operation, the design shall be such that, in the event of powerfailure, the door by any automatic mechanism or are provided with power-assisted manual operation, thedesign shall be such that, in the event of power failure, the leaves open manually to allow egress travel orclose when necessary to safeguard the means of egress.


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.


183 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 240 of 717

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


184 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 241 of 717


11.2.1.9.1.5

The door assembly shall be designed and installed so that, when a force is applied to the door leaf on theside from which egress is made, it shall be egress side, the door leaf shall be capable of swinging fromany position to provide full use of the required width of the opening in which it is installed. (See 11.2.1.4.)


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.


185 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 242 of 717

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


186 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 243 of 717


11.2.1.9.1.8

Sliding, power-operated door assemblies in an exit access serving an occupant load of fewer than 50 thatmanually slide open in the direction of door leaf travel, with forces not exceeding those required in11.2.1.4.5, shall not be required to have a swing-out feature required by 11.2.1.9.1.5. The required signshall be in letters not less than 1 in. (25 mm) high on a contrasting background and shall read as follows:

IN EMERGENCY, SLIDE TO OPEN


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.


187 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 244 of 717

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


188 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 245 of 717


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

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

(1) Door leaves can be opened manually in accordance with 11.2.1.9.1 to allow egress travel in the eventof power failure.

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

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

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

(5) Door leaves required to be self-latching are either self-latching or become self-latching uponoperation of approved smoke detectors per 11.2.1.9.2(4).

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


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.


189 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 246 of 717

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


190 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 247 of 717


11.2.1.13 Balanced Door Assemblies.

If panic hardware is installed on balanced door leaves, the panic hardware shall be of the push-padtype, and the pad shall not extend more than approximately one-half the width of the door leaf,measured from the latch stile. [See 11.2.1.7.1(1) .]


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.


191 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 248 of 717

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


192 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 249 of 717


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

Special-purpose horizontally sliding accordion or folding door assemblies used in accordance with11.2.1.4.1 (4) shall meet shall be permitted in means of egress, provided that all of the following criteriaare met :

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

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

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

(4) The door leaf is operable with using a force of not more than 50 lbf (222 N) when a force of 250 lbf(1100 N) is applied perpendicularly to the door leaf adjacent to the operating device.

(5) The door assembly complies with the fire protection rating, if required, and, where rated, is self-closing or automatic-closing by means of smoke detection in accordance with 11.2.1.8, and isinstalled in accordance with NFPA 80.


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The first revision does two things:

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

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

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

The proposed Item (2) in PI-253 has not been incorporated into the revision. It is unclear how theAHJ would determine acceptability of such an arrangement; whether the building requires a firealarm system to utilize such an arrangement; whether a fire alarm initiation device would be requiredat the door opening. The proposed Item (2) appears to conflict with the current Item (1).

ResponseMessage:

FR-8093-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results



193 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 250 of 717

32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


194 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 251 of 717


11.2.2.5.2.4

Separation shall not be required between corridors and outside stairs, provided that all of the followingconditions are met:

(1) The building, including corridors and stairs, shall be protected throughout by an approved, electricallysupervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13 , or, where applicable,NFPA 13R 55.3.1.1 (1) or 55.3.1.1 (2) that is electrically supervised in accordance with 55.3.2 .

(2) The corridors shall comply with 11.1.3.1.

(3) The corridors shall be connected on each end to an outside stair complying with 11.2.2.7.

(4) At any location in the corridor where a change in direction exceeding 45 degrees occurs, a clear

opening to the exterior of not less than 35 ft2 (3.25 m2), located to restrict the accumulation of smokeand toxic gases, or an outside stair shall be provided.


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-8094-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.


195 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 252 of 717

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


196 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 253 of 717


11.2.12.2.4.1

The smokeproof enclosure specified in 11.2.12.2.4(3) shall not be required for areas of refuge that are

more than 1000 ft 2 (93 m2) of clear floor area and that are created by a horizontal exit meeting therequirements of 11.2.4.


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision clarifies the floor area measurement and is intended for consistency with revisionsto NFPA 101. See CI-8043 for a proposed new definition of the term 'clear floor area' andassociated Annex A language.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8045-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven


197 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 254 of 717

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


198 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 255 of 717


11.2.12.3.2*

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


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-8046-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven


199 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 256 of 717

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


200 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 257 of 717


11.2.13.2.2

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

served by the lobby. The capacity of clear floor area shall be calculated by using based on 3 ft2 (0.28 m2)per person and shall also include one wheelchair space of 30 in. × 48 in. (760 mm × 1220 mm) for each50 persons, or fraction portion thereof, of the total occupant load served by that lobby.


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-8047-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven


201 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 258 of 717

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


202 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 259 of 717


11.4.2 Spaces About Electrical Equipment.

11.4.2.1 600 1000 Volts, Nominal, or Less.

The minimum number of means of egress for working space about electrical equipment shall be inaccordance with NFPA 70 , Article 110.26(C).

11.4.2.1.1 Number of Means of Egress.

The minimum number of means of egress for working space about electrical equipment shall be inaccordance with NFPA 70 , Article 110.26(C) of NFPA 70 .

11.4.2.1.2 Door Unlatching and Direction of Door Swing.

The method of door unlatching and direction of door swing for working space about electrical equipmentshall be in accordance with NFPA 70 , Article 110.26(C)(3) of NFPA 70 .

11.4.2.2 Over 600 1000 Volts, Nominal.

The minimum number of means of egress for working space about electrical equipment shall be inaccordance with NFPA 70 , Article 110.33(A).

11.4.2.2.1 Number of Means of Egress.

The minimum number of means of egress for working space about electrical equipment shall be inaccordance with NFPA 70 , Article 110.33(A) of NFPA 70 .

11.4.2.2.2 Door Unlatching and Direction of Door Swing.

The method of door unlatching and direction of door swing for working space about electrical equipmentshall be in accordance with NFPA 70 , Article 110.33(A)(3) of NFPA 70 .


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement

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


Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin


203 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 260 of 717

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


204 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 261 of 717


11.5.1.3*

Exit access shall be arranged so that there are no dead ends in corridors, unless permitted by, andlimited to, the length specified in Chapters 15 through 31 and 33 through 34 .


205 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 262 of 717

A.11.5.1.3

The terms dead end and common path of travel are commonly used interchangeably. While theconcepts of each are similar in practice, they are two different concepts.

A common path of travel exists where a space is arranged so that occupants within that space areable to travel in only one direction to reach any of the exits or to reach the point at which the occupantshave the choice of two paths of travel to remote exits. Part (a) of Figure A.11.5.1.3 is an example of acommon path of travel.

Figure A.11.5.1.3 Common Paths of Travel and Dead-End Corridors.

While a dead end is similar to a common path of travel, a dead end can exist where there is no path oftravel from an occupied space but can also exist where an occupant enters a corridor thinking there isan exit at the end and, finding none, is forced to retrace his or her path to reach a choice of exits.Part (b) of Figure A.11.5.1.3 is an example of such a dead-end arrangement.

Combining the two concepts, part (c) of Figure A.11.5.1.3 is an example of a combined dead-end/common path of travel problem.

Common paths of travel and dead-end travel are measured using the same principles used tomeasure travel distance as described in Section 11.6 . Starting in the room shown in part (d) ofFigure A.11.5.1.3 , measurement is made from the most remote point in the room, A, along the naturalpath of travel, and through the doorway along the centerline of the corridor to point C, located at thecenterline of the corridor, which then provides the choice of two different paths to remote exits; this iscommon path of travel. The space between point B and point C is a dead end. (See 3.3.112 ,Common Path of Travel.)


Committee: BLD-MEA



206 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 263 of 717

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Relocate 11.5.1.6 (and A11.5.1.6) as a new 11.5.1.3 (and A.11.5.1.3).

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


Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent


207 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 264 of 717

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


208 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 265 of 717


11.7.1.2

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


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.



209 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 266 of 717

Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


210 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 267 of 717


11.7.2* Exit Discharge Through Interior Building Areas.

Exits shall be permitted to discharge through interior building areas, provided that all of the followingcriteria are met:

(1) Not more than 50 percent of the required number of exit stairs serving normally occupied areas ofeach floor, and not more than 50 percent of the exit stair capacity required for normally occupiedareas of each floor, shall discharge through areas on any level of discharge, except that 100 percentof the exits shall be permitted to discharge through areas on any level of discharge in detention andcorrectional occupancies as otherwise provided in 21.2.7.2.

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

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

(2) The interior exit discharge shall be protected by one of the following methods:

(a) The level of discharge shall be protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler systemin accordance with Section 55.3, or the portion of the level of discharge used for interior exitdischarge shall be protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance withSection 55.3 and shall be separated from the nonsprinklered portion of the floor by fire barrierswith a fire resistance rating meeting the requirements for the enclosure of exits. (See 11.1.3.2.1.)

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

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

ii. The foyer shall be separated from the remainder of the level of discharge by fire barriers withminimum 1-hour fire resistance rating.

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

(3) Where 11.7.2 (2) is applied, one of the following shall be permitted:

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

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

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

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

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

(5) The entire area on the level of discharge shall be separated from areas below by construction havinga fire resistance rating not less than that required for the exit enclosure, unless otherwise provided in11.7.2(6).

(6) Levels below the level of discharge in an atrium shall be permitted to be open to the level ofdischarge where such level of discharge is protected in accordance with 8.12.3.


211 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 268 of 717

A.11.7.2

It does not matter where exits that discharge into interior building areas are located provided that thearrangement of means of egress requirements of Section 11.5 , the travel distance requirements ofSection 11.6 , and the requirements of 11.7.2 (1) are met.


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark


212 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 269 of 717


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


Bush, Kenneth E.

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

Lathrop, James K.

Totally inadequate justification has been provided to allow 75% of the exits to discharge inside of the building

Abstention

Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

More supportive information should be provided to allow the 75% exit capacity through the sprinklered and limitedfire resistance rating vestibules.


213 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 270 of 717

First Revision No. 8096-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Sections 11.13.2, 11.13.3 ]

11.13.2 Egress Doors.

11.13.2.1*

Egress from normally unoccupied building service equipment support areas shall be provided by doorscomplying with 11.2.1 where the normally unoccupied building service equipment support area exceeds

45,000 ft2 (4180 m2) in buildings not protected throughout by an approved, supervised automaticsprinkler system in accordance with 55.3.1.1(1) and electrically supervised in accordance with 55.3.2 .

11.13.2.2

Egress from normally unoccupied building service equipment support areas shall be provided by doorscomplying with 11.2.1 where the normally unoccupied building service equipment support area exceeds

90,000 ft2 (8370 m2) in buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinklersystem in accordance with 55.3.1.1(1) and electrically supervised in accordance with 55.3.2 .

11.13.2.3

The absence of sprinklers in the normally unoccupied building service equipment support area aspermitted by an exemption of NFPA 13 , 55.3.1.1 (1) shall not cause a building to be classified asnonsprinklered for purposes of applying the provisions of 11.13.2.2.

11.13.3 Means of Egress Path.

11.13.3.1

A designated means of egress path shall be provided within the normally unoccupied building service

equipment support area where the normally unoccupied area exceeds 45,000 ft2 (4180 m2) in buildingsnot protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with55.3.1.1(1) and electrically supervised in accordance with 55.3.2 .

11.13.3.2

A designated means of egress path shall be provided within the normally unoccupied building service

equipment support area where the normally unoccupied area exceeds 90,000 ft2 (8370 m2) in buildingsprotected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with55.3.1.1(1) and electrically supervised in accordance with 55.3.2 .

11.13.3.3

The absence of sprinklers in the normally unoccupied building service equipment support area aspermitted by an exemption of NFPA 13 55.3.1.1 (1) shall not cause a building to be classified asnonsprinklered for purposes of applying the provisions of 11.13.3.2.

11.13.3.4

Where a means of egress path is required, the path shall be a minimum of 28 in. (810 mm) clear width.

11.13.3.5

Where a means of egress path is required, minimum headroom shall be 6 ft 8 in. (2030 mm) along theentire designated means of egress path.

11.13.3.6

Exit signage shall not be required along the means of egress path within normally unoccupied buildingservice equipment support areas.

11.13.3.7

Where two means of egress are required, the means of egress path shall connect the two required meansof egress.

11.13.3.8

The designated means of egress path shall be within 25 ft (7.6 m) of any portion of the space where theonly available access requires crossing over or under obstructions, unless the space is completelyinaccessible.


214 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 271 of 717


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-8096-NFPA 5000-2018

Public Input No. 149-NFPA 5000-2018 [Sections 11.13.2, 11.13.3]

Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark


215 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 272 of 717

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


216 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 273 of 717


11.14.9.2.1

Occupant evacuation elevator lobbies shall have minimum clear floor area, except as otherwise providedin 11.14.9.2.2, as follows:

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

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


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-8048-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher


217 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 274 of 717

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


218 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 275 of 717


11.15 Emergency Stair Travel Devices.

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


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision adds mandatory requirements for emergency stair travel devices in responseto PI-111.


Public Input No. 113-NFPA 5000-2018 [New Section after 11.2.12.2.6]



Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.


219 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 276 of 717

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John


Frable, David W.

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

Saks, Kenneth

This should only pertain to new devices. Existing devices should be allowed to remain.

de Vries, David A.

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


220 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 277 of 717

First Revision No. 8091-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Section No. 12.35 [Excluding any Sub-

Sections] ]

[ 2010 ADA STANDARDS (DOJ): 235] Recreational boating facilities shall comply withSection ICC/ANSI A117.1, section Section 1103 of ICC/ANSI A117.1, section 1103. Accessible andUsable Buildings and Facilities . [2010 ADA STANDARDS (DOJ): 235.1]


Committee: BLD-BSY


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Removed duplicate language.


Ballot Results


13 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

9 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Ambrefe, William

Forner, Phil

Shingleton, Frank

Whitman, Steven J.

Affirmative All

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Clary, Shane M.

Hansen, Raymond N.

Novosel, Davor

Rickard, John A.

Siegel, Shelley

Smith, James B.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


221 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 278 of 717


15.1.1.7

Repairs, renovations, modifications, reconstructions, and additions of structural concrete elements shallbe in accordance with ACI 562, Code Requirements for Assessment, Repair, and Rehabilitation ofExisting Concrete Structures .


Committee: BLD-FUN


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision incorporates the recommendation of PI-98. NOTE TO CORRELATINGCOMMITTEE: The TC on Fundamentals requests that this FR be directed to the TC onStructures, Construction, and Materials for its review.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8264-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


20 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

17 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cheng, Amy Y.

Hopkins, Mark

Laramee, Scott T.

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid


Finnegan, Daniel P.

Frable, David W.

Groner, Norman E.

Jacoby, David J.

Jelenewicz, Chris


222 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 279 of 717

Klein, David P.

Lathrop, James K.


Murga, Ricardo

Pauls, Jake


Roberts, Jon G.

Tyree, David P.

Vann, Joshua


223 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 280 of 717


16.2.5.1 General.

Means of egress shall be arranged in accordance with Section 11.5.

16.2.5.2 Common Paths of Travel.

Common paths of travel shall be permitted for the first 20 ft (6100 mm) from any point where serving anynumber of occupants and for the first 75 ft (23 m) from any point where serving not more than 50occupants.

16.2.5.3 Dead-End Corridors.

Dead-end corridors shall not exceed 20 ft (6100 mm).


Committee: BLD-AXM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The FR only renumbers the arrangement of means of egress requirements in response todirection from the correlating committee and recommendation by the TC on Means of Egress viaits resolution of PI-157 (NFPA 101). Renumber successive paragraphs accordingly.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8323-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.


Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William


224 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 281 of 717

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Washburn, Janet A.


225 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 282 of 717


16.2.5.7.1*

The required clear width of aisle accessways between rows of seating shall be determined as follows:

(1) Horizontal measurements shall be made between vertical planes, from the back of one seat to thefront of the most forward projection of the seat immediately behind it.

(2) Where the entire row consists of automatic-rising or self-rising seats that comply with ASTM F851,Test Method for Self-Rising Seat Mechanisms, the measurement shall be permitted to be made withthe seats in the up position.


Committee: BLD-AXM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision responds to PI-257 and revises the suggested language by deleting "of the seat" in16.2.5.5.1(1) such that the measurement applies whether the aisle accessway is located in frontof or behind the row of seats.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8337-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.


Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils


226 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 283 of 717

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Washburn, Janet A.


227 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 284 of 717


16.3.3.5 Interior Floor Finish.

16.3.3.5.1

Interior floor finish shall comply with Section 10.7 10.2.6 .

16.3.3.5.2

Interior floor finish in exit enclosures, exit access corridors, and spaces not separated from suchenclosures and corridors by walls complying with 16.3.6 shall be not less than Class II in accordance with10.7.4 10.2.6.4 .

16.3.3.5.3

Interior floor finish shall comply with 10.7.1 10.2.6.1 and 10.7.2 10.2.6.2 , as applicable.


Committee: BLD-AXM


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Editorial corrections.


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.


Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils


228 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 285 of 717

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Washburn, Janet A.


229 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 286 of 717


16.3.5.1.1

The following assembly occupancies shall be protected throughout by an approved, electrically supervisedautomatic sprinkler system in accordance with 55.3.1.1(1):

(1) Dance halls

(2) Discotheques

(3) Nightclubs

(4) Bars

(5) Restaurants

(6) Assembly occupancies with festival seating


Committee: BLD-AXM


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.


Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils


230 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 287 of 717

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Washburn, Janet A.


231 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 288 of 717


16.3.5.1.5

High-rise buildings shall comply with 16.4.5 .

16.3.5.1.6

Where required by Section 7.4 , buildings containing assembly occupancies shall be protected by anapproved, electrically supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 55.3 .


Committee: BLD-AXM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision responds to direction from the correlating committee to provide user-friendlypointers to the high-rise and construction sprinkler requirements in the XX.3.5 subsections of theoccupancy chapters. No technical change is intended.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8324-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.


Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Gandy, Max L.


232 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 289 of 717

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Washburn, Janet A.


233 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 290 of 717


16.4.1 Special Structures.

Assembly occupancies shall comply with Chapter 31 where located in special structures.


Committee: BLD-AXM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision responds to direction by the correlating committee and guidance by the TC onFundamentals to provide a user-friendly reference to Chapter 31 in the X.4.1 subsection of theoccupancy chapters for special structures. It is noted that the current 16.4.1 and successiveparagraphs are to be renumbered accordingly.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8329-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.


Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.


234 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 291 of 717

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Washburn, Janet A.


235 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 292 of 717


16.4.9.5* Alarm Initiation.

Actuation of any smoke detection system device shall sound an alarm at a constantly attended location onthe premises.

A.16.4.9.5

Special amusement attractions might contain an operator console or “tower,” which might also serveas a constantly attended location when the ride is operating.


Committee: BLD-AXM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision is intended for consistency with changes to NFPA 101 (see 101 FR-6705 &FR-6711).


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.


Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.


236 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 293 of 717

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Washburn, Janet A.


237 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 294 of 717


16.4.9.6* Illumination, Sounds, and Visuals.

Actuation of the automatic sprinkler system, or any other suppression system, or actuation of a smokedetection system having an approved verification or cross-zoning operation capability shall cause both ofthe following:

(1) Increase illumination in the means of egress to that required by Section 11.8

(2) Stop any conflicting or confusing sounds and visuals

A.16.4.9.6

Lighting levels within special amusement buildings are typically reduced to levels that are lower thanthose required by Section 11.8 for show purposes. In addition, projections, special effects, haze, andother theatrical elements might be combined, which can disorient occupants who are unfamiliar withthe egress route. The activation of the automatic sprinkler system or smoke detection system mustimmediately increase illumination to the required levels and stop all show elements that wouldcontinue to disorient or confuse occupants.

Because of the delay in verification or cross-zoning of smoke detectors, positive alarm sequenceshould not be utilized when alarm-verification or cross-zoned smoke detectors is selected.


Committee: BLD-AXM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision is intended to consistency with changes to NFPA 101 (see 101 FR-6704 &FR-6712).


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.


Tubbs, Jeffrey S.


238 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 295 of 717

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Washburn, Janet A.


239 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 296 of 717


17.1.2.2

Educational occupancies shall include preschools, kindergartens, and other schools meeting both of thefollowing criteria:

(1) The purpose is primarily educational, even though the children who attend such schools are ofpreschool age.

(2) The children are all 24 30 months of age or older.


Committee: BLD-END

Submittal Date: Tue Sep 04 13:51:10 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Paragraph 17.1.2.2(2) allows children considered incapable of self-preservation (i.e., 24 months orolder but less than 30 months) in Educational Occupancies. Chapters 17 does not afford the sameprotection to students incapable of self-preservation as Chapter 18 (Day Care Occupancies). Forexample, adequate adult staff is not required to be on duty to address the care, maintenance, andsupervision required for students incapable of self-preservation.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8406-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.

Frangiamore, Keith S.

Gandy, Max L.

Haidacher, Jeffrey L.


240 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 297 of 717

Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.

Longhitano, Alfred J.

Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.

Sinsigalli, Michael L.


Szachnowicz, Aleksy L.

Abstention

Blaser, Scott J.

I have not seen enough data to make me educated enough to make a decision on the subject of age and theirability to preform tasks.


241 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 298 of 717


17.2.2.2.4* Classroom Door Locking to Prevent Unwanted Entry Locking of Classroom Doors and Doorsto Other Instructional Spaces .

Classroom doors and doors to other instructional spaces shall be permitted to be locked to preventunwanted entry provided that the locking means is approved and all of the following conditions are met:

(1) The locking means shall be capable of being engaged from the egress side without opening the door.

(2) The unlocking and unlatching from the classroom egress side of the door shall be accomplishedwithout the use of a key, tool, or special knowledge or effort.

(3) The releasing mechanism shall open the door leaf with not more than one releasing operation.

(4) The releasing mechanism for unlocking and unlatching shall be located at a height not less than34 in. (865 mm) and not exceeding 48 in. (1220 mm) above the finished floor.

(5) Locks, if remotely engaged, shall be unlockable from the classroom egress side of the door withoutthe use of a key, tool, or special knowledge or effort.

(6) The door shall be capable of being unlocked and opened from outside the room with the necessarykey or other credential.

(7) The locking means shall not modify the door closer, panic hardware, or fire exit hardware or impairtheir operation .

(8) Modifications to fire door assemblies, including door hardware, shall be in accordance with NFPA 80.


Committee: BLD-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The language puts forth requirements to safely lock doors for security purposes and can be used byAHJs, school systems, facility owners and managers. Barricade and other third party devices aregetting into schools and daycare facilities and are being used to lock doors and lead to unintendedconsequences and violate a fundamental concept of NFPA 5000 requiring free egress.

The changes proposed in this First Revision represent a combination of concepts proposed in themultiple public inputs that were received on this subject as well as additional feedback from the fullTechnical Committee. A task group was established to thoroughly review the changes in the 13public inputs related to door locking for educational occupancies. The result was a proposed revisionincorporating the appropriate components of the various submittals. The First Revision clarifies someof the identified concerns of the Committee as follows:

-Title/charging sentence: Updated to reflect the intended application of the section. Preventing‘unwanted entry’ is the purpose of any door lock. The revised text clarifies where this package ofdoor locking criteria should be used.

-(1), change clarifies that doors have to have the capability of being locked from the egress side,specifically, without opening the door.

-(2), change clarifies that unlocking and unlatching has to be accomplished from the egress side ofthe door. Occupants cannot be trapped inside of an area with a locked door and unable to egress.

-(5), same concept as (1) and (2).

-(7), the fundamental concept of this list item is that devices cannot interfere with the critical doorcomponents including the closer or panic hardware. Barricade-type devices not only modify them butimpair their operation. In addition, there are devices that do not necessarily modify components, but


242 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 299 of 717

do impair their operation. The text should have the effect of not permitting any non-compliant anddangerous devices.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8439-NFPA 5000-2018



Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.


Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael





Roeper, Kurt A.

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


243 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 300 of 717

First Revision No. 8438-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Sections 17.2.5.1, 17.2.5.2, 17.2.5.3 ]

17.2.5.1 General.


17.2.5.2 Common Path of Travel.

Limitations on common path of travel shall be in accordance with 18.2.5.3.1 17.2.5.2.1 and18.2.5.3.2 17.2.5.2.2 .

17.2.5.2.1

Common path of travel shall not exceed 100 ft (30 m) in a building protected throughout by an approved,electrically supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 55.3.

17.2.5.2.2

Common path of travel shall not exceed 75 ft (23 m) in a building not protected throughout by anapproved, electrically supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 55.3.


No dead-end corridor shall exceed 20 ft (6100 mm), other than in buildings protected throughout by anapproved, electrically supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 55.3, in whichcase dead-end corridors shall not exceed 50 ft (15 m).


Committee: BLD-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This reorganization of the XX.2.5 subsection of the occupancy chapters is in response to theCorrelating Committee directive from minutes item 7(a)(i).

ResponseMessage:

FR-8438-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.


244 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 301 of 717

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.


Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.





245 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 302 of 717



17.3.3.3.1

Interior floor finish in exit enclosures and in , exit access corridors, and in spaces not separated fromthem by walls complying with 17.3.6 shall be not less than Class II in accordance with 10.2.6.4 10.7.4 .

17.3.3.3.2

In all other spaces, interior floor finish shall comply with 10.2.6.1 10.7.1 and 10.2.6.2 10.7.2 .


Committee: BLD-END


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Updates incorrect cross-reference.


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard


246 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 303 of 717

Julka, Terrence J.


Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.





247 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 304 of 717


17.3.4.4.2

Where carbon monoxide detectors are installed in accordance with 17.3.4.4.1(1), the alarm signal shall beautomatically transmitted to an approved on-site location or to an off-premises location in accordance withNFPA 720 NFPA 72 .


Committee: BLD-END


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: NFPA 720 has been incorporated into NFPA 72.


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.



248 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 305 of 717

Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.





249 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 306 of 717


17.4.1

Educational occupancies shall comply with Chapter 31 where located in a special structure.


Committee: BLD-END

Submittal Date: Thu Sep 06 09:07:40 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This new section provides a user-friendly pointer to Chapter 31 to remind users to apply thatchapter when the occupancy is located in a special structure. Revision does not introduce anynew technical requirements.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8448-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.



250 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 307 of 717

Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.





251 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 308 of 717


18.1.2.1

Occupancies that include preschools, kindergartens, and other schools whose purpose is primarilyeducational for children 24 30 months of age or older, even though the children are of preschool age,shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 17.


Committee: BLD-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Paragraph 18.1.2.2(2) allows children considered incapable of self-preservation (i.e., 24 months orolder but less than 30 months) in Educational Occupancies. Chapters 17 does not afford the sameprotection to students incapable of self-preservation as Chapter 18 (Day Care Occupancies). Forexample, adequate adult staff is not required to be on duty to address the care, maintenance, andsupervision required for students incapable of self-preservation.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8418-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard


252 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 309 of 717

Julka, Terrence J.


Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.




Abstention

Blaser, Scott J.

I have not seen enough data to make me educated enough to make a decision on the subject of age and theirability to preform tasks.


253 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 310 of 717


18.2.2.2.8 Classroom Door Locking to Prevent Unwanted Entry Locking of Classroom Doors and Doorsto Other Client Care Spaces .

Classroom doors and doors to other client care spaces shall be permitted to be locked to preventunwanted entry provided that the locking means is approved and all of the following conditions are met:

(1) The locking means shall be capable of being engaged from the egress side without opening the door.

(2) The unlocking and unlatching from the classroom egress side of the door shall be accomplishedwithout the use of a key, tool, or special knowledge or effort.

(3) The releasing mechanism shall open the door leaf with not more than one releasing operation.

(4) The releasing mechanism for unlocking and unlatching shall be located at a height not less than34 in. (865 mm) and not exceeding 48 in. (1220 mm) above the finished floor.

(5) Locks, if remotely engaged, shall be unlockable from the classroom egress side of the door withoutthe use of a key, tool, or special knowledge or effort.

(6) The door shall be capable of being unlocked and opened from outside the room with the necessarykey or other credential.

(7) The locking means shall not modify the door closer, panic hardware, or fire exit hardware or impairtheir operation .

(8) Modifications to fire door assemblies, including door hardware, shall be in accordance with NFPA 80.


Committee: BLD-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The language puts forth requirements to safely lock doors for security purposes and can be used byAHJs, school systems, facility owners and managers. Barricade and other third party devices aregetting into schools and daycare facilities and are being used to lock doors and lead to unintendedconsequences and violate a fundamental concept of NFPA 5000 requiring free egress.

The changes proposed in this First Revision represent a combination of concepts proposed in themultiple public inputs that were received on this subject. A task group was established to thoroughlyreview the changes in the 13 public inputs related to door locking for daycare occupancies. Theresult was a proposed revision incorporating the appropriate components of the various submittals.The First Revision clarifies some of the identified concerns of the Committee as follows:

-Title/charging sentence: Updated to reflect the intended application of the section. Preventing‘unwanted entry’ is the purpose of any door lock. The revised text clarifies where this package ofdoor locking criteria should be used.

-(1), change clarifies that doors have to have the capability of being locked from the egress side,specifically, without opening the door.

-(2), change clarifies that unlocking and unlatching has to be accomplished from the egress side ofthe door. Occupants cannot be trapped inside of an area with a locked door and unable to egress.

-(5), same concept as (1) and (2).

-(7), the fundamental concept of this list item is that devices cannot interfere with the critical doorcomponents including the closer or panic hardware. Barricade-type devices not only modify them butimpair their operation. In addition, there are devices that do not necessarily modify components, butdo impair their operation. The text should have the effect of not permitting any non-compliant and


254 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 311 of 717

dangerous devices.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8440-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.


Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael





Roeper, Kurt A.

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


255 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 312 of 717


18.2.5.1


18.2.5.2

Limitations on common path of travel shall be in accordance with 18.2.5.3.1 18.2.5.2.1 and18.2.5.3.2 18.2.5.2.2.

18.2.5.2.1

Common path of travel shall not exceed 100 ft (30 m) in a building protected throughout by an approved,electrically supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 55.3.

18.2.5.2.2

Common path of travel shall not exceed 75 ft (23 m) in a building not protected throughout by anapproved, electrically supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 55.3.

18.2.5.3

No dead-end corridor shall exceed 20 ft (6100 mm), other than in buildings protected throughout by anapproved, electrically supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 55.3, in whichcase dead-end corridors shall not exceed 50 ft (15 m).


Committee: BLD-END


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This reorganization of the XX.2.5 subsection of the occupancy chapters is in response to theCorrelating Committee directive from minutes item 7(a)(i).

ResponseMessage:

FR-8437-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.


256 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 313 of 717

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.


Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.





257 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 314 of 717



18.3.3.3.1

Interior floor finish in exit enclosures and in , exit access corridors, and in spaces not separated fromthem by walls complying with 18.3.6 shall be not less than Class II in accordance with 10.7.4 10.2.6.4 .

18.3.3.3.2

In all other spaces, interior floor finish shall comply with 10.7.1 10.2.6.1 and 10.7.2 10.2.6.2 .


Committee: BLD-END


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Update to incorrect cross references.


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard


258 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 315 of 717

Julka, Terrence J.


Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.





259 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 316 of 717


18.4.1

Day care occupancies shall comply with Chapter 31 where located in a special structure.


Committee: BLD-END

Submittal Date: Thu Sep 06 09:08:33 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This new section provides a user-friendly pointer to Chapter 11 to remind users to apply thatchapter when the occupancy is located in a special structure. Revision does not introduce anynew technical requirements.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8449-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

1 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Lazebnik, Rosa

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Blaser, Scott J.

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Day, Richard L.

DiMisa, Richard M.

Ellis, Jason D.


Gandy, Max L.


Hansen, Raymond N.

Hopper, Howard

Julka, Terrence J.



260 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 317 of 717

Marks, Maria B.

Merck, Richard E.

Mertens, Matthew J.

Naber, Michael

Roeper, Kurt A.





261 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 318 of 717


19.1.1.4.2 Changes of Use or Occupancy Classification.

Changes of use or occupancy classification shall comply with 4.5.6, unless otherwise permitted by one ofthe following:

(1) A change from a hospital to a nursing home or from a nursing home to a hospital shall not beconsidered a change in occupancy classification or a change in use.

(2) A change from a hospital or nursing home to a limited care facility shall not be considered a change inoccupancy classification or a change in use.

A change from a hospital or nursing home to an ambulatory health care facility shall not beconsidered a change in occupancy classification or a change in use.


Committee: BLD-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The change of occupancy classification described in (3) is adequately addressed byChapter 15.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.


262 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 319 of 717

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



263 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 320 of 717


19.2.2.2.2

Locks shall not be permitted on patient sleeping room doors, unless otherwise permitted by one of thefollowing:

(1) Key-locking Locking devices that restrict access to the room from the corridor and that are operableonly by staff from the corridor side shall be permitted, provided that such devices do not restrictegress from the room.

(2) Locks complying with 19.2.2.2.5.1 shall be permitted.


Committee: BLD-HEA

Submittal Date: Tue Sep 04 14:35:32 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

For patient privacy, locks that allow patients to lock the door when they leave the room may bedesirable, particularly in nursing homes. RFID locks that allow access by staff and the patient orpatient's family are readily available. There is no safety issue regarding access from the corridor solong as egress is uninhibited and staff can access the room, and there is no reason to limit accessso only staff can unlock the door from the corridor side.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8408-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.


264 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 321 of 717

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



265 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 322 of 717


19.2.2.2.7*

Doors permitted to be locked in accordance with 19.2.2.2.5.1 shall be permitted to have murals on theegress doors to disguise the doors provided all of the following are met:

(1) Staff can readily unlock the doors at all times in accordance with 19.2.2.2.6.

(2)

(3)

(4) The murals shall not impair the operation of the doors.

(5) Any modification to a fire door complies with NFPA 80 .


Committee: BLD-HEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

* The door-releasing hardware, where provided, is readily accessible for staff use.

* Door leaves, windows, and door hardware, other than door-releasing hardware, shall be permitted tobe covered by the murals.


266 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 323 of 717

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



267 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 324 of 717


19.2.4.3

Not less than two separate exits shall be accessible from every part of every story except where roomsare not required to have a door leading directly to the exit access corridor as permitted by 19.2.5.6.3 .


Committee: BLD-HEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.


268 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 325 of 717

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



269 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 326 of 717



Common path of travel shall not exceed 100 ft (30 m).


Dead-end corridors shall not exceed 30 ft (9.1 m).


Committee: BLD-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The FR only renumbers the arrangement of means of egress requirements in response todirection from the correlating committee and recommendation by the TC on Means of Egress viaits resolution of PI-157 (NFPA 101).

ResponseMessage:

FR-8326-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.


270 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 327 of 717

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



271 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 328 of 717


19.2.5.5 Two Means of Egress.

19.2.5.5.1

Sleeping rooms of more than 1000 ft2 (93 m2) gross shall have not less than two exit access doorsremotely located from each other.

19.2.5.5.2

Non-sleeping rooms of more than 2500 ft2 (230 m2) gross shall have not less than two exit access doorsremotely located from each other.


Committee: BLD-HEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.


272 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 329 of 717

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



273 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 330 of 717


19.2.5.7 Health Care Suites.

19.2.5.7.1 General.

19.2.5.7.1.1 Suite Permission.

Suites complying with 19.2.5.7 shall be permitted to be used to meet the corridor access requirements of19.2.5.6.

19.2.5.7.1.2 Suite Separation.

Suites shall be separated from the remainder of the building, and from other suites, by walls and doorsmeeting the requirements of 19.3.6.2 through 19.3.6.5.

19.2.5.7.1.3 Suite Hazardous Contents Areas.

(A)

Intervening rooms shall not be hazardous areas as defined by 19.3.2.

(B)

Hazardous areas within a suite shall be separated from the remainder of the suite in accordance with19.3.2.1, unless otherwise provided in 19.2.5.7.1.3(C).

(C)

Hazardous areas within a suite shall not be required to be separated from the remainder of the suitewhere complying with all the following:

(1) The suite is primarily a hazardous area.

(2) The suite is protected by an approved automatic smoke detection system in accordance withSection 55.2.

(3) The suite is separated from the rest of the health care facility as required for a hazardous area by19.3.2.1.

19.2.5.7.1.4 Suite Subdivision.

The subdivision of suites shall be by means of noncombustible or limited-combustible partitions orpartitions constructed with fire-retardant-treated wood enclosed with noncombustible or limited-combustible materials, and such partitions shall not be required to be fire rated.

19.2.5.7.2 Sleeping Suites.

Sleeping suites shall be in accordance with the following:

(1) Sleeping suites for patient care Patient care sleeping suites shall comply with the provisions of19.2.5.7.2.1 through 19.2.5.7.2.4.

(2) Sleeping suites not for patient care shall comply with the provisions of 19.2.5.7.4.

19.2.5.7.2.1 Patient Care Sleeping Suite Supervision.

(A)

Patient care sleeping suites shall be provided with constant staff supervision within the suite.


274 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 331 of 717

(B)

Sleeping Patient care sleeping suites shall be arranged in accordance with one of the following:

(1) Patient sleeping rooms within patient care sleeping suites shall provide one of the following:

(a) The patient sleeping rooms shall be arranged to allow for direct supervision from a normallyattended location within the suite, such as is provided by glass walls, and cubicle curtains shallbe permitted.

(b) Any patient sleeping rooms without the direct supervision required by 19.2.5.7.2.1(B)(1)(a) shallbe provided with smoke detection in accordance with Section 55.2 and 19.3.4.

(2) Sleeping Patient care sleeping suites shall be provided with a total (complete) coverage automaticsmoke detection system in accordance with 55.2.2.3 and 19.3.4.

19.2.5.7.2.2 Patient Care Sleeping Suite Means of Egress.

(A)

Sleeping Patient care sleeping suites shall have exit access to a corridor complying with 19.3.6 or to ahorizontal exit, directly from the suite.

(B)

Sleeping Patient care sleeping suites of more than 1000 ft2 (93 m2) gross shall have not less than twoexit access doors remotely located from each other.

(C)

For suites requiring two exit access doors, one of the exit access doors from the suite shall be permittedto be to one of the following:

(1) An exit stair

(2) An exit passageway

(3) An exit door to the exterior

(4) Another suite, provided that the separation between the suites complies with the corridorrequirements of 19.3.6.2 through 19.3.6.5

19.2.5.7.2.3 Patient Care Sleeping Suite Maximum Size.

(A)

Sleeping Patient care sleeping suites shall not exceed 7500 ft2 (700 m2) gross , unless otherwiseprovided in 19.2.5.7.2.3(B).

(B)

Sleeping Patient care sleeping suites greater than 7500 ft2 (700 m2) gross and not exceeding 10,000 ft2

(930 m2) gross shall be permitted where both of the following are provided in the suite:

(1) Direct visual supervision in accordance with 19.2.5.7.2.1(C)(1)(a)

(2) Total (complete) coverage automatic smoke detection in accordance with 55.2.2.3 and 19.3.4

19.2.5.7.2.4 Patient Care Sleeping Suite Travel Distance.

(A)

Travel distance between any point in a patient care sleeping suite and an exit access door to an adjacentsuite, exit access corridor door, or a horizontal exit from that suite shall not exceed 100 ft (30 m).

(B)

Travel distance between any point in a sleeping suite and an exit shall not exceed 200 ft (61 m).

19.2.5.7.3 Patient Care Non-Sleeping Suites.

Non-sleeping suites shall be in accordance with the following:

(1) Non-sleeping suites for patient care shall comply with the provisions of 19.2.5.7.3.1 through19.2.5.7.3.3.

(2) Non-sleeping suites not for patient care shall comply with the provisions of 19.2.5.7.4.

19.2.5.7.3.1 Patient Care Nonsleeping Non-Sleeping Suite Means of Egress.


275 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 332 of 717

(A)

Patient care non-sleeping suites shall have exit access to a corridor complying with 19.3.6 or to ahorizontal exit, directly from the suite.

(B)

Nonsleeping Patient care non-sleeping suites of more than 2500 ft2 (232 m2) gross shall have not lessthan two exit access doors remotely located from each other.

(C)

For suites requiring two exit access doors, one of the exit access doors shall be permitted to be to one ofthe following:

(1) An exit stair

(2) An exit passageway

(3) An exit door to the exterior

(4) Another suite, provided that the separation between the suites complies with the corridorrequirements of 19.3.6.2 through 19.3.6.5

19.2.5.7.3.2 Patient Care Nonsleeping Non-Sleeping Suite Maximum Size.

(A)

Non-sleeping suites shall not exceed 12,500 ft2 (1160 m2) gross , unless otherwise provided in19.2.5.7.3.2(B).

(B)

Non-sleeping suites greater than 12,500 ft2 (1160 m2) and not exceeding 15,000 ft2 (1390 m2) grossshall be permitted where provided with total (complete) coverage automatic smoke detection inaccordance with 55.2.2.3 and Section 19.3.

19.2.5.7.3.3 Patient Care Nonsleeping Non-Sleeping Suite Travel Distance.

(A)

Travel distance within a non-sleeping suite to an exit access door to an adjacent suite, exit access corridordoor or a horizontal exit from the suite shall not exceed 100 ft (30 m).

(B)

Travel distance between any point in a non-sleeping suite and an exit shall not exceed 200 ft (61 m).

19.2.5.7.4 Nonpatient Non-Patient -Care Suites.

The egress provisions for non-patient-care suites shall be in accordance with the primary use andoccupancy of the space.


Committee: BLD-HEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All


276 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 333 of 717



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.

Revised to meet chapter requirements


277 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 334 of 717


19.3.1.3

Unenclosed vertical openings in accordance with 8.12.5.2 connecting not more than two contiguousstories shall be permitted.


Committee: BLD-HEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.


278 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 335 of 717

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.

In agreement


279 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 336 of 717



19.3.3.3.1


19.3.3.3.2

Interior floor finish in exit enclosures and exit access corridors and spaces not separated from them bywalls complying with 19.3.6 shall be Class I or Class II.

19.3.3.3.3

Interior floor finish shall comply with 10.7.1 10.2.6.1 or 10.7.2 10.2.6.2 , as applicable.


Committee: BLD-HEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.


280 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 337 of 717

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



281 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 338 of 717


19.3.4.3.1.1

Occupant notification shall be accomplished automatically in accordance with 55.2.3, unless otherwisemodified by the following:

(1) Use of the provisions of 55.2.3.2.4 shall be prohibited.

(2)


Committee: BLD-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The proposed revision aligns the fire alarm notification zone requirements of NFPA 5000,72, and 99.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.

* In lieu of audible alarm signals, visible alarm-indicating appliances shall be permitted to be used incritical care areas. Where the private operating mode in accordance with NFPA 72 is used, alarmnotification appliances shall not be required in patient care spaces where alarm notification adverselyaffects patient care.

A.19.3.4.3.1.1(2)

In health care occupancies, fire alarm system notification is often designed primarily to notifystaff who are responsible for the occupants in their care. The staff can be used as an alternatemeans for notifying others who might need to relocate or evacuate.


282 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 339 of 717


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.

I do not agree with diminishing the level of notification.


283 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 340 of 717


19.3.6.1 General.

Corridors shall be separated from all other areas by partitions complying with 19.3.6.2 through19.3.6.5(see also 19.2.5.4), unless otherwise permitted by one of the following:

(1) Spaces shall be permitted to be unlimited in area and open to the corridor, provided that all of thefollowing criteria are met:

(a)

(b) The corridors onto which the spaces open in the same smoke compartment are protected by anelectrically supervised automatic smoke detection system in accordance with 19.3.4, or thesmoke compartment in which the space is located is protected throughout by quick-responsesprinklers.

(c)

(d) The space does not obstruct access to required exits.

Waiting areas shall be permitted to be open to the corridor, provided that all of the following criteriaare met:

The aggregate waiting area in each smoke compartment does not exceed 600 ft 2

(55.7 m 2 ).

The area does not obstruct access to required exits.

(2)

(3) Gift shops not exceeding 500 ft2 (46.5 m2) shall be permitted to be open to the corridor or lobby.

(4) In a limited care facility, group meeting or multipurpose therapeutic spaces shall be permitted to opento the corridor, provided that all of the following criteria are met:

(a) The space is not a hazardous area.

(b)

(c) The area does not obstruct access to required exits.

(5) Cooking facilities in accordance with 19.3.2.5.3 shall be permitted to be open to the corridor.


Committee: BLD-HEA

* The spaces are not used for patient sleeping rooms, treatment rooms, or hazardous areas.

* The open space is protected by an electrically supervised automatic smoke detection system inaccordance with 19.3.4, or the entire space is arranged and located to allow direct supervision bythe facility staff from a nurses' station or similar space.

* Each area is protected by an electrically supervised automatic smoke detection system inaccordance with 19.3.4 , or each area is arranged and located to allow direct supervision bythe facility staff from a nursing station or similar space.

A.19.3.6.1(2)(b)

The omission of smoke detection does not pertain to nurses’ stations that are notcontinuously staffed as there would not be early detection by staff in such areas during“off” hours.

* The requirement of 19.3.6.1 shall not apply to spaces for nurses’ stations.

* The space is protected by an electrically supervised automatic smoke detection system inaccordance with 19.3.4, or the space is arranged and located to allow direct supervision by thefacility staff from the nurses’ station or similar location.


284 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 341 of 717


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision only deletes 19.3.6.1(2) and associated Annex A text and is intended forconsistency with revisions to NFPA 101.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8425-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

26 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry


285 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 342 of 717

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.

This is taking out established notification from waiting area's.

Koffel, William E.

Eliminating the option for the small waiting room open to the corridor eliminates a design option for such spacesto be open to the corridor without complying with all of the provisions associated with the unlimited areas open tothe corridor.


286 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 343 of 717


19.3.6.2.1*

Corridor walls shall be permitted to terminate at or above the ceiling, but shall not be required to extendto the deck above, where the ceiling is constructed to limit the transfer of smoke.


Committee: BLD-HEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.


287 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 344 of 717

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



288 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 345 of 717


19.3.6.3.4

Powered doors that comply with the requirements of 11.2.1.9 shall not be required to meet the latchingrequirements of 18.3.6.3.2, provided that both all of the following criteria are met:

(1) The door is equipped with a means for keeping the door closed that is acceptable to the AHJ.

(2) The device used is capable of keeping the door fully closed if a force of 5 lbf (22 N) is applied at thelatch edge of a swinging door and applied in any direction to a sliding or folding door, whether or notpower is applied.

(3) The power-assist mechanism ceases to function upon operation of approved smoke detectorsinstalled in accordance with the provisions of NFPA 72 .


Committee: BLD-HEA


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The revision is intended for consistency with revisions to NFPA 101 (see 101 FR-6745).


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.


289 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 346 of 717

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



290 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 347 of 717


19.3.7.1.3

The size of each smoke compartment required by 19.3.7.1.1 and 19.3.7.1.2 shall be limited to an area notexceeding one of the following:

(1) 22,500 ft2 (2100 m2) gross in hospital smoke compartments where any patient sleeping room isconfigured for two or more patients

(2) 40,000 sf ft 2 (3720 m2) gross in hospital smoke compartments where all patient sleeping rooms areconfigured for only one patient, in which case sleeping suites in accordance with 19.2.5.7 shall bepermitted where every occupiable sleeping room within the suite is configured for only one patient

(3) 40,000 ft2 (3720 m2) gross in hospital smoke compartments that contain no patient sleeping rooms

(4) 22,500 ft2 (2100 m2) gross in nursing homes and limited care facilities


Committee: BLD-HEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke


291 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 348 of 717

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



292 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 349 of 717


19.3.7.1.4

The area of an any smoke compartment that contains an atrium shall not include the area of the atriumseparated in accordance with 8.12.3 shall not be limited in size .


Committee: BLD-HEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.


293 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 350 of 717

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



294 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 351 of 717



Health care occupancies shall comply with Chapter 31 where located in special structures.


Committee: BLD-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-8330-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary


295 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 352 of 717

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



296 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 353 of 717


19.4.4* Alcohol-Based Hand-Rub Dispensers.

Alcohol-based hand-rub dispensers shall be protected in accordance with Section 8.15 and Chapter 34,unless all of the following conditions are met:

(1) Where dispensers are installed in a corridor, the corridor shall have a minimum width of 6 ft(1830 mm).

(2) The maximum individual dispenser fluid capacity shall be as follows:

(a) 0.32 gal (1.2 L) for dispensers in rooms, corridors, and areas open to corridors

(b) 0.53 gal (2.0 L) for dispensers in suites of rooms

(3) Where aerosol containers are used, the maximum capacity of the aerosol dispenser shall be 18 oz(0.51 kg) and shall be limited to Level 1 aerosols as defined in NFPA 30B.

(4) Dispensers shall be separated from one another by horizontal spacing of not less than 48 in.(1220 mm).

(5) Not more than an aggregate 10 gal (37.8 L) of alcohol-based hand-rub solution or 1135 oz (32.2 kg)of Level 1 aerosols, or a combination of liquids and Level 1 aerosols not to exceed, in total, theequivalent of 10 gal (37.8 L) or 1135 oz (32.2 kg), shall be in use outside of a storage cabinet in asingle smoke compartment.

(6) Storage of quantities greater than 5 gal (18.9 L) in a single smoke compartment shall meet therequirements of NFPA 30.

(7) Dispensers shall not be installed in the following locations:

(a) Above an ignition source within a 1 in. (25 mm) horizontal distance from each side of the ignitionsource

(b) To the side of an ignition source within a 1 in. (25 mm) horizontal distance from the ignitionsource

(c) Beneath an ignition source within a 1 in. (25 mm) vertical distance from the ignition source

(8) Dispensers installed directly over carpeted floors shall be permitted only in sprinklered smokecompartments.

(9) The alcohol-based hand-rub solution shall not exceed 95 percent alcohol content by volume.

(10) Operation of the dispenser shall comply with the following criteria:

(a) The dispenser shall not release its contents except when the dispenser is activated, eithermanually or automatically, by touch-free activation.

(b) Any activation of the dispenser shall occur only when an object is placed within 4 in. (100 mm) ofthe sensing device.

(c) An object placed within the activation zone and left in place shall not cause more than oneactivation.

(d) The dispenser shall not dispense more solution than the amount required for hand hygieneconsistent with label instructions.

(e) The dispenser shall be designed, constructed, and operated in a manner that ensures accidentalor malicious activation of the dispensing device is minimized.

The dispenser shall be tested in accordance with the manufacturer’s care and use instructionseach time a new refill is installed.


Committee: BLD-HEA



297 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 354 of 717

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision only deleted item (11)(f) and is intended for consistency with revisions to NFPA101 (see 101 FR-6826).

ResponseMessage:

FR-8430-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil


298 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 355 of 717

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



299 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 356 of 717


19.5.1.4

Maintenance and testing Design, installation, testing, and maintenance of essential electrical systemsshall be in accordance with NFPA 99.


Committee: BLD-HEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.


300 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 357 of 717

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



301 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 358 of 717


20.1.2.1 Changes of Occupancy.

A change from a hospital or nursing home to an ambulatory health care occupancy shall not beconsidered a change in occupancy or occupancy subclassification.


Committee: BLD-HEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.


302 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 359 of 717

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



303 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 360 of 717


20.2.3.2

The clear width of any corridor or passageway ramp required for exit access shall be not less than 44 in.(1120 mm).


Committee: BLD-HEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.


304 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 361 of 717

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



305 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 362 of 717



20.2.5.2.1

A common path of travel shall be permitted for the first 100 ft (30 m) in a building protected throughout byan approved, electrically supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, and 55.3.2.

20.2.5.2.2

A common path of travel shall be permitted for the first 100 ft (30 m) within a single tenant space havingan occupant load not exceeding 25 persons.

20.2.5.2.3

In buildings other than those specified in 20.2.5.2.2, the common paths of travel shall not exceed 75 ft(23 m).


Committee: BLD-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The FR only renumbers the arrangement of means of egress requirements in response todirection from the correlating committee and recommendation by the TC on Means of Egress viaits resolution of PI-157 (NFPA 101).

ResponseMessage:

FR-8327-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.


306 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 363 of 717

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



307 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 364 of 717



20.3.3.3.1


20.3.3.3.2

Interior floor finish in exit enclosures shall be Class I or Class II.

20.3.3.3.3



Committee: BLD-HEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.


308 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 365 of 717

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



309 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 366 of 717


20.3.4.3.1 Occupant Notification.

20.3.4.3.1.1

Occupant notification shall be accomplished automatically, without delay, in accordance with 55.2.3 uponoperation of any fire alarm initiating device.

20.3.4.3.1.2*

Where the private operating mode in accordance with NFPA 72 is used, alarm notification appliancesshall not be required in patient care spaces where alarm notification adversely affects patient care.

A.20.3.4.3.1.2

In ambulatory health care occupancies, fire alarm system notification is often designed primarily tonotify staff who are responsible for the occupants in their care. The staff can be used as an alternatemeans for notifying others who might need to relocate or evacuate.


Committee: BLD-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The proposed revision aligns the fire alarm notification zone requirements of NFPA 5000,72, and 99.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.



310 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 367 of 717

Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



311 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 368 of 717


20.3.7.2

Every story of an ambulatory health care facility shall be divided into not less than two smokecompartments, unless otherwise permitted by one of the following:

(1) This requirement shall not apply to facilities of less than 5000 ft2 (465 m2) gross that are protectedby an approved automatic smoke detection system.

(2) This requirement shall not apply where the area of the ambulatory health care occupancy is less than

10,000 ft2 (929 m2) gross per story and the building is protected throughout by an approved,electrically supervised automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 55.3.

(3) An area in an adjoining occupancy shall be permitted to serve as a smoke compartment for anambulatory health care occupancy if all of the following criteria are met:

(a) The separating wall and both compartments meet the requirements of 20.3.7.

(b) The ambulatory health care occupancy does not exceed one of the following:

i. 22,500 ft2 (2100 m2) gross

ii. 40,000 ft2 (3720 m2) gross in buildings protected throughout by an approved, electricallysupervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 55.3

(c) Access from the ambulatory health care occupancy to the other occupancy is unrestricted.


Committee: BLD-HEA


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The revision is intended for consistency with revisions to NFPA 101 (see FR-6850).


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All


312 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 369 of 717

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



313 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 370 of 717


20.3.7.3

Smoke compartments, other than the area of an atrium separated in accordance with 8.12.3, shall notexceed one of the following:

(1) An area of 22,500 ft2 (2100 m2) gross

(2) An area of 40,000 ft2 (3720 m2) gross in buildings protected throughout by an approved, electricallysupervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 55.3


Committee: BLD-HEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.


314 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 371 of 717

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



315 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 372 of 717


20.3.7.5.2

Smoke barriers shall be permitted to terminate at the required occupancy separation where theambulatory health care occupancy is constructed as a separated multiple occupancy in accordance with6.1.14.4 6.2.4 and the separation also meets the requirements for a smoke barrier.


Committee: BLD-HEA


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Editorial correction (6.2.4 is the correct cross-reference).


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary

Horeis, Richard M.


316 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 373 of 717

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



317 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 374 of 717



Ambulatory health care occupancies shall comply with Chapter 31 where located in special structures.


Committee: BLD-HEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-8331-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Harris, Donald W.

Pethe, Ben

Affirmative All

Beebe, Chad E.

Brooks, Bruce D.

Bush, Kenneth E.


Crowley, Michael A.

Cummings, Luke

Dannaway, Samuel S.

Davy, Matthew W.

DeRosier, Joseph M.

Epstein, Alice L.

Furdell, Gary


318 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 375 of 717

Horeis, Richard M.

Klein, David P.

Knippa, Kevin

Koffel, William E.

Merrill II, James

Monroe, Kenneth

Prediger, G. Brian

Rickard, John A.


Roeper, Kurt A.

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Stinnett, Neil

Vann, Joshua

Victor, Terry L.



Farraher, Martin J.



319 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 376 of 717


21.2.5 Arrangement of Means of Egress.

21.2.5.1 General.

Arrangement of means of egress shall be in accordance with 21.2.5.4 21.2.5.2 through 21.2.5.5 andSection 11.5.


No common path of travel shall exceed 100 ft (30 m).

21.2.5.3 Dead-End Corridor.

No exit or exit access shall contain a corridor, hallway, or aisle having a pocket or dead end exceeding50 ft (15 m) for Use Condition II, Use Condition III, or Use Condition IV and exceeding 20 ft (6100 mm) forUse Condition V.

21.2.5.4 Corridor Access.

Every sleeping room shall have a door leading directly to an exit access corridor.

21.2.5.4.1

The requirement of 21.2.5.4 shall not apply where an exit door opens directly to the outside from a roomat the finished ground level.

21.2.5.4.2

One adjacent room, such as a day room, group activity space, or other common space shall be permittedto intervene. Where sleeping rooms directly adjoin a day room or group activity space that is utilized foraccess to an exit, such sleeping rooms shall be permitted to open directly to the day room or space andshall be permitted to be separated in elevation by a one-half story or full-story height.

21.2.5.5 Sally Port.

A sally port shall be permitted in a means of egress where there are provisions for continuous andunobstructed travel through the sally port during an emergency egress condition.


Committee: BLD-DET


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This reorganizes the arrangement of means of egress section to provide uniformity betweenoccupancy chapters.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8336-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


16 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

11 Affirmative All



0 Abstention


320 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 377 of 717

Not Returned

Kelly, John

Lumley, Troy A.



Affirmative All

Aler, Clay P.

Bollig, Tracy

Collins, Peter J.

DiMascio, Michael

Gaw, Randy

Heffernan, Rick

Perry, Robert R.

Poole, Jack

Schultz, Terry

Young, Sichel

Youngberg, Garrick



Affirmative


321 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 378 of 717


21.4.1 General.

Detention and correctional occupancies shall comply with Chapter 31 where located in a specialstructure.


Committee: BLD-DET


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Clarifies that Chapter 31 is intended to apply to all special structures, other than existinghigh-rise buildings.


Ballot Results


16 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

11 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Kelly, John

Lumley, Troy A.



Affirmative All

Aler, Clay P.

Bollig, Tracy

Collins, Peter J.

DiMascio, Michael

Gaw, Randy

Heffernan, Rick

Perry, Robert R.

Poole, Jack

Schultz, Terry

Young, Sichel


322 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 379 of 717

Youngberg, Garrick



Affirmative


323 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 380 of 717


22.2.4.7

No door in any means of escape shall be locked against egress when the building is occupied.

22.2.4.8*

All locking devices on doors in any means of escape that impede or prohibit egress, or that cannot beeasily disengaged, shall be prohibited.


Committee: BLD-RES

Submittal Date: Mon Sep 10 09:18:27 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Editorial changes based on correlation between NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.

Zubair Sarwar, Muhammad Ahmad

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.


324 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 381 of 717

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.

Noble, Thomas William

Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake

Pullen, William Davison


Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


325 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 382 of 717


22.2.8* Grab Bars and Stanchions for Bathtubs, Bathtub-Shower Combinations, and Showers.

22.2.8.1 General.

22.2.8.1.1

New bathtubs, bathtub-shower combinations, and showers shall be provided with grab bars or stanchionsunless otherwise permitted by 22.2.8.1.2.

22.2.8.1.2*

Grab bars or stanchions shall not be required in showers where the transition from the room floor to theshower floor does not exceed 0.5 in. (13 mm) in height and all shower surfaces are slip resistant whenwet.

22.2.8.1.3

Where provided, grab bars or stanchions shall comply with 22.2.8.2 through 22.2.8.4.

22.2.8.1.4

All dimensions shall be measured to the centerline of the grab bar unless otherwise stated.

22.2.8.2* Vertical Grab Bar or Pole Stanchion .

A vertical grab bar shall be provided on the control end wall or the end wall opposite the control end wallof the bathtub or bathtub-shower combination in accordance with 22.2.8.2.1 or shall be provided as avertical pole stanchion in accordance with 22.2.8.2.3. For showers, either a vertical grab bar that is usableby a person stepping into and out of the shower enclosure in accordance with 22.2.8.2.2 or a verticalpole stanchion in accordance with 22.2.8.2.3 shall be provided.

22.2.8.2.1* Bathtub End Wall Vertical Grab Bars.

End wall vertical grab bars for bathtubs shall comply with all the following:

(1) Vertical grab bars shall have a length of not less than 36 in. (914 mm).

(2) Vertical grab bars shall be located between 24 in. (610 mm) and 27 in. (686 mm) above the finishedfloor, measured to the lower end.

(3) Vertical grab bars shall be installed at the end that is least obstructed for entry and egress.

(4) Vertical grab bars shall be located between 9 in. (228 mm) and 12 in. (305 mm) from the open entryand egress access side of the bathtub or bathtub-shower combination, measured horizontally fromthe exterior plane of the bathtub or bathtub-shower combination.

22.2.8.2.2 Shower Grab Bars.

Vertical grab bars for showers shall comply with all of the following:

(1) Vertical grab bars shall have a length of not less than 24 in. (610 mm).

(2) Vertical grab bars shall be located between 36 in. (914 mm) and 39 in. (991 mm) above the finishedfloor, measured to the lower end.

(3) Vertical grab bars shall be located within 30 in. (760 mm), measured horizontally, of the vertical planeof the control wall end of the shower.

22.2.8.2.3* Vertical Poles Stanchions .

Vertical pole-type grab bars stanchions shall be fixed to the floor or to the bathtub and either the roomceiling or an adjacent wall and shall comply with all the following:

(1) Poles Stanchions shall be located within 6 in. (150 mm), measured horizontally, of the outside orouter edge of the bathtub, bathtub-shower combination, or shower.

(2) Poles Stanchions shall be located within 30 in. (760 mm), measured horizontally, of the vertical planeof the control end wall of a bathtub, or bathtub-shower combination, or shower .

22.2.8.3 Back Wall Non-Access Side Grab Bar or Horizontal Stanchion .


326 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 383 of 717

For bathtubs and bathtub-shower combinations bounded on two or three sides by walls , a diagonal grabbar in accordance with 22.2.8.3.1 or , horizontal grab bar in accordance with 22.2.8.3.2, or a horizontalstanchion in accordance with 33.3.8.3.3 shall be provided on the back wall non-access side of thebathtub .

22.2.8.3.1* Back Wall Non-Access Side Diagonal Grab Bars.

Diagonal grab bars shall comply with all the following:

(1) Diagonal grab bars shall have a length of not less than 24 in. (600 mm).

(2) Diagonal grab bars shall be located so the higher end is closest to the control end wall.

(3) Higher ends of diagonal grab bars shall be located a maximum of 12 in. (305 mm) from the controlend wall.

(4) Higher ends of diagonal grab bars shall be located 25 in. (635 mm) minimum and 27 in. (685 mm)maximum above the rim of the bathtub.

(5) Lower ends of diagonal grab bars shall be located 8 in. (203 mm) minimum and 10 in. (254 mm)maximum above the rim of the bathtub.

22.2.8.3.2 Back Wall Non-Access Side Horizontal Grab Bar.

Horizontal grab bars shall comply with all the following:

(1) Horizontal grab bars shall be located 8 in. (205 mm) minimum and 10 in. (255 mm) maximum abovethe bathtub rim.

(2) Horizontal grab bars shall be located so one end is 12 in. (305 mm) maximum from the control endwall and the other end is located 24 in. (610 mm) maximum from the opposite, or head, end of thebathtub.

22.2.8.3.3 Non-Access Side Horizontal Stanchions.

Non-access side horizontal stanchions extending full length, and fixed between end walls of the bathtub,shall be located 8 in. (205 mm) minimum and 10 in. (255 mm) maximum above the bathtub rim.

22.2.8.4* Grab Bar and Stanchion Details.

22.2.8.4.1

Grab bars and stanchions shall be circular in cross section with a minimum diameter of 11⁄4 in. (32 mm)and a maximum diameter of 2 in. (51 mm).

22.2.8.4.2

Where attached adjacent to a wall surface or water control , grab bars and stanchions shall provide aclearance for hand grasp of 11⁄2 in. (38 mm) minimum.

22.2.8.4.3

Grab bars and stanchions shall be designed and constructed to maintain throughout their service life andwith the effects of water, the structural loading conditions in accordance with the building code.


Committee: BLD-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This is a general updating of the provisions adopted for NFPA 5000-2018 based on expert meetingsand (non-NFPA)

model code change deliberations in Canada, the USA and elsewhere related to baths and showers.There is a global

substitution of "stanchions" where "poles" were previously used.

The requirements have also been stated in greater performance language so that there is reducedreference to walls


327 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 384 of 717

as some bathtubs do not have back walls but they still need, and can incorporate, grab bars andstanchions on the

non-access side.

There is a significant change, driven by discoveries (in hotel guest rooms) of serious corrosion andmounting wall

deterioration in conventional grab bar fixings to walls due to water entry and entrapment behindmany conventional

grab bar cover plates. In some cases the grab bar has failed structurally by coming off the wall withmuch less than the prescribed 250 pound loading.

Otherwise, the package of requirements is the same as originally adopted in that two points ofcontrol for users' hands are required for bathtubs and one such point of control is required fordedicated showers (where one does not need assistance in sitting down and rising from a seatedposition on the bottom of a tub. Thus there is still parity with the handrail requirements for stairswhere one or two handrails are required to provide essential points of control.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8450-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.


328 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 385 of 717

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.

Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.



This requirement invades the privacy of a single-family homeowner who, in the vast majority of cases, doesn'tneed or want this extensive system of support bars.

Spangler, Kevin

Agree with Alfred's comment. This section should be relocated in the chapters pertaining to PUBLIC safety, suchas hotels, motels and dormitories. It should not be part of the single family chapter.


329 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 386 of 717


22.3.3.3 Interior Floor Finish Reserved .

22.3.3.3.1

Interior floor finish shall comply with Section 10.7.

22.3.3.3.2

Interior floor finish shall not be required to be classified as Class I or Class II.

22.3.3.3.3

Interior floor finish shall comply with 10.7.1 or 10.7.2, as applicable.


Committee: BLD-RES


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee


330 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 387 of 717

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


331 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 388 of 717


22.4.2

In two-family dwellings protected throughout by an approved, automatic sprinkler system in accordancewith 22.3.4 22.3.5.2 , each dwelling unit shall be separated from the other dwelling unit by walls and floorsconstructed as fire barriers having fire resistance ratings of not less than 1⁄2 hour.


Committee: BLD-RES


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The reference to 22.3.4 is incorrect.



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.


332 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 389 of 717

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


333 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 390 of 717

First Revision No. 8353-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Section No. 22.5 ]

22.5 Separation Between Townhouses.

Each townhouse shall be constructed as a separate building. Townhouses shall be separated fromadjoining townhouses by exterior walls constructed in accordance with Section 7.3, or by a singlecommon wall meeting the requirements of 22.5.1 through 22.5.6.

22.5.1

Walls A common wall used to create separate buildings shall provide not less than a 2-hour 1-hour fireresistance rating.

22.5.1.1

A common wall used to create separate buildings not protected by an automatic sprinkler system inaccordance with 22.3.5.2 or 22.3.5.3 shall provide not less than a 2-hour fire resistance rating.

22.5.2

Plumbing, piping, ducts, electrical, or other building services within the common wall shall be installed inaccordance with Section 8.8.

22.5.3

Walls shall be continuous from the foundation to the underside of the roof sheathing.

22.5.4

Roof sheathing shall be of one of the following and shall extend for a width not less than 48 in. (1220 mm)on each side of such wall:

(1) Noncombustible material

(2) Fire-retardant-treated wood

(3) One 5⁄8 in. (16 mm) layer of Type X gypsum wallboard attached to the underside of the roof decking

22.5.5

Each townhouse sharing walls creating separate buildings shall be designed and constructed to maintainits structural integrity independent of the unit on the opposite side of the wall, unless the conditions of22.5.6 are met.

22.5.6

Walls creating separate buildings shall be permitted to be penetrated by roof and floor structural members,provided that the fire resistance rating and the structural integrity of the wall are maintained.


Committee: BLD-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Adding the term "common" further clarifies a single wall is an option to offer passive protection toboth sides of the townhouse. The current IRC provides for a 1-hr common wall where both sidesof the townhouse are equipped with a fire sprinkler system.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8353-NFPA 5000-2018

Public Input No. 30-NFPA 5000-2018 [Section No. 22.5]

Ballot Results



334 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 391 of 717

30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


335 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 392 of 717


23.2.2.1

Interior stairways, other than those in accordance with 23.2.2.4 or 23.2.2.5, shall be enclosed by 1 ⁄2 -hourfire barriers, with all openings protected with smoke-actuated automatic-closing or self-closing doorshaving a fire resistance comparable to that required for the enclosure having a minimum 1 ⁄2 -hour fireresistance rating .

23.2.2.2

, with all openings Openings within fire barriers required by 23.2.2.1 shall be protected with smoke-actuated automatic-closing or self-closing doors having a fire resistance comparable to that required forthe enclosure


Committee: BLD-RES


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel


336 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 393 of 717

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


337 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 394 of 717


23.2.3.5.2

Delayed-egress locks complying with 11.2.1.6.1 shall be permitted, provided that not more than one suchdevice is located in any one escape path .


Committee: BLD-RES


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.


338 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 395 of 717

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


339 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 396 of 717


23.4 Reserved. Special Structures.

Lodging or rooming houses shall comply with Chapter 31 where located in a special structure.


Committee: BLD-RES


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: User friendly pointer to Chapter 31 as requested by FUN.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.


340 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 397 of 717

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


341 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 398 of 717


24.2.2.2.2.2

Delayed-egress locks electrical locking systems complying with 11.2.1.6.1 shall be permitted.


Committee: BLD-RES


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.


342 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 399 of 717

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


343 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 400 of 717

First Revision No. 8477-NFPA 5000-2018 [ New Section after 24.2.2.2.2.3 ]

24.2.2.2.2.4

Elevator lobby exit access door locking in accordance with 11.2.1.6.3 shall be permitted.


Committee: BLD-RES


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.


344 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 401 of 717

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


345 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 402 of 717



24.2.5.1

Access to all required exits shall be in accordance with Section 11.5 , as modified by 24.2.5.2 through24.2.5.8 Means of egress shall be arranged in accordance with 24.2.5.1.1 .

24.2.5.1.1

Means of egress shall be arranged in accordance with Section 11.5 .

24.2.5.1.2

The distance between exits addressed by 11.5.1.5.2 shall not apply to common nonlooped exit accesscorridors in buildings that have corridor doors from the guest room or guest suite that are arranged suchthat the exits are located in opposite directions from such doors.

24.2.5.2

Limitations on common path of travel shall be in accordance with 24.2.5.2.1 or 24.2.5.2.2 .

24.2.5.2.1

In buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordancewith 24.3.5, common paths of travel shall not exceed 50 ft (15 m).

24.2.5.2.2

In buildings not protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system inaccordance with 24.3.5 other than those complying with 24.2.5.2.2 , common paths of travel shall notexceed 35 ft (10.7 m).

24.2.5.2.3

Travel within a guest room or guest suite shall not be included when determining the length of commonpath of travel.

24.2.5.3

Dead-end corridors shall be permitted in accordance with 24.2.5.3.1 or 24.2.5.3.2 .

24.2.5.3.1

In buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordancewith 24.3.5, dead-end corridors shall not exceed 50 ft (15 m).

24.2.5.3.2

In buildings not protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system inaccordance with 24.3.5 other than those complying with 24.2.5.3.1 , dead-end corridors shall not exceed35 ft (10.7 m).

24.2.5.4

Any guest room or any guest suite of rooms in excess of 2000 ft2 (185 m2) shall be provided with not lessthan two exit access doors remotely located from each other.



5000_Chapter24_revision_of_arrangement_of_MOE.docx For staff use


Committee: BLD-RES



346 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 403 of 717

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Editorial rearrangement of this section based on FUN and Correlating committee request.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake




347 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 404 of 717

Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


348 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 405 of 717


24.3.4.3* Notification.

Occupant notification shall meet the following requirements:

(1) Occupant notification shall be provided automatically in accordance with 55.2.3.

(2) Positive alarm sequence in accordance with 55.2.3.4 shall be permitted.

24.3.4.4*

Guest rooms and guest suites specifically required and equipped to accommodate hearing-impairedindividuals shall be provided with a visible notification appliance.

24.3.4.5

In hotels and dormitories that are required by 24.3.4.1 to have a fire alarm system, the audible alarmnotification signal provided in sleeping rooms of guest rooms or guest suites that is activated by the firealarm system shall be a 520 Hz low-frequency signal in accordance with 55.2.3.2.1 .

24.3.4.6

In occupiable areas, other than guest rooms and guest suites, visible notification appliances shall beprovided.


Committee: BLD-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision seeks to enhance the waking effectiveness of high risk segments of the population byproviding a requirement for the 520 Hz low frequency audible fire alarm signal in sleeping rooms foroccupancies where required Chapters 11 through 43. This necessary is because NFPA 72 stipulatesboth the 520 Hz and 3 KHz signal in the sleeping rooms of hotels, dormitories and apartment buildingbedrooms when smoke alarms are installed in the sleeping room. Specifically, Chapter 18 of NFPA 72requires audible notification appliances (horns, speakers or smoke detectors with an integral sounderbases) to produce the 520 Hz low frequency signal in all sleeping rooms of buildings with a protectedpremises fire alarm system. Whereas Chapter 29 of NFPA 72 only requires smoke alarms to producethe 520 Hz low frequency signal for people with hearing loss or provided voluntarily for those withhearing loss.

The different requirements within NFPA 72 present a life safety issue because peer-reviewedresearch has concluded the wakening effectiveness of the 520 Hz low frequency is superior to 3 KHzaudible alarm signal awakening high risk segments of the population. Peer-reviewed research hasconcluded the 520 Hz low frequency is six times more effective than the standard 3 KHz signal atwaking high risk segments of the population (people over 65, people who are hard of hearing, schoolage children and people who are alcohol impaired). The standard 3 KHz audible alarm signal hasbeen used in most fire alarm horns and smoke alarms for the past 30 years. The low frequency signalneeds to be provided in areas intended for sleeping to protect people over 65, people who are hard ofhearing, school age children and people who are alcohol impaired.

The Public Input does not require the low frequency technology in buildings without a fire alarmsystem because there are no smoke alarms currently available with an integral sounder capable ofproducing the low frequency signal. However, it does not prohibit their installation if the productbecomes available in the future. This revision requires the low frequency signal in sleeping areaswithin hotels and dormitories with a fire alarm system is because there are numerous manufacturersof system connected smoke detectors with an integral sounder that produces the 520 Hz lowfrequency signal.

There are several product solutions currently available in the market capable of providing the 520 Hz


349 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 406 of 717

low frequency signal.

1. Fire alarm system horns and horn/strobes

2. Smoke detectors with integral sounder bases

3. Speakers connected to an in-building fire alarm Emergency Voice Alarm Communication (EVAC)system

Peer-Reviewed Research:

Ian R. Thomas and Dorothy Bruck, Waking Effectiveness of Alarms for Adults Who Are Hard ofHearing (Melbourne, Australia: Victoria University), National Fire Protection Association, 2007

ResponseMessage:

FR-8452-NFPA 5000-2018

Public Input No. 51-NFPA 5000-2018 [Sections 24.3.4.3, 24.3.4.4, 24.3.4.5]

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark


350 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 407 of 717

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


351 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 408 of 717


24.3.4.11* Smoke Alarms.

Smoke alarms shall be installed in accordance with 55.2.2.6 in every guest room and every living areaand sleeping room within a guest suite.

24.3.4.11.1

In hotels and dormitories that are required by 24.3.4.1 to have a fire alarm system, the audible alarmnotification signal provided in sleeping rooms of guest rooms or guest suites that is activated by smokealarms shall be a 520 Hz low-frequency signal in accordance with 55.2.2.10.3 .


Committee: BLD-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:




There are several product solutions currently available in the market capable of providing the 520 Hzlow frequency signal.






352 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 409 of 717


ResponseMessage:

FR-8453-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



353 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 410 of 717


Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


354 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 411 of 717


24.3.4.12.4

Where carbon monoxide detectors are installed in accordance with 24.3.4.12.3(1), the alarm signal shallbe automatically transmitted to an approved onsite location or to an off-premises location in accordancewith NFPA 720 NFPA 72 .


Committee: BLD-RES

Submittal Date: Fri Oct 12 09:14:03 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: NFPA 72 has replaced NFPA 720.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.


355 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 412 of 717

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


356 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 413 of 717


24.3.5.7

Listed quick-response or listed residential sprinklers shall be used throughout guest rooms and guestroom suites.


Committee: BLD-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This section is redundant with both NFPA 13 and NFPA 13R. The redundancy has the potential tocause confusion because quick response sprinklers are not treated the same by NFPA 13 and NFPA13R. Rather than have NFPA 101 try to address the different ways to use quick response sprinklers,it is better to simply delete any reference to any type of sprinkler within NFPA 101 and send the userto NFPA 13 or NFPA 13R for the decision as to which type of sprinklers to select.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8466-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.


357 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 414 of 717

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


358 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 415 of 717


24.3.6 Corridors.

24.3.6.1 Walls.

24.3.6.1.1

Exit access corridor walls shall comply with 24.3.6.1.2 or 24.3.6.1.3 .

24.3.6.1.2

In buildings not complying with 24.3.6.1.3 , exit access corridors shall consist of fire barriers inaccordance with Section 8.4 that have not less than a a minimum 1-hour fire resistance rating, unless thebuilding complies with 24.3.6.2 .

24.3.6.1.3

In buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordancewith 24.3.5, corridor walls shall have not less than a a minimum 1⁄2-hour fire resistance rating.

24.3.6.2 Doors.

24.3.6.2.1

Doors that open onto exit access corridors shall have not less than a 20-minute fire protection rating inaccordance with 8.7.6.

24.3.6.2.2

and Doors that open into exit access corridors shall be self-closing and positive self -latching.

24.3.6.3 Unprotected Openings.

24.3.6.3.1

Unprotected openings, other than those from spaces complying with 24.3.6.3.2 24.3.6.5 , shall beprohibited in exit access corridor walls and doors.

24.3.6.3.2

Spaces shall be permitted to be unlimited in area and open to the corridor, provided that all of thefollowing criteria are met:

(1) The spaces are space is not used for guest rooms or guest suites or hazardous areas.

(2) The building is protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system inaccordance with 24.3.5.

(3) The space does not obstruct access to required exits.

24.3.6.4 Transoms, Louvers, or Transfer Grilles.

Transoms, louvers, or transfer grilles shall be prohibited in walls and doors serving exit access corridors.


Committee: BLD-RES


Committee Statement



Ballot Results



359 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 416 of 717

30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


360 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 417 of 717


24.3.7.3

Doors in the barriers required by 24.3.7.1 and 24.3.7.2 shall have a fire protection rating of not lessthan 20 minutes and shall not be required to be self-closing.


Committee: BLD-RES


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.


361 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 418 of 717

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


362 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 419 of 717


24.4 Special Provisions.

24.4.1 Limited Access or Underground Buildings. Special Structures.

Limited access or underground buildings shall comply with Chapter 31 Hotels and dormitories shallcomply with Chapter 31 where located in a special structure .

24.4.2 High-Rise Buildings.

High-rise buildings shall comply with Chapter 33.

24.4.3 Alcohol-Based Hand-Rub Dispensers.

Alcohol-based hand-rub dispensers in accordance with 8.15.4 shall be permitted.


Committee: BLD-RES


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: User friendly pointer to Chapter 31 for special structures as requested by FUN.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel


363 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 420 of 717

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


364 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 421 of 717


25.2.2.3.2

Separation shall not be required between corridors and outside stairs, provided that all of the followingconditions are met:

(1) The building, including corridors and stairs, shall be protected throughout by an approved, electricallysupervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13 , or, where applicable,NFPA 13R 25.3.5 .

(2) The corridors shall comply with 11.1.3.1.

(3) The corridors shall be connected on each end to an outside stair complying with 11.2.2.7.

(4) At any location in the corridor where a change in direction exceeding 45 degrees occurs, a clear

opening to the exterior of not less than 35 ft2 (3.25 m2), located to restrict the accumulation of smokeand toxic gases, or an outside stair shall be provided.


Committee: BLD-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Chapter 25 points to Section 25.3.5 for sprinklers and supervision. This change correlates toother sections in the chapter.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8454-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.



365 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 422 of 717

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


366 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 423 of 717



25.2.5.1

Access to all required exits shall be in accordance with Section 11.5 , as modified by 25.2.5.2 through25.2.5.4.2 Means of egress shall be arranged in accordance with 25.2.5.1.1 and 25.2.5.1.2 .

25.2.5.1.1

Means of egress shall be in arranged in accordance with Section 11.5 .

25.2.5.1.2

The distance between exits addressed by 11.5.1.5.2 shall not apply to common nonlooped exit accesscorridors in buildings that have corridor doors from the dwelling units that are arranged such that the exitsare located in opposite directions from such doors.

25.2.5.2

Common paths of travel shall comply with 25.2.5.2.1 or 25.2.5.2.2.

25.2.5.2.1

No common path of travel shall exceed 35 ft (10.7 m) in buildings not protected throughout by anapproved, supervised automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with 25.3.5 .

25.2.5.2.1

No common path of travel shall exceed 50 ft (15 m) in In buildings protected throughout by an approved,supervised automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with 25.3.5, common path of travel shallnot exceed 50 ft (15 m) .

25.2.5.2.2

In buildings other than those complying with 25.2.5.2.1 , common path of travel shall not exceed 35 ft(10.7 m).

25.2.5.2.3

Travel within a dwelling unit shall not be included when determining the length of common path of travel.

25.2.5.3

Dead-end corridors shall be limited permitted in accordance with either 25.2.5.3.1 or 25.2.5.3.2.

25.2.5.3.1

Dead-end corridors shall not exceed 35 ft (10.7 m) in buildings not protected throughout by anapproved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 25.3.5 .

25.2.5.3.1

Dead-end corridors shall not exceed 50 ft (15 m) in In buildings protected throughout by an approved,supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 25.3.5, dead-end corridors shall not exceed50 ft (15 m) .

25.2.5.3.2

In buildings other than those complying with 25.2.5.3.1 , dead-end corridors shall not exceed 35 ft(10.7 m).



5000_Chapter_25_revision_of_arrangement_of_MOE.docx For staff use


Committee: BLD-RES


367 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 424 of 717


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Editorial rearrangement of this section based on FUN and Correlating committee request.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



368 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 425 of 717


Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


369 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 426 of 717


25.2.6.4

The travel distance from areas, other than those within living units, to the exit, measured in accordancewith Section 11.6, shall not exceed 200 ft (61 m), or 250 ft (76 m) in buildings protected throughout by anapproved, supervised, automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 55.3 25.3.5 .


Committee: BLD-RES


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Correlates to other sprinkler and supervision references in Ch. 25.



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.


370 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 427 of 717

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


371 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 428 of 717


25.3.4.3 Notification.

25.3.4.3.1

Occupant notification shall comply with the following requirements:

(1) Occupant notification shall be provided automatically in accordance with 55.2.3.

(2) Visible signals shall be installed in dwelling units designed for the hearing impaired.

(3) Positive alarm sequence in accordance with 55.2.3.4 shall be permitted.

25.3.4.3.2

In apartment buildings that are required by 25.3.4.1 to have a fire alarm system, the audible alarmnotification signal provided in sleeping rooms of dwelling units that is activated by the fire alarm systemshall be a 520 Hz low-frequency signal in accordance with 55.2.3.2.1 .

25.3.4.3.3

Annunciation and annunciation zoning in accordance with 55.2.8 and 55.2.8, respectively, shall beprovided, unless the building complies with either 25.3.4.3.4 or 25.3.4.3.5. Annunciation shall be providedat a location readily accessible from the primary point of entry for emergency response personnel.

25.3.4.3.4

Annunciation, and annunciation zoning, shall not be required in buildings two or fewer stories in heightand having not more than 50 dwelling units.

25.3.4.3.5

Annunciation, and annunciation zoning, shall not be required in buildings four or fewer stories in heightcontaining not more than 16 dwelling units and protected throughout by an approved, supervisedautomatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with 25.3.5.1.

25.3.4.3.6

Emergency forces notification shall be accomplished in accordance with 55.2.4.


Committee: BLD-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


The different requirements within NFPA 72 present a life safety issue because peer-reviewedresearch has concluded the wakening effectiveness of the 520 Hz low frequency is superior to 3 KHzaudible alarm signal awakening high risk segments of the population. Peer-reviewed research hasconcluded the 520 Hz low frequency is six times more effective than the standard 3 KHz signal atwaking high risk segments of the population (people over 65, people who are hard of hearing, schoolage children and people who are alcohol impaired). The standard 3 KHz audible alarm signal hasbeen used in most fire alarm horns and smoke alarms for the past 30 years. The low frequency signal


372 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 429 of 717

needs to be provided in areas intended for sleeping to protect people over 65, people who are hard ofhearing, school age children and people who are alcohol impaired.








ResponseMessage:

FR-8456-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee


373 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 430 of 717

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


374 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 431 of 717


25.3.4.5* Smoke Alarms.

Smoke alarms shall be installed in accordance with 55.2.2.6 in every steeping area, outside everysleeping area in the immediate vicinity of the bedrooms, and on all levels of the dwelling unit, includingbasements.

25.3.4.5.1

In apartment buildings that are required by 25.3.4.1 to have a fire alarm system, the audible alarmnotification signal provided in sleeping rooms that is activated by smoke alarms shall be a 520 Hz low-frequency signal in accordance with 55.2.2.10.3 .


Committee: BLD-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:










375 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 432 of 717


ResponseMessage:

FR-8457-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake


376 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 433 of 717



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


377 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 434 of 717


25.3.4.6.4

Where carbon monoxide detectors are installed in accordance with 24.3.4.12.3(1), the alarm signal shallbe automatically transmitted to an approved onsite location or to an off-premises location in accordancewith NFPA 720 NFPA 72 .


Committee: BLD-RES


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.


378 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 435 of 717

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.

Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.



There is no exception for CO detectors being installed in EXISTING hotels and dorms to use single stationdetectors.


379 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 436 of 717


Sections] ]

Where an automatic sprinkler system is installed, either for total or partial building coverage, the systemshall be in accordance with Section 55.3, as modified by 25.3.5.4. In apartment buildings up to andincluding four stories in height that are located in buildings not exceeding 60 ft (18.3 m) in height abovegrade plane, systems in accordance with NFPA 13R shall be permitted.


Committee: BLD-RES


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Provisions for allowing partial coverage were removed.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.


380 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 437 of 717

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


381 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 438 of 717


25.3.5.5*

In buildings sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13 , bathrooms not greater than 55 ft 2 (5.1 m 2 ) inindividual dwelling units shall not be required to be sprinklered.

A.25.3.5.5

The provision of 25.3.5.5 differs from NFPA 13 , because fire data shows that in apartment fireswhere sprinklers were present, bathrooms were the area of origin in 1 percent of the total fires, andresulted in no civilian deaths, civilian injuries, or property loss.


Committee: BLD-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

NFPA 13 covers this subject in a very similar way, but with two additional requirements. In addition tothe size of the bathroom, the walls and ceilings need to be finished with non-combustible or limitedcombustible materials and there needs to be minimal material installed behind tub and showerenclosures. These are important additions that have not been required by NFPA 101 in the past, butshould be in order to limit the spread of a fire starting in an unsprinklered bathroom. Without theseprovisions in place, there is a chance for the fire in an unsprinklered bathroom to spread into aconcealed space and continue throughout the building. Deleting the section altogether allows it to bemore appropriately handled in the referenced standard (NFPA 13).

ResponseMessage:

FR-8468-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


382 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 439 of 717


Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


383 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 440 of 717


25.3.5.7

Listed quick-response or listed residential sprinklers shall be used throughout all dwelling units.


Committee: BLD-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This section is redundant with both NFPA 13 and NFPA 13R. The redundancy has the potential tocause confusion because quick response sprinklers are not treated the same by NFPA 13 and NFPA13R. Rather than have NFPA 101 try to address the different ways to use quick response sprinklers,it is better to simply delete any reference to any type of sprinkler within NFPA 101 and send the userto NFPA 13 or NFPA 13R for the decision as to which type of sprinklers to select.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8467-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.


384 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 441 of 717

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


385 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 442 of 717


25.4 Special Provisions.

25.4.1 Limited Access or Underground Buildings. Special Structures.

Limited access or underground buildings Apartments shall comply with Chapter 31 where located in aspecial structure .

25.4.2 High-Rise Buildings.

25.4.2.1

High-rise buildings shall comply with Chapter 33.

25.4.2.2

The sprinkler system modifications in 25.3.5.4 and 25.3.5.5 shall be permitted.

25.4.3 Alcohol-Based Hand-Rub Dispensers.

Alcohol-based hand-rub dispensers in accordance with 8.15.4 shall be permitted.


Committee: BLD-RES


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: User friendly pointer to Chapter 31 as requested by FUN.


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


Affirmative All


386 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 443 of 717

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


387 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 444 of 717


26.1.8

Board and care facilities shall comply with Chapter 31 where located in a special structure.


Committee: BLD-BCF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Chapter 31 applies to all board and care facilities. This is a user friendly reminder asrequested by the CC and FUN TC.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8411-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


23 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

17 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Gabriele, Nicholas E.

Jones, Adam C.

McDermott, Randy S.

Mills, David E.

Pacholzuk, Gayanne Coral

Utiskul, Yunyong Pock

Affirmative All

Allen, Scott D.

Asp, Roland A.

Beebe, Chad E.

Bellamy, Tracey D.

Bradley, Harry L.

Day, Richard L.

Eaddy, Rebekah L.

Farraher, Martin J.


388 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 445 of 717

Heaney, Steven

Larrimer, Peter A.

Larson, Mark

Rickard, John A.

Rierson, Carter J.

Roth, Heather

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Talley, Joshua


389 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 446 of 717


26.3.2.5 Arrangement of Means of Egress.

26.3.2.5.1

Access to all required exits shall be Means of egress shall be arranged in accordance with Section 11.5.

26.3.2.5.2

No dead-end corridor shall exceed 30 ft (9.1 m).

26.3.2.5.3

No common path of travel shall exceed 125 ft (38 m).

26.3.2.5.4

Any room or any suite of rooms exceeding 2000 ft2 (185 m2) shall be provided with not less than two exitaccess doors located remotely from each other.


Committee: BLD-BCF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Rearranging the Arrangement of Means of Egress section per Correlating Committeedirection.


Ballot Results


23 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

17 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Jones, Adam C.

McDermott, Randy S.

Mills, David E.



Affirmative All

Allen, Scott D.


390 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 447 of 717

Asp, Roland A.

Beebe, Chad E.

Bellamy, Tracey D.

Bradley, Harry L.

Day, Richard L.

Eaddy, Rebekah L.

Farraher, Martin J.

Heaney, Steven

Larrimer, Peter A.

Larson, Mark

Rickard, John A.

Rierson, Carter J.

Roth, Heather

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Talley, Joshua


391 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 448 of 717


26.3.3.4.7 Smoke Alarms.

26.3.3.4.7.1

Approved smoke alarms shall be installed in accordance with 55.2.2.6 inside every sleeping room, outsideevery sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of the bedrooms, and on all levels within a resident unit.

26.3.3.4.7.2

Smoke alarms shall not be required to be installed in locations where smoke detection is otherwiserequired per 26.3.3.4.8 .


Committee: BLD-BCF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This eliminates the requirement for smoke alarms and detectors needing to be installed inthe same locations.


Ballot Results


23 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

17 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Jones, Adam C.

McDermott, Randy S.

Mills, David E.



Affirmative All

Allen, Scott D.

Asp, Roland A.

Beebe, Chad E.

Bellamy, Tracey D.

Bradley, Harry L.


392 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 449 of 717

Day, Richard L.

Eaddy, Rebekah L.

Farraher, Martin J.

Heaney, Steven

Larrimer, Peter A.

Larson, Mark

Rickard, John A.

Rierson, Carter J.

Roth, Heather

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Talley, Joshua


393 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 450 of 717


26.3.3.4.9 Carbon Monoxide Alarms and Carbon Monoxide Detection Systems.

26.3.3.4.9.1

Carbon monoxide alarms or carbon monoxide detectors in accordance with Section 55.11 and 26.3.3.4.9shall be provided in new large board and care facilities where either any of the following conditionsexists :

(1) Where large board and care facilities have communicating attached garages, unless otherwiseexempted by 26.3.3.4.9.3 26.2.3.4.7.3

(2) Where sleeping rooms or sleeping room suites contain fuel-burning appliances or fuel-burningfireplaces are in the facility

26.3.3.4.9.2

Where required by 26.3.3.4.9.1, carbon monoxide alarms or carbon monoxide detectors shall be installedin all of the following locations:

Outside each separate sleeping room area in the immediate vicinity of the sleeping rooms

(1) Within sleeping rooms containing fuel-burning appliances or fuel-burning fireplaces, unlessotherwise exempted by 26.3.3.4.9.4 26.2.3.4.9.4

(2) Centrally located within occupiable spaces served by the first supply air register from a fuel-burningHVAC system

(3) On every occupiable level of a sleeping room and sleeping room suite

(4) Centrally located within occupiable spaces Within adjacent to a communicating occupiable spacesto an attached garage, unless otherwise exempted by 26.3.3.4.9.3

26.3.3.4.9.3

Carbon monoxide alarms and carbon monoxide detectors as specified in 26.3.3.4.9.1(1) shall not berequired in the following locations:

(1) In garages

(2) Within small board and care facilities with communicating attached garages that are open parkingstructures as defined by the building code

(3) Within small board and care facilities with communicating attached garages that are mechanicallyventilated in accordance with the mechanical code

26.3.3.4.9.4

Within resident units containing fuel-burning appliances or fuel-burning fireplaces, carbon monoxidealarms shall be permitted to be used. Where fuel-burning appliances or fuel-burning fireplaces areinstalled outside sleeping rooms, carbon monoxide alarms or carbon monoxide detectors shall beinstalled in the locations specified as follows:

Within rooms containing fuel-burning appliances or fuel-burning fireplaces

Centrally located within occupiable spaces served by the first supply air register from a fuel-burningHVAC system


Committee: BLD-BCF


Committee Statement

Committee Carbon monoxide alarms have been used in areas outside of their listing. The new revisions to


394 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 451 of 717

Statement: this section clarify that CO detectors should be used unless within resident units- which has beendefined in a separate FR.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8409-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


23 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

15 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Jones, Adam C.

McDermott, Randy S.

Mills, David E.



Affirmative All

Allen, Scott D.

Asp, Roland A.

Beebe, Chad E.

Bellamy, Tracey D.

Bradley, Harry L.

Day, Richard L.

Eaddy, Rebekah L.

Heaney, Steven

Larrimer, Peter A.

Rickard, John A.

Rierson, Carter J.

Roth, Heather

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Talley, Joshua


Farraher, Martin J.

The change made to 26.3.3.4.9.1 will jeopardize life safety by reducing the waking effectiveness of occupantsbecause CO alarms or CO detectors are not required to be installed in the immediate vicinity of the sleeping room.The change made to 26.3.3.4.9.2 removed the requirement for CO detection to be installed in the immediatevicinity of the sleeping room thereby reducing the waking effectiveness of occupants. The change made to


395 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 452 of 717

26.3.3.4.9.2 would prohibit CO alarms from installed inside dwelling units that are attached to a communicatinggarage even though this is in accordance with their ANSI/UL 2034 listing. Section 26.3.3.4.9.3 applies to largeboard and care facilities and the new text to 26.3.3.4.9.3 (in FR 8409) relates to ‘small board and care’.

Larson, Mark

The change made to 26.3.3.4.9.1 will jeopardize life safety by reducing the waking effectiveness of occupantsbecause CO alarms or CO detectors are not required to be installed in the immediate vicinity of the sleeping room.The change made to 26.3.3.4.9.2 removed the requirement for CO detection to be installed in the immediatevicinity of the sleeping room, reducing the waking effectiveness of occupants. The change made to 26.3.3.4.9.2would prohibit CO alarms from being installed inside dwelling units that are attached to a communicating garageeven though this is in accordance with their ANSI/UL 2034 listing.


396 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 453 of 717


26.3.3.6.7

Doors protecting corridor openings shall be self-latching and provided with positive latching hardware.


Committee: BLD-BCF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The current language could be read to allow resident room doors that are not self-latching. Thisappears to be an oversight. The proposed language matches that in Chapter 19.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8410-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


23 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

17 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Jones, Adam C.

McDermott, Randy S.

Mills, David E.



Affirmative All

Allen, Scott D.

Asp, Roland A.

Beebe, Chad E.

Bellamy, Tracey D.

Bradley, Harry L.

Day, Richard L.

Eaddy, Rebekah L.


397 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 454 of 717

Farraher, Martin J.

Heaney, Steven

Larrimer, Peter A.

Larson, Mark

Rickard, John A.

Rierson, Carter J.

Roth, Heather

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Talley, Joshua


398 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 455 of 717


26.3.4.1 Limited Access or Underground Buildings.

Limited access or underground buildings shall comply with Chapter 31 .

26.3.4.2 High-Rise Buildings.

High-rise buildings shall comply with Chapter 33 .


Committee: BLD-BCF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

All special structures are required to comply with Chapter 31. A pointer was added to newsection 36.1.8.


Ballot Results


23 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

17 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Jones, Adam C.

McDermott, Randy S.

Mills, David E.



Affirmative All

Allen, Scott D.

Asp, Roland A.

Beebe, Chad E.

Bellamy, Tracey D.

Bradley, Harry L.

Day, Richard L.

Eaddy, Rebekah L.


399 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 456 of 717

Farraher, Martin J.

Heaney, Steven

Larrimer, Peter A.

Larson, Mark

Rickard, John A.

Rierson, Carter J.

Roth, Heather

Schmitt, Dennis L.

Schultz, Terry

Talley, Joshua


400 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 457 of 717


27.2.2.2.2*

Locks complying with 11.2.1.5.6 11.2.1.6.3 shall be permitted only on exterior, principal entrance/exitdoors.


Committee: BLD-MER


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The Committee is adding the term 'exterior' in response to the changes made to 11.2.1.5.5.1. Addingthe term 'exterior' retains the permission of key-operated locks to only exterior principle entrance/exitdoors. Expanding the application to interior doors could potentially permit the use of multiple keys toget out of a building. There are other provisions in the Code today that permit door locking in theingress direction should occupants of a tenant space need additional security. The intent of theCommittee has always been to permit this concept on the main (principle) exit doors as these are thedoors needed for the mercantile to operate and will be unlocked during occupancy.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8361-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Burrus, William J.

Donovan, Scott

Jackson, Ricky R.

Tidwell, J. L. (Jim)

Vosicky, John

Yonkers, Ernest D.

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Berezowski, Andrew G.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Cole, Anthony W.


401 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 458 of 717

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Derr, Kevin L.

Dodge, David A.

Frable, David W.

Freels, Douglas R.

Gauvin, Daniel J.

Gumkowski, Anthony C.

Humble, Jonathan

Martin, Jeff

Mourao, Bridget

Murdock, Amy J.

Rice, Sarah A.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Smith, James B.

Stocker, Warren G.


Bellamy, Tracey D.

If the intent is to limit the use of such locking arrangements to a single door within the path of egress, thelimitation of having it only at an exterior door would preclude the use of such an arrangement on a single door thathappened to not be on the exterior wall, such as might occur with a vestibule arrangement.


402 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 459 of 717


27.2.5.1 General.



Common paths of travel shall be limited by any of the following:

(1) They shall not exceed 75 ft (23 m) in mercantile occupancies.

(2) They shall not exceed 100 ft (30 m) in mercantile occupancies where the building is protectedthroughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13 and55.3.2.

27.2.5.3 Dead Ends.

27.2.5.3.1

In buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordancewith NFPA 13 and 55.3.2, dead-end corridors shall not exceed 50 ft (15 m).

27.2.5.3.2

In buildings other than those specified in 27.2.5.2.1 27.2.5.3.1 , dead-end corridors shall not exceed 20 ft(6100 mm).



MER_arrangement_XX.2.5_reorg.docx See page 6 for 5000 Chapter 27 changes-for staff use


Committee: BLD-MER


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Response to Correlating Committee minutes action item 7(a)(i).


Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Burrus, William J.

Donovan, Scott


403 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 460 of 717

Jackson, Ricky R.


Vosicky, John

Yonkers, Ernest D.

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Bellamy, Tracey D.


Bush, Kenneth E.

Cole, Anthony W.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Derr, Kevin L.

Dodge, David A.

Frable, David W.

Freels, Douglas R.

Gauvin, Daniel J.


Humble, Jonathan

Martin, Jeff

Mourao, Bridget

Murdock, Amy J.

Rice, Sarah A.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Smith, James B.

Stocker, Warren G.


404 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 461 of 717



27.3.3.3.1


27.3.3.3.2

Interior floor finish in exit enclosures shall be not less than Class II.

27.3.3.3.3



Committee: BLD-MER

Submittal Date: Sun Aug 19 22:03:57 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Update to incorrect cross reference.


Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Burrus, William J.

Donovan, Scott

Jackson, Ricky R.


Vosicky, John

Yonkers, Ernest D.

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Bellamy, Tracey D.


Bush, Kenneth E.

Cole, Anthony W.


405 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 462 of 717

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Derr, Kevin L.

Dodge, David A.

Frable, David W.

Freels, Douglas R.

Gauvin, Daniel J.


Humble, Jonathan

Martin, Jeff

Mourao, Bridget

Murdock, Amy J.

Rice, Sarah A.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Smith, James B.

Stocker, Warren G.


406 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 463 of 717


27.3.5.1

Mercantile occupancies shall be protected by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system inaccordance with NFPA 13 and 55.3.2 55.3.1.1 (1) in any of the following areas:

(1) Throughout all mercantile occupancies three or more stories in height

(2) Throughout all mercantile occupancies exceeding 12,000 ft2 (1115 m2) in gross area

(3) Throughout stories below the level of exit discharge where such stories have an area exceeding

2500 ft2 (232 m2) and are used for the sale, storage, or handling of combustible goods andmerchandise

(4) Throughout mixed occupancies in accordance with 6.2.2 where the conditions of 27.3.5.1(1),27.3.5.1(2), or 27.3.5.1(3) apply to the mercantile occupancy

27.3.5.2

Automatic sprinkler systems in Class A mercantile occupancies shall be electrically supervised inaccordance with 55.3.2.


Committee: BLD-MER


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This change updates the text to correctly reference the core chapter sections for automaticsprinkler requirements. The change is consistent with the sprinkler requirements in NFPA 101.NFPA 5000 requires a sprinkler system to specifically be called out as electrically supervised basedon the requirements in Chapter 55.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8367-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Burrus, William J.

Donovan, Scott

Jackson, Ricky R.


Vosicky, John


407 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 464 of 717

Yonkers, Ernest D.

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Bellamy, Tracey D.


Bush, Kenneth E.

Cole, Anthony W.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Derr, Kevin L.

Dodge, David A.

Frable, David W.

Freels, Douglas R.

Gauvin, Daniel J.


Humble, Jonathan

Martin, Jeff

Mourao, Bridget

Murdock, Amy J.

Rice, Sarah A.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Smith, James B.

Stocker, Warren G.


408 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 465 of 717


27.4.4.8.1.3*

Any shade structures, canopies, awnings, or similar structures in the open mall concourse shall beprotected by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance withSection 9.7 55.3.1.1 (1) .


Committee: BLD-MER


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: This revision updates an incorrect reference to sprinkler standard.



Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Burrus, William J.

Donovan, Scott

Jackson, Ricky R.


Vosicky, John

Yonkers, Ernest D.

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Bellamy, Tracey D.


Bush, Kenneth E.

Cole, Anthony W.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Derr, Kevin L.


409 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 466 of 717

Dodge, David A.

Frable, David W.

Freels, Douglas R.

Gauvin, Daniel J.


Humble, Jonathan

Martin, Jeff

Mourao, Bridget

Murdock, Amy J.

Rice, Sarah A.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Smith, James B.

Stocker, Warren G.


410 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 467 of 717


28.2.2.2.3*

Locks complying with 11.2.1.5.6 11.2.1.6.3 shall be permitted only on exterior , principal entrance/exitdoors.


Committee: BLD-MER


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The Committee is adding the term 'exterior' in response to the changes made to 11.2.1.5.5.1. Addingthe term 'exterior' retains the permission of key-operated locks to only exterior principle entrance/exitdoors. Expanding the application to interior doors could potentially permit the use of multiple keys toget out of a building. There are other provisions in the Code today that permit door locking in theingress direction should occupants of a tenant space need additional security. The intent of theCommittee has always been to permit this concept on the main (principle) exit doors as these are thedoors needed for the business to operate and will be unlocked during occupancy.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8362-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Burrus, William J.

Donovan, Scott

Jackson, Ricky R.


Vosicky, John

Yonkers, Ernest D.

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.


Bush, Kenneth E.

Cole, Anthony W.


411 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 468 of 717

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Derr, Kevin L.

Dodge, David A.

Frable, David W.

Freels, Douglas R.

Gauvin, Daniel J.


Humble, Jonathan

Martin, Jeff

Mourao, Bridget

Murdock, Amy J.

Rice, Sarah A.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Smith, James B.

Stocker, Warren G.


Bellamy, Tracey D.

If the intent is to limit the use of such locking arrangements to a single door within the path of egress, thelimitation of having it only at an exterior door would preclude the use of such an arrangement on a single door thathappened to not be on the exterior wall, such as might occur with a vestibule arrangement.


412 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 469 of 717


28.2.5.1 General.



Limitations on common paths of travel shall be in accordance with 28.2.5.3.1 28.2.5.2.1 through28.2.5.3.1 28.2.5.2.3.

28.2.5.2.1

Common paths of travel shall not exceed 100 ft (30 m) in a building protected throughout by an approved,supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13 and 55.3.2.

28.2.5.2.2

Common paths of travel shall not exceed 100 ft (30 m) within a single tenant space having an occupantload not exceeding 30 persons.

28.2.5.2.3

In buildings other than those specified in 28.2.5.3.1 28.2.5.2.1 or 28.2.5.3.1 28.2.5.2.2, the common pathsof travel shall not exceed 75 ft (23 m).

28.2.5.3 Dead Ends.

Dead-ends corridors shall be permitted in accordance with 28.2.5.2.1 28.2.5.3.1 or 28.2.5.2.2 28.2.5.3.2.

28.2.5.3.1

In buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordancewith NFPA 13 and 55.3.2, dead-end corridors shall not exceed 50 ft (15 m).

28.2.5.3.2

In buildings other than those specified in 28.2.5.2.1 28.2.5.3.1, dead-end corridors shall not exceed 20 ft(6100 mm).



MER_arrangement_XX.2.5_reorg.docxSee page 7 for NFPA 5000 Chapter 28 changes -for staff use


Committee: BLD-MER


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Response to Correlating Committee minutes action item 7(a)(i).


Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All


413 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 470 of 717



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Burrus, William J.

Donovan, Scott

Jackson, Ricky R.


Vosicky, John

Yonkers, Ernest D.

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Bellamy, Tracey D.


Bush, Kenneth E.

Cole, Anthony W.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Derr, Kevin L.

Dodge, David A.

Frable, David W.

Freels, Douglas R.

Gauvin, Daniel J.


Humble, Jonathan

Martin, Jeff

Mourao, Bridget

Murdock, Amy J.

Rice, Sarah A.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Smith, James B.

Stocker, Warren G.


414 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 471 of 717



28.3.3.3.1


28.3.3.3.2

Interior floor finish in exit enclosures shall be Class I or Class II.

28.3.3.3.3



Committee: BLD-MER

Submittal Date: Sun Aug 19 21:58:59 EDT 2018

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Update to incorrect cross reference.


Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Burrus, William J.

Donovan, Scott

Jackson, Ricky R.


Vosicky, John

Yonkers, Ernest D.

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Bellamy, Tracey D.


Bush, Kenneth E.

Cole, Anthony W.


415 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 472 of 717

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Derr, Kevin L.

Dodge, David A.

Frable, David W.

Freels, Douglas R.

Gauvin, Daniel J.


Humble, Jonathan

Martin, Jeff

Mourao, Bridget

Murdock, Amy J.

Rice, Sarah A.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Smith, James B.

Stocker, Warren G.


416 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 473 of 717


29.1.7* Occupant Load.

The occupant load, in number of persons for whom means of egress and other provisions are required,shall be determined on the basis of the occupant load factors of Table 11.3.1.2 that are characteristic ofthe use of the space, or shall be determined as the maximum probable population of the space underconsideration, whichever is greater.

29.1.7.1

The occupant load factor for industrial use shall be in accordance with Table 29.1.7.1 as follows:

Table 29.1.7.1 Occupant Load Factors

Industrial Use

General and high-hazard industrial 100 9.3

Special-purpose industrial MP MP

MP: The occupant load is the maximum probable number of occupants present at any time.


Committee: BLD-IND


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The use of 'NA' could be misinterpreted to mean that there is no occupant load for special purposeindustrial occupancies, where the intent is that its determined not by a calculation but by themaximum probable number of occupants present at any time. See also a similar change proposedfor storage occupancies.

NOTE TO CORRELATING COMMITTEE: Please move this requirement to Table 11.3.1.2 byupdating the row for special-purpose industrial use as well as the acronym at the bottom of Table11.3.1.2.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8385-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey


417 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 474 of 717

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


418 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 475 of 717



29.3.3.3.1

Interior floor finish in exit enclosures and exit access corridors shall be Class I or Class II in accordancewith 10.7 10.2.6 .

29.3.3.3.2

Interior floor finish in areas other than exit enclosures and exit access corridors shall not be required tocomply with Section 10.7 10.2.6 .


Committee: BLD-IND


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Update to incorrect cross-reference.


Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob


419 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 476 of 717

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


420 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 477 of 717


29.6.1.4

If provided, dwarf, or “smash,” Where egress doors used are provided in doors that accommodateaircraft, such doors shall be permitted for compliance with the requirements of 29.6.1 through 29.6.1.3.


Committee: BLD-IND


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The terms dwarf and smash doors are outdated. The intent of the provision is to regulateegress doors within large hangar doors that accommodate aircraft.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8383-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron


421 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 478 of 717

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


422 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 479 of 717


30.1.7 Occupant Load.

The occupant load, in number of persons for whom means of egress and other provisions are required,shall be determined on the basis of the occupant load factors of Table 11.3.1.2 that are characteristic ofthe use of the space, or shall be determined on the basis of as the maximum probable population of thespace under consideration, whichever is greater.

A.30.1.7

There is no occupant load factor specified for storage occupancies. Rather, the actual probablemaximum number of persons present needs to be considered in determining the occupant load.

30.1.7.1

The occupant load factor for storage occupancies shall be in accordance with Table 30.1.7.1 asfollows:

Table 30.1.7.1 Occupant Load Factors

Storage Use

In storage occupancies MP MP

In mercantile occupancies 300 27.9

In other than storage and mercantile occupancies 500 46.5

MP: the occupant load is the maximum probable number of occupants present at any time.


Committee: BLD-IND


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The use of 'NA' could be misinterpreted to mean that there is no occupant load for storageoccupancies or parking structures, where the intent is that its determined not by a calculation but bythe maximum probable number of occupants present at any time. See also a similar changeproposed for industrial occupancies.

NOTE TO CORRELATING COMMITTEE: Please delete and move this requirement to Table11.3.1.2 by updating the row for storage use as well as the acronym at the bottom of Table 11.3.1.2.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8386-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention


423 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 480 of 717

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


424 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 481 of 717

First Revision No. 8382-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Sections 30.3.3.2.1, 30.3.3.2.2 ]


30.3.3.3.1

Interior floor finish in exit enclosures and in exit access corridors shall be not less than Class II.

30.3.3.3.2

Interior floor finish in areas other than exit enclosures and exit access corridors shall not be required tocomply with Section 10.2.6 .


Committee: BLD-IND


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Adds section title to separate floor finish provisions from wall and ceiling provisions andupdates incorrect cross-reference.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8382-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob


425 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 482 of 717

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


426 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 483 of 717


30.6.2.4

If provided, dwarf, or “smash,” Where egress doors used are provided in doors that accommodateaircraft, such doors shall be permitted for compliance with the requirements of 30.6.1 29.6.1 through30.6.3 29.6.1.3 .


Committee: BLD-IND


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The terms dwarf and smash doors are outdated. The intent of the provision is to regulateegress doors within large hangar doors that accommodate aircraft.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8384-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan


427 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 484 of 717

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


428 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 485 of 717


30.8.1.3 Opening Requirements for Open Parking Structures.

Open parking structures shall comply with 30.8.1.3.1 through 30.8.1.3.3 30.8.1.3.5 .

30.8.1.3.1

Each parking level shall have wall openings open to the atmosphere for an area of not less than 1.4 ft 2

for each linear foot (0.4 m 2 for each linear meter) of its exterior perimeter For natural ventilationpurposes, the exterior sides of the structure shall have uniformly distributed openings on two or moresides . [88A:5.5.1]

30.8.1.3.2

The area of such openings in exterior walls on a level shall be not less than 20 percent of the totalperimeter wall area of each level. [ 88A: 5.5.2]

30.8.1.3.3

The openings addressed in 30.8.1.3.1 shall be distributed over 40 percent of the building perimeter oruniformly over two opposing sides The aggregate length (i.e., total of widths) of the openings consideredto be providing natural ventilation shall be not less than 40 percent of the perimeter of the level .[88A:5.5.2 5.5.3 ]

30.8.1.3.4

Where the required openings are uniformly distributed over two opposing sides of the building,30.8.1.3.3 shall not apply. [ 88A: 5.5.4]

30.8.1.3.5

Interior wall lines and column lines shall be at least 20 percent open, with openings uniformly distributedto provide ventilation. [88A:5.5.3 5.5.5 ]


Committee: BLD-IND


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan


429 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 486 of 717

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


430 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 487 of 717


30.8.1.6 Minimum Construction Requirements.

30.8.1.6.1

Those parts of parking structures located within, immediately below, attached to, or less than 3000 mm(120 in.) 10 ft (3 m) from a building or another occupancy used for any other purpose shall be separatedby walls, partitions, floors, or floor–ceiling assemblies having fire resistance ratings of not less than2 hours, unless otherwise permitted by 30.8.1.6.2 30.8.1.6.3 . [88A:5.2.1]

30.8.1.6.2

The 2-hour fire resistance rating required in 30.8.1.6.1 shall be permitted to be reduced to 1 hourwhere the parking structure is protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system.[ 88A: 5.2.2]

30.8.1.6.3

No fire-rated separation shall be required when parts of a parking structure and a building used for anyother purpose are separated by 3000 mm (120 in.) 10 ft (3 m) or more, and are attached only via openpedestrian balconies or bridges, or open vehicle bridges. [88A:5.2.2 5.2.3 ]

30.8.1.6.4

Those portions of an open parking structure located within or immediately below a building used foranother purpose shall have the principal supporting members and bearing walls in all levels of the parkingstructure protected to provide a fire resistive resistance rating equivalent to that required for the otheroccupancy. [88A:5.2.3 5.2.4 ]

30.8.1.6.5

Offices or other similar spaces that are related to the operation of the parking structure and are less than

300 m 2 (3000 ft 2 ) 3000 ft 2 (300 m 2 ) in area, other than cashier or attendant booths, shall beseparated from parking areas by walls or partitions that resist the passage of smoke. [88A:5.2.4 5.2.5 ]

30.8.1.6.6

Floor surfaces shall be of noncombustible material. [88A:5.3.1]

30.8.1.6.6.1

Where combustible construction is permitted, floor surfaces shall be noncombustible and liquidtight.[88A:5.3.1.1]

30.8.1.6.6.2*

Asphalt shall be permitted on grade. [88A:5.3.1.2]

30.8.1.6.7

The maximum building height, number of stories, and area limitations for enclosed parking structures shallbe in accordance with Chapter 7.

30.8.1.6.8

Open parking structures shall be of Type I or Type II construction as defined in NFPA 220. [88A:5.1.2]

30.8.1.6.9

Heights and floor areas of open parking structures of Type I, Type II(222), or Type II(111) constructionshall be permitted to be unlimited. [88A:5.1.3]

30.8.1.6.10

Open parking structures of Type II(000) construction shall be permitted to be of unlimited area where bothof the following conditions are met:

(1) The height does not exceed 25 m (75 ft) 75 ft (25 m) .

(2) The horizontal distance from any point on any parking level to an exterior wall opening on a street, analley, a courtyard, or other similar permanent open space does not exceed 60 m (200 ft) 200 ft (60m) . [88A:5.1.4]


431 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 488 of 717


Committee: BLD-IND


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


432 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 489 of 717


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


433 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 490 of 717


30.8.1.7 Occupant Load.

(No requirements.) The occupant load, in number of persons for whom means of egress and otherprovisions are required, shall be determined on the basis of the occupant load factors of Table 11.3.1.2that are characteristic of the use of the space, or shall be determined as the maximum probablepopulation of the space under consideration, whichever is greater.


Committee: BLD-IND


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Parking structures do not have "no requirements" for occupant load. The intent is that theoccupant load be determined as the maximum probable number of occupants present at any time.This is reflected by a pointer to Table 11.3.1.2.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8387-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.


434 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 491 of 717

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


435 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 492 of 717

First Revision No. 8401-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Sections 30.8.3.1.1.1, 30.8.3.1.1.2 ]

30.8.3.1.1.1

Unless otherwise provided in 30.8.3.1.1.3, 30.8.3.1.1.4, or 30.8.3.1.1.5, vertical openings through floors inbuildings enclosed parking structures four or more stories in height shall be enclosed with walls orpartitions having a fire resistance rating of not less than 2 hours. [88A:5.4.3]

30.8.3.1.1.2

Unless otherwise provided in 30.8.3.1.1.3, 30.8.3.1.1.4, or 30.8.3.1.1.5, vertical openings through floors inbuildings three or fewer enclosed parking structures less than four stories in height shall be enclosed withwalls or partitions having a fire resistance rating of not less than 1 hour. [88A:5.4.4]


Committee: BLD-IND


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob


436 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 493 of 717

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


437 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 494 of 717


30.8.3.5.2

Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed in portions of enclosed parking structures, the ceilings ofwhich are less than 24 in. (610 600 mm) above grade, regardless of type of construction, and in enclosedparking structures of Type III or Type IV construction over 50 ft (15 m) in height. [88A:6.1.4 6.4.2 ]


Committee: BLD-IND


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron


438 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 495 of 717

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


439 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 496 of 717


30.8.5.2.3.1

All enclosed parking structures shall be ventilated by a mechanical system capable of providing a

minimum of 1.0 cfm/ft 2 (300 L/min/m 2 ) 1 ft 3 /min per ft 2 (300 L/min per m 2 ) of floor area duringhours of normal operation. [88A:6.3.1]


Committee: BLD-IND


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron


440 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 497 of 717

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


441 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 498 of 717


31.2.5

Exits from underground structures with an occupant load of more than 100 persons in the undergroundportions of the structure and having a floor used for human occupancy located more than 30 ft (9.1 m)below the lowest level with an exit discharge, or having more than one level located below the lowestlevel with an exit discharge, shall be provided with outside smoke-venting facilities or other means toprevent the exits from becoming charged with smoke from any fire in the areas served by the exits underany of the following conditions:

(1) Occupant load of more than 100 persons in the underground portions of the structure

(2) More than one level located below the lowest level with an exit discharge


Committee: BLD-IND


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision removes the redundancy of having a floor located more than 30 ft below the lowestlevel with an exit discharge as that is now a part of the definition of an underground structure perSection 3.3.634.16 (2018 edition). Section was also reformatted to remove confusion created by theuse of "and" and "or" in the condition statement for the requirement.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8369-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.


442 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 499 of 717

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


443 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 500 of 717


31.2.6

The underground portions of an underground structure shall be provided with approved automatic smokecontrol venting in accordance with Section 55.7 where the underground structure has all of the followingfeatures :

(1) Occupant load of more than 100 persons in the underground portions of the structure

(2) Floor level used for human occupancy of more than 30 ft (9.1 m) below or more More than one levelbelow the lowest level with an exit discharge

(3) Combustible contents, combustible interior finish, or combustible construction


Committee: BLD-IND


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision removes the redundancy of having a floor located more than 30 ft below the lowestlevel with an exit discharge as that is now a part of the definition of an underground structure perSection 3.3.634.16. Action is consistent with that taken in NFPA 101.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8370-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John


444 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 501 of 717

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


445 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 502 of 717


31.2.7

Exit stair enclosures in underground structures having a floor level used for human occupancy of morethan 30 ft (9.1 m) below, or more than one level below, the lowest level with an exit discharge shall beprovided with signage in accordance with 11.2.2.6 at each floor level landing traversed in traveling to theexit discharge. The signs shall include a chevron-shaped indicator to show direction to the exit discharge.


Committee: BLD-IND


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision removes the redundancy of having a floor located more than 30 ft below the lowestlevel with an exit discharge as that is now a part of the definition of an underground structure perSection 3.3.634.16. Therefore, all stair enclosures in underground structures will require signage.Action is consistent with that taken in NFPA 101.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8371-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob


446 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 503 of 717

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


447 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 504 of 717


33.1.3.2

For buildings, other than mercantile occupancies or industrial and storage occupancies with ordinary andhigh hazard contents exceeding the maximum allowable quantities (MAQ) per control area as setfort forth in 34.1.3, Type I(442) construction shall be permitted to be reduced to Type I(332), and TypeI(332) construction shall be permitted to be reduced to Type II(222).


Committee: BLD-FUN


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Editorial correction.


Ballot Results


20 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

17 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cheng, Amy Y.

Hopkins, Mark

Laramee, Scott T.

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid


Finnegan, Daniel P.

Frable, David W.

Groner, Norman E.

Jacoby, David J.

Jelenewicz, Chris

Klein, David P.

Lathrop, James K.



448 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 505 of 717

Murga, Ricardo

Pauls, Jake


Roberts, Jon G.

Tyree, David P.

Vann, Joshua


449 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 506 of 717


33.3.4.4

Fuel lines supplying a generator set inside a high-rise building shall be separated from areas of thebuilding other than the room in which the generator is located by one of the following methods:

(1) A fire-resistant pipe-protection system that meets all of the following:

(a) Tested in accordance with UL 1489, Standard for Fire Tests of Fire Resistant PipeProtection Systems Carrying Combustible Liquids

(b) Installed as tested and in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions

(c) Has a rating of not less than 2 hours or not less than 1 hour where the building is protectedwith an approved, electrically supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance withSection 55.3

(2) An assembly that has a fire resistance rating of not less than 2 hours or not less than 1 hourwhere the building is protected with an approved, electrically supervised automatic sprinklersystem in accordance with Section 55.3


Committee: BLD-FUN


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision is intended to provide a higher level of protection for fuel lines supplying a generatorset inside a high-rise building. NFPA 110 does not prescribe a minimum level of protection for the fuellines. However, in high-rise buildings, the occupants and emergency responders are more dependenton the operation of the building systems. The standby power system is required to operate for a least1 hour and, in some instances, the emergency power system is required to operate for at least 90minutes. Item 3 in the related public input was not accepted as other approved means is alreadyaddressed by the Code.

UL 1489, "Fire Resistant Pipe Protection Systems Carrying Combustible Liquids, " is one of the threecompliance options proposed. The standard addresses the fire-resistive performance of fuel linesprotected for an hourly rating and compliments ASTM E119. UL 1489 uses the same test equipmentand time-temperature fire exposure as ASTM E119 however the sample testing configurationspecifically addresses pipe protection systems. The conditions of acceptance follow the intent ofASTM E119 and require:

1. Resistance to the fire and hose stream exposure without developing openings in the pipe., and

2. Preventing a temperature increase exceeding 325F at any single point or 250F at any crosssection along the pipe.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8265-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


20 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned


450 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 507 of 717

16 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned

Cheng, Amy Y.

Hopkins, Mark

Laramee, Scott T.

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid


Finnegan, Daniel P.

Frable, David W.

Groner, Norman E.

Jacoby, David J.

Jelenewicz, Chris

Klein, David P.


Murga, Ricardo

Pauls, Jake


Roberts, Jon G.

Tyree, David P.

Vann, Joshua

Abstention

Lathrop, James K.

Due to client interest


451 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 508 of 717


Sections] ]


452 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 509 of 717

Buildings required to comply with Protection Level 1 shall be set back from property lines, or be providedwith a horizontal separation in accordance with 7.3.4.2, by a distance of not less than 75 ft (23 m) and ofnot less than that required by Table 34.3.3.3.

Table 34.3.3.3 The American Table of Distances for Storage of Explosives

Distances in Feet

Quantity ofExplosive

Materials1,2,3,4,5 Inhabited Buildings9 10

Public Highways Traffic

Volume of 3,000 Vehicles/Day

or Less11 12

Passe

Highw

Ve

PoundsOver

PoundsNot

Over Barricaded6,7,8 7,8,9 Unbarricaded Barricaded6,7,8 7,8,9 Unbarricaded Barricad

0 5 70 140 30 60 51

5 10 90 180 35 70 64

10 20 110 220 45 90 81

20 30 125 250 50 100 93

30 40 140 280 55 110 103

40 50 150 300 60 120 110

50 75 170 340 70 140 127

75 100 190 380 75 150 139

100 125 200 400 80 160 150

125 150 215 430 85 170 159

150 200 235 470 95 190 175

200 250 255 510 105 210 189

250 300 270 540 110 220 201

300 400 295 590 120 240 221

400 500 320 640 130 260 238

500 600 340 680 135 270 253

600 700 355 710 145 290 266

700 800 375 750 150 300 278

800 900 390 780 155 310 289

900 1,000 400 800 160 320 300

1,000 1,200 425 850 165 330 318

1,200 1,400 450 900 170 340 336

1,400 1,600 470 940 175 350 351

1,600 1,800 490 980 180 360 366

1,800 2,000 505 1,010 185 370 378

2,000 2,500 545 1,090 190 380 408

2,500 3,000 580 1,160 195 390 432

3,000 4,000 635 1,270 210 420 474

4,000 5,000 685 1,370 225 450 513

5,000 6,000 730 1,460 235 470 546

6,000 7,000 770 1,540 245 490 573

7,000 8,000 800 1,600 250 500 600

8,000 9,000 835 1,670 255 510 624

9,000 10,000 865 1,730 260 520 645

10,000 12,000 875 1,750 270 540 687

12,000 14,000 885 1,770 275 550 723

14,000 16,000 900 1,800 280 560 756


453 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 510 of 717

Distances in Feet

Quantity ofExplosive

Materials1,2,3,4,5 Inhabited Buildings9 10

Public Highways Traffic

Volume of 3,000 Vehicles/Day

or Less11 12

Passe

Highw

Ve

PoundsOver

PoundsNot

Over Barricaded6,7,8 7,8,9 Unbarricaded Barricaded6,7,8 7,8,9 Unbarricaded Barricad

16,000 18,000 940 1,880 285 570 786

18,000 20,000 975 1,950 290 580 813

20,000 25,000 1,055 2,000 315 630 876

25,000 30,000 1,130 2,000 340 680 933

30,000 35,000 1,205 2,000 360 720 981

35,000 40,000 1,275 2,000 380 760 1,026

40,000 45,000 1,340 2,000 400 800 1,068

45,000 50,000 1,400 2,000 420 840 1,104

50,000 55,000 1,460 2,000 440 880 1,140

55,000 60,000 1,515 2,000 455 910 1,173

60,000 65,000 1,565 2,000 470 940 1,206

65,000 70,000 1,610 2,000 485 970 1,236

70,000 75,000 1,655 2,000 500 1,000 1,263

75,000 80,000 1,695 2,000 510 1,020 1,293

80,000 85,000 1,730 2,000 520 1,040 1,317

85,000 90,000 1,760 2,000 530 1,060 1,344

90,000 95,000 1,790 2,000 540 1,080 1,368

95,000 100,000 1,815 2,000 545 1,090 1,392

100,000 110,000 1,835 2,000 550 1,100 1,437

110,000 120,000 1,855 2,000 555 1,110 1,479

120,000 130,000 1,875 2,000 560 1,120 1,521

130,000 140,000 1,890 2,000 565 1,130 1,557

140,000 150,000 1,900 2,000 570 1,140 1,593

150,000 160,000 1,935 2,000 580 1,160 1,629

160,000 170,000 1,965 2,000 590 1,180 1,662

170,000 180,000 1,990 2,000 600 1,200 1,695

180,000 190,000 2,010 2,010 605 1,210 1,725

190,000 200,000 2,030 2,030 610 1,220 1,755

200,000 210,000 2,055 2,055 620 1,240 1,782

210,000 230,000 2,100 2,100 635 1,270 1,836

230,000 250,000 2,155 2,155 650 1,300 1,890

250,000 275,000 2,215 2,215 670 1,340 1,950

275,000 300,000 2,275 2,275 690 1,380 2,000

Superscript numerals refer to explanatory footnotes.

Explanatory Notes Essential to the Application of the American Table of Distances for Storage ofExplosives .

1“Explosive materials” means explosives, blasting agents, and detonators.

2“Explosives” means any chemical compound, mixture, or device, the primary or common purpose ofwhich is to function by explosion. A list of explosives determined to be within the coverage of Title 18,United States Code , Chapter 40 18 USC 40 , “Importation, Manufacture, Distribution and Storage ofExplosive Materials,” is issued at least annually by the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and


454 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 511 of 717

Firearms of the Department of the Treasury. For quantity and distance purposes, detonating cord of50 grains per foot should be calculated as equivalent to 8 lb (3.7 kg) of high explosives per 1000 ft(305 m). Heavier or lighter core loads should be rated proportionately.

3“Blasting agents” means any material or mixture consisting of fuel and oxidizer, intended for blasting, andnot otherwise defined as an explosive, provided that the finished product, as mixed for use or shipment,cannot be detonated by means of a No. 8 test blasting cap where unconfined.

4“Detonator” means any device containing any initiating or primary explosive that is used for initiatingdetonation. A detonator may not be permitted to contain more than 10 g of total explosives by weight,excluding ignition or delay charges. The term includes, but is not limited to, electric blasting caps ofinstantaneous and delay types, blasting caps for use with safety fuses, detonating cord delay connectors,and nonelectric instantaneous and delay blasting caps that use detonating cord, shock tube, or any otherreplacement for electric leg wires. All types of detonators in strengths through No. 8 cap should be rated at11⁄2 lb (0.7 kg) of explosives per 1000 caps.

5For strengths higher than No. 8 cap, the manufacturer should be consulted.

6“Magazine” means any building, structure, or container, other than an explosives manufacturing building,approved for the storage of explosive materials.

7“Natural barricade” means natural features of the ground, such as hills, or timber of sufficient density thatthe surrounding exposures that need protection cannot be seen from the magazine when the trees arebare of leaves.

8“Artificial barricade” means an artificial mound or revetted wall of earth of a minimum thickness of 3 ft(0.9 m).

9“Barricaded” means the effective screening of a building containing explosive materials from themagazine or another building, a railway, or a highway by a natural or an artificial barrier. A straight linefrom the top of any sidewall of the building containing explosive materials to the eave line of any magazineor other building or to a point 12 ft (3.7 m) above the center of a railway or highway shall pass throughsuch barrier.

10“Inhabited building” means a building regularly occupied in whole or part as a habitation for humanbeings, or any church, schoolhouse, railroad station, store, or other structure where people areaccustomed to assemble, but does not include any building or structure occupied in connection with themanufacture, transportation, storage, or use of explosive materials.

11“Railway” means any steam, electric, or other railroad or railway that carries passengers for hire.

12“Public Highway” means any road, street, or way, whether on public or private property, open to publictravel.

13Where two or more storage magazines are located on the same property, each magazine shall complywith the minimum distances specified from inhabited buildings, railways, and highways, and, in addition,they should be separated from each other by not less than the distances shown for “separation ofmagazines,” except that the quantity of explosive materials contained in detonator magazines shall governwith regard to the spacing of said detonator magazines from magazines containing other explosivematerials. If any two or more magazines are separated from each other by less than the specified“separation of magazines” distances, such magazines, as a group, shall be considered as one magazine,and the total quantity of explosive materials stored in such group shall be treated as if stored in a singlemagazine located on the site of any magazine of the group, and shall comply with the minimum specifieddistances from other magazines, inhabited buildings, railways, and highways.

14Storage in excess of 300,000 lb (136,200 kg) of explosive materials in one magazine generally is notnecessary for commercial enterprises.

15This table applies only to the manufacture and permanent storage of commercial explosive materials. Itis not applicable to the transportation of explosives or any handling or temporary storage necessary orincident thereto. It is not intended to apply to bombs, projectiles, or other heavily encased explosives.

16Where a manufacturing building on an explosive materials plant site is designed to contain explosivematerials, the building shall be located at a distance from inhabited buildings, public highways, andpassenger railways in accordance with the American Table of Distances based on the maximum quantityof explosive materials permitted to be in the building at one time.

Source: Reprinted from IME SLP 2 IME Safety Library Publication No. 2 , with permission of the Institute ofMakers of Explosives, revised in June of 1991.


455 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 512 of 717

[495:Table 9.4.1(b)]


Committee: BLD-IND


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald


456 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 513 of 717

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


457 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 514 of 717

First Revision No. 8372-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Section No. 34.3.7.2.1.2(A) ]


458 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 515 of 717

(A)


459 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 516 of 717

The aggregate quantity of hazardous materials in storage and in use within a single fabrication area shallnot exceed one of the following, whichever is greater:

(1) Quantities set forth in Table 34.3.7.2.1.2(A)

(2) MAQ per control area set forth in Table 34.1.3.1

Table 34.3.7.2.1.2(A) Quantity Limits for Hazardous Materials in a Single Fabrication Areaa

Hazard Category

Solids

(lb/ft2)

Liquids

(gal/ft2)

Gas

(ft3 at

NTP/ft2)

Combustible liquid

II NA 0.01 NA

IIIA NA 0.02 NA

IIIB NA NL NA

Combination

Classes I,

II, and IIIA

NA 0.04 NA

Cryogenic

Flammable NA NASee

footnote b.

Oxidizing NA NA 1.25

ExplosivesSee

footnote c.

See

footnote c.

See

footnote c.

Flammable gas

Gaseous NA NASee

footnote b.

Liquefied NA NASee

footnote b.

Flammable liquid

IA NA 0.0025 NA

IB NA 0.025 NA

IC NA 0.025 NA

Combination

Classes IA,

IB, and IC

NA 0.025 NA

Combination

Classes I,

II, and IIIA

NA 0.04 NA

Flammable solid 0.001 NA NA

Organic peroxide

Unclassified detonableSee

footnote c.

See

footnote c.NA

ISee

footnote c.

See

footnote c.NA

II 0.025 0.0025 NA

III 0.1 0.01 NA

IV NL NL NA

V NL NL NA

Oxidizing gas


460 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 517 of 717

Hazard Category

Solids

(lb/ft2)

Liquids

(gal/ft2)

Gas

(ft3 at

NTP/ft2)

Gaseous NA NA 1.25

Liquefied NA NA 1.25

Combination of

gaseous and

liquefied

NA NA 1.25

Oxidizer

4See

footnote c.

See

footnote c.NA

3 0.003 0.003 NA

2 0.003 0.003 NA

1 NL NL NA

Combination oxidizer

Classes 1,

2, and 3

0.003 0.003 NA

PyrophoricSee

footnote c.0.00125

See

footnotes b

and d.

Unstable reactive

4See

footnote c.

See

footnote c.

See

footnote c.

3 0.025 0.0025See

footnote c.

2 0.1 0.01See

footnote c.

1 NL NL NL

Water-reactive

3See

footnote c.0.00125 NA

2 0.25 0.025 NA

1 NL NL NA

Corrosive NL NL NL

Highly toxic NL NLSee

footnote b.

Toxic NL NLSee

footnote b.

For SI units, 1 lb = 0.454 kg; 1 gal = 3.785 L; 1 ft2 = 0.093 m2; 1 ft3 = 0.0283 m3.

NTP: Normal temperature and pressure [measured at 70°F (21°C) and 14.7 psi (30 kPa)].

NA: Not applicable.

NL: Quantity of hazardous materials in a single fabrication area not limited.

aHazardous materials within piping are not permitted to be included in the calculated quantities.

bThe aggregate quantity of flammable, pyrophoric, toxic, and highly toxic gases is not permitted to

exceed 9000 ft 3 (254.9 m 3 ) to exceed a density limit of 0.2 ft 3 per ft 2 at NTP.

cThe quantity of hazardous materials in a single fabrication is not permitted to exceed the MAQ percontrol area in Table 34.1.3.1.


461 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 518 of 717

dThe aggregate quantity of pyrophoric gases in the building is not permitted to exceed quantity limits setforth in Table 34.3.4.4.1.


Committee: BLD-IND


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Table 34.3.7.2.1.2(A), footnote B is in conflict with the same table in NFPA 318, that was revised inthe 2015 Edition to address the issue with a 9000 cu ft limit. This comment is to align the nextrevision of NFPA 5000 with NFPA 318 limits for semiconductor fabrication facilities.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8372-NFPA 5000-2018

Public Input No. 2-NFPA 5000-2018 [Section No. 34.3.7.2.1.2(A)]

Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd


462 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 519 of 717



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


463 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 520 of 717


35.1.2.3 One- and Two-Family Dwellings.

One- and two-family dwellings shall be permitted to be designed and constructed in accordance with thefollowing reference documents, subject to the limitations therein:

(1) PCA 100, Prescriptive Design of Exterior Concrete Walls for One- and Two-Family Dwellings

(2) ACI 530/530.1 TMS 402 , Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures, Chapter 5 AppendixA

(3) AISI-S230, Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Framing — Prescriptive Method for One- and Two-FamilyDwellings

(4) ANSI/AWC WFCM, Wood Frame Construction Manual for One- and Two- Family Dwellings

(5) ICC 600, Standard for Residential Construction in High Wind Regions

(6) IRC, International Residential Code, Chapter 2, Section R301, and Chapters 4 through 8


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

As noted in related changes, in 2013 ACI and ASCE relinquished their rights to the referencedstandards to The Masonry Society. The latest editions of the standards are now referenced only asTMS 402-16 Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures and TMS 602-16 Specification forMasonry Structures. In this particular case, the provisions cited were moved several cycles ago toAppendix A. As such, that update is needed as well.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8073-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All



464 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 521 of 717

Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


465 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 522 of 717


Detail FR-8148

37.1.5 Vertical and Lateral Flame Propagation on Exterior Nonbearing Walls.

37.1.5.1

Exterior nonbearing walls wall assemblies on buildings of Type I, Type II, Type III, or Type IVconstruction that are greater than 40 ft (12,192 mm) in height above grade plane and contain combustiblematerials shall be tested in accordance with and meet the conditions of acceptance in, of either NFPA 285or the 16 ft (4.9 m) parallel panel test described in ANSI/FM 4880, American National Standard forEvaluating the Fire Performance of Insulated Building Panel Assemblies and Interior Finish Materials,unless otherwise permitted in 37.1.5.2.

37.1.5.1.1

When window openings are designed as part of the installed assembly, the edge of the opening shall beprotected as follows:

(1) When the assembly is tested in accordance with NFPA 285, provide the same protection asprovided for the actual test.

(2) When the assembly is tested per ANSI/FM 4880, American National Standard for Evaluating theFire Performance of Insulated Building Panel Assemblies and Interior Finish Materials , providegypsum wallboard, fire-retardant-treated wood, or minimum 20 gauge [0.03595 in. (0.9 mm)]corrosion-resistant steel flashing around the window opening, fastened at a maximum spacing of 16in. (406 mm) on center into the wall structure using minimum No. 10 (5 mm) screws.


466 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 523 of 717

37.1.5.2

Where the water-resistive barrier is the only combustible component, exterior nonbearing wallswallassemblies shall not be required to be tested in accordance with 37.1.5.2 if either of the followingconditions apply:

(1) The exterior wall assembly has a wall covering of masonry (including brick), concrete, stone, terracotta, stucco, or corrosion-resistant steel with minimum thicknesses in accordance with Table37.1.5.2.

(2) The water-resistive barrier complies with both of the following:

(a) The water-resistive barrier has a peak heat release rate of less than 13.2 (Btu/s)/ft2

(150 kW/m2), a total heat release of less than 1761 Btu/ft2 (20 MJ/m2), and an effective heat ofcombustion of less than 7738.6 Btu/lb (18 MJ/kg) as determined in accordance with ASTME1354, Standard Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials andProducts Using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter. The ASTM E1354 test shall beconducted on specimens at the thickness intended for use, in the horizontal orientation, and at

an incident radiant heat flux of 4.4 (Btu/s)/ft2 (50 kW/m2).

(b) The water-resistive barrier has a flame spread index of 25 or less and a smoke-developed indexof 450 or less as determined in accordance with ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for SurfaceBurning Characteristics of Building Materials, or UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface BurningCharacteristics of Building Materials, with test specimen preparation and mounting inaccordance with ASTM E2404, Standard Practice for Specimen Preparation and Mounting ofTextile, Paper or Polymeric (including Vinyl) Wall or Ceiling Coverings, and of Facings andWood Veneers Intended to be Applied on Site Over a Wood Substrate to Assess SurfaceBurning Characteristics.

Table 37.1.5.2 Minimum Thicknesses for Exterior Wall Covering Materials

Covering TypeMinimum Thickness

(inchesin.)

Minimum Thickness

(mm)

Masonry — —

Anchored (including brick) 2.0 50.8

Adhered 0.25 6.4

Steel (corrosion resistant) 0.0149 0.38

Stone — —

Cast artificial, anchored 1.5 38.1

Natural, adhered 2.0 50.8

Stucco or exterior cement plaster* — —

Three-coat work-over — —

Metal plaster base 0.875 22.2

Unit masonry 0.625 15.9

Cast-in-place or precast concrete 0.625 15.9

Two-coat work-over — —

Unit masonry 0.500 12.7

Cast-in-place or precast concrete 0.375 9.5

Terra cotta — —

Anchored 1.0 25.4

Adhered 0.25 6.4

*Exclusive of texture.

37.1.5.3

For the purposes of 37.1.5, fenestration products and flashing of fenestration products shall not beconsidered part of the water-resistive barrier.



467 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 524 of 717

Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This is basically clarification on three fronts.

The section refers to the exterior wall assembly and not to the exterior wall itself, meaning thecomplete assembly installed outside of the exterior walls and that provides protection to thebuilding and includes exterior wall coverings. The wall itself is not what is tested.

No testing is required if the exterior wall assembly contains no combustible materials.

These requirements should apply to all exterior wall assemblies containing combustible materialsand not just those that have non-bearing walls.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8059-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

18 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.


468 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 525 of 717

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


Manley, Bonnie E.

There are too many substantial differences between FM4880 and NFPA 285, which have not been addressed bythe new language. Therefore, FM 4880 should not be used as an alternative to NFPA 285.


469 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 526 of 717


37.2.2.3 Combustible Construction.

Balconies and similar projections on buildings of Type III, Type IV, and Type V construction shall bepermitted to be of combustible construction and shall not be required to have a fire resistance ratingwhere the building is protected by an electrically supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordancewith NFPA 13 55.3.1.1 (1) and electrically supervised in accordance with 55.3.2 , and where automaticsprinkler protection is extended to such balconies and projections.


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-8081-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.


470 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 527 of 717

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


471 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 528 of 717


37.4.1

The requirements of Section 37.4 shall apply to MCM having MCM shall have a minimum exterior skinthickness of 0.019 in. (0.5 mm), a minimum interior skin thickness of 0.010 in (0.25 mm), and a maximumpanel thickness of 1⁄4 in. (6.3 mm) where installed on exterior walls.


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The thickness requirements for MCM panels should apply to all types of MCM and thereforethe reference to 37.4 is unnecessary.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8062-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.


472 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 529 of 717

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


473 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 530 of 717


37.4.4.1

The thermal barrier specified in 37.4.4(3) shall not be required where MCM meet meets either of thefollowing conditions:

(1) MCM are is installed as part of a balcony or similar architectural appendage or as exterior trim.

(2) MCM are is approved for the specific installation, based on tests conducted using the maximumthickness intended for use in accordance with one of the following:

(a) NFPA 286, with the acceptance criteria of 10.4.5.2 10.2.3.2

(b) UL 1040, Standard for Fire Test of Insulated Wall Construction

(c) ANSI/ FM Approval 4880, Approval Standard for Class 1 Fire Rating of Insulated Wall or Walland Roof/Ceiling Panels; Interior Finish Materials or Coating, and Exterior Wall SystemsAmerican National Standard for Evaluating the Fire Performance of Insulated Building PanelAssemblies and Interior Finish Materials

(d) UL 1715, Standard for Safety for Fire Test of Interior Finish Material


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Revised document title and the standard received ANSI designation.




Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.


474 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 531 of 717

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


475 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 532 of 717


37.4.5

MCM installed to a maximum height of 40 ft (12 m) above grade plane shall not be required to complywith 37.4.4, provided that one of the following conditions is met it meets either 37.4.5 (1) or 37.4.5 (2)and 37.4.5 (3) as follows :

(1) Where the exterior wall has 60 in. (1525 mm) or less horizontal separation, the MCM shall not covermore than 10 percent of the exterior wall.

(2) Where the exterior wall has 60 in. (1525 mm) or less horizontal separation, the area of the exteriorwall covered by the MCM shall not be limited.

(3) MCM shall meet the requirements of Class B in accordance with Chapter 10, based on the maximumthickness intended for use.

MCM shall be permitted to be installed to a maximum height of 40 ft (12 m) above grade planewhere either 37.4.5 (1)(a) or 37.4.5 (1)(b) and 37.4.5 (1)(c) are met as follows:

MCM shall be permitted to be installed to a maximum height of 50 ft (15 m) above grade plane,provided that all of the following conditions are met:

MCM shall be installed on the exterior wall so that the aggregate area of contiguous panelsbounded by vertical joints and a vertical separation of not less than 48 in. (1220 mm), as

measured to adjacent MCM, does not exceed 300 ft 2 (27.8 m 2 ).

MCM shall have a self-ignition temperature of not less than 650°F (343°C) when tested inaccordance with ASTM D1929, Standard Test Method for Determining Ignition Temperatureof Plastics .

MCM shall meet the requirements of Class B in accordance with Chapter 10 , based on themaximum thickness intended for use.


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This would limit the use of MCM systems that have not shown compliance with NFPA 285 to 40'above grade. This would coordinate the allowable use of MCM systems in the various codes usedin North America and provides a specific height where NFPA 285 is required rather than a series ofminor exceptions.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8124-NFPA 5000-2018



Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

18 Affirmative All


476 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 533 of 717



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


Harrington, John C.

MCM systems should be made to comply with requirements and not given an exception per the listed conditions.MCM systems need to be tested in a large scale manner.


477 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 534 of 717


37.4.8 Foam Plastic Insulation.

Where MCM is included in an exterior wall assembly containing foam plastic insulation, the exterior wallassembly shall comply with the requirements of Section 48.4 .


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This may be clarification but, it is important to make it fully evident. If the entire exterior wallassembly contains foam plastic insulation (even though the MCM itself, of course, cannot containfoam plastic), the entire assembly must meet the requirements of any exterior wall assemblycontaining foam plastic insulation, and they are described in section 48.4.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8063-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.



478 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 535 of 717

Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


479 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 536 of 717


38.2.1.1

Where roof coverings are required by 38.2.2 to be fire resistance rated as either Class A, Class B, orClass C for exterior fire exposure, they shall be tested according to FM Approval 4470, Approval forClass 1 Roof Covers Single-Ply, Polymer-Modified Bitumen Sheet, Built-Up Roof (BUR) and LiquidApplied Roof Assemblies for use in Class 1 and Noncombustible Roof Deck Construction ; UL 790,Standard for Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Roof Covering; or ASTM E108, Standard TestMethods for Fire Tests of Roof Coverings.


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Updated title of reference standard.



Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.



480 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 537 of 717

Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


481 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 538 of 717


38.3.2* Above-Deck Combustible Components Within a Roof Assembly.

In Type I and Type II construction, where above-deck combustible materials are used as components ofthe roof assembly, other than for structural and lightweight structural concrete roof decks or fire-retardant-treated wood decks with minimum 23⁄32 in. (18 mm) thick tongue-and-groove longitudinal edges, Exposure1 wood structural panels, or 1 in. (25 mm) nominal tongue-and-groove boards, the roof assembly shall betested in accordance with one of the following:

(1) FM Approval 4450, Approval Standard for Class 1 Insulated Steel Deck Roofs

(2) FM Approval 4470, Approval Standard for Class 1 Roof Covers Single-Ply, Polymer-ModifiedBitumen Sheet, Built-Up Roof (BUR) and Liquid Applied Roof Assemblies for use in Class 1 andNoncombustible Roof Deck Construction

(3) UL 1256, Standard for Fire Test of Roof Deck Constructions


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Updated title of reference standard.



Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.


482 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 539 of 717

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


483 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 540 of 717


38.4.2 Gravel and Stone.

Global FR-8155

38.4.2.1*

For buildings less than or equal to 60 ft (18 m) in height and located outside of hurricane-prone regions,as defined by ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and OtherStructures, and for locations where the rooftop wind speed (V ASD ) is less than 100 mph (45 m/s), theroof surface shall be protected in accordance with 38.4.2.1.1 or 38.4.2.1.2.

A.38.4.2.1

For buildings in hurricane-prone regions, as defined in ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads andAssociated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures , or where the allowable wind speed (VASD ) atroof level is greater than or equal to 100 mph (45 m/s), the presence of roof aggregate is notrecommended because it can become damaging windborne debris in a high wind event. Convert theultimate wind speeds (V) listed in ASCE/SEI 7 to VASD as shown in the equation below:

[A.38.4.2.1]

The wind speeds listed in ASCE/SEI 7 are effective at 33 ft (10 m) above grade in open terrain(Exposure Category C). To adjust for different roof heights and/or exposures, use Table A.38.4.2.1 .

Table A.38.4.2.1 Maximum Roof Height Based on Nominal Design Wind Speed

Nominal Design Wind Speed VASD(mph)*

Maximum Mean Roof Height (ft)†

ExposureCategory B

ExposureCategory C

ExposureCategory D

85 170 60 30

90 110 35 15

95 75 20 NP

100 55 15 NP

105 40 NP NP

110 30 NP NP

115 20 NP NP

120 15 NP NP

>120 NP NP NP

For SI units, 1 ft = 0.3 m.

NP: Not permitted for any roof height.

*Mean roof height is eqve height for roof slopes equal to or less than 10 degrees and mean height forroof slopes greater than 10 degrees.

†For intermediate values of VASD , the height associated with the next higher value of VASD or directinterpolation can be used.

38.4.2.1.1

For single-ply membranes, gravel ballast or concrete paver blocks shall provide complete membranecoverage and shall be installed in accordance with ANSI/SPRI RP-4, Wind Design Standard for BallastedSingle-Ply Roofing Systems.


484 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 541 of 717

38.4.2.1.2

Built-up and modified bitumen roofs surfaced with gravel or slag applied at a minimum rate of 4 lb/ft2

(19.5 kg/m2) and embedded in a flood coat of hot asphalt or coal tar shall be permitted.

38.4.2.2*

For buildings greater than 60 ft (18 m) in height or located within hurricane-prone regions, as defined byASCE/SEI 7,Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, and forlocations where the rooftop wind speed (V ASD ) is 100 mph (45 m/s) or more, the roof surface shall beprotected in accordance with 38.4.2.2.1 through 38.4.2.2.2.

A.38.4.2.2

See A.38.4.2.1 .

38.4.2.2.1

For single-ply membranes, concrete paver blocks shall provide complete membrane coverage and shallbe installed in accordance with ANSI/SPRI RP-4, Wind Design Standard for Ballasted Single-Ply RoofingSystems .

38.4.2.2.2

For built-up roofs surfaced with gravel or slag, the gravel or slag shall be applied at a minimum rate of

4 lb/ft 2 (19.5 kg/m 2 ). Roof aggregate shall not be permitted for built-up and modified bitumen roofs.

38.4.2.2.2.1

The gravel or slag shall be embedded into a double flood coat of hot asphalt or coal tar to ensure fullembedment.

38.4.2.2.2.2

After cooling, any loose gravel or slag shall be removed from the roof.

38.4.2.2.2.3

All graveled roofs greater than 60 ft (18 m) in height shall have a minimum parapet height of 24 in.(610 mm).


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This addresses concerns related to potential damage from small windborne debris in highwind-prone regions.



Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

17 Affirmative All



0 Abstention


485 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 542 of 717

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zemel, Felix I.



None

Graham, Mark S.

References to "gravel" should be changed to "aggregate" to be consistent with the applicable material standards.

Willse, Peter J.

How about the conversion from mph to m/s for the table.


486 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 543 of 717


38.5.2.1 Tests for Moderate Hail.

All roof assemblies installed in locations classified as moderate hail exposure shall be tested andclassified in accordance with one of the following:

(1) They shall be tested and classified as moderate hail (MH) or severe hail (SH) in accordance with FMApproval 4470, Single-Ply, Polymer-modified Modified Bitumen Sheet, Built-up Built-Up Roof (BUR)and Liquid Applied Roof Covers Assemblies for use in Class I and Non-combustible NoncombustibleRoof Deck Construction.

(2) They shall be tested and classified as Class 2, Class 3, or Class 4 in accordance with UL 2218,Standard for Impact Resistance of Prepared Roof Covering Materials.

(3) They shall be tested and listed as Class 2, Class 3, or Class 4 in accordance with ANSI/FM Approval4473, Test Standard for Impact Resistance Testing of Rigid Roofing Materials by Impacting withFreezer Ice Balls.

38.5.2.2 Tests for Severe Hail.

All roof assemblies installed in locations classified as severe hail exposure shall be tested and classified inaccordance with one of the following:

(1) They shall be tested and classified as severe hail (SH) in accordance with FM Approval 4470, Single-Ply, Polymer-modified Modified Bitumen Sheet, Built-up Built-Up Roof (BUR) and Liquid Applied RoofCovers Assemblies for use in Class I and Non-combustible Noncombustible Roof Deck Construction.

(2) They shall be tested and classified as Class 3 or Class 4 in accordance with UL 2218, Standard forImpact Resistance of Prepared Roof Covering Materials.

(3) They shall be tested and listed as Class 3 or Class 4 in accordance with ANSI/FM Approval 4473,Test Standard for Impact Resistance Testing of Rigid Roofing Materials by Impacting with Freezer IceBalls.


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Updated title of reference document to reflect latest version.


Public Input No. 246-NFPA 5000-2018 [Sections 38.5.2.1, 38.5.2.2]

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

18 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


487 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 544 of 717

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None

Graham, Mark S.

Consideration should be given to adding FM Global's new VSH classification requirements.


488 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 545 of 717


38.9.2.8.1.1 Shingles Tested in Accordance with ASTM D3161.

Where tested in accordance with ASTM D3161/D3161M, Standard Test Method for Wind-Resistance ofSteep Slope Roofing Products (Fan-Induced Method) , asphalt shingles shall be tested for, and shallcomply with, the wind speed as required in Section 35.9.

(A)

For roofs located where the basic maximum allowable stress wind speed required in Section 35.9 ,V ASD , is 85 mph (38 m/s) up to, but not including, 110 mph (49 m/s), asphalt composition shingles shallcomply with, and be labeled as, Class D or Class F in accordance with ASTM D3161/D3161M, StandardTest Method for Wind-Resistance of Steep Slope Roofing Products (Fan-Induced Method) .

(B)

For roofs located where the basic wind speed required in Section 35.9 V ASD is 110 mph (49 m/s) orgreater, asphalt composition shingles shall comply with, and be labeled as, Class F in accordance withASTM D3161/D3161M, Standard Test Method for Wind-Resistance of Steep Slope Roofing Products(Fan-Induced Method) .


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Needed to correlate with new ASCE/SEI 7 reference.


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.


489 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 546 of 717

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


490 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 547 of 717

First Revision No. 8057-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Section No. 38.9.2.8.1.2(A) ]

(A)

Where tested in accordance with UL 2390 and ASTM D6381 D7158/D7158M, Standard Test Method forWind Resistance of Asphalt Shingles (Uplift Force/Uplift Resistance Method) , asphalt compositionshingles shall be suitable for roofs on buildings 60 ft (18 m) or less in height in wind exposures ExposureType B and Exposure Type C, and in Occupancy Category I or Occupancy Category II where the basicwind speed in accordance with Section 35.9 is as follows:

(1) Where less than or equal to V ASD 90 mph (40 m/s), asphalt shingles shall be labeledUL 2390 ASTM D7158 , Class D; UL 2390 ASTM D7158 , Class G; or UL 2390, Class H.

(2) Where less than or equal to 120 mph (54 m/s), asphalt shingles shall be labeled UL 2390, Class G, orUL 2390, Class H.

(3) Where less than or equal to 150 mph (67 m/s), asphalt shingles shall be labeled UL 2390, Class H.


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Needed to correlate with new ASCE/SEI 7 reference.


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

18 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Hall, William J.


491 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 548 of 717

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None

Graham, Mark S.

Section should be retitled "38.9.2.8.1.2 Shingles Tested in Accordance with ASTM D7158". Reference to UL 2390and ASTM D6381 should be deleted. In (1), UL 2390 should be deleted. In (2), Vasd should be added just before120 mp [see (1) revision] 120 mph, and UL 2390 should be changed to ASTM D7158 In (3), Vasd should beadded just before 150 mph, and UL 2390 should be changed to ASTM D7158 In (b) and 38.9.2.8.3, references toASTM "UL 2390 and ASTM D6381" should be changed to "ASTM D7158".


492 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 549 of 717


38.9.3.6 Wind Requirements.

BUR roof assemblies shall be tested for wind resistance in accordance with one of the following applicabletests:

(1) FM Approval 4470, Approval Standard for Class I Roof Covers 4470, Single-Ply, Polymer-ModifedBitumen Sheet, Built-Up Roof (BUR) and Liquid Applied Roof Assemblies for use in Class I andNoncombustible Roof Deck Construction

(2) UL 580, Standard for Tests for Uplift Resistance of Roof Assemblies

(3) UL 1897, Standard for Uplift Tests for Roof Covering Systems


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Updated title of reference document to reflect latest version.



Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


493 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 550 of 717


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


494 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 551 of 717



Modified bitumen roof assemblies shall be tested for wind resistance in accordance with one of thefollowing applicable tests:

(1) FM Approval 4470, Approval Standard for Class I Roof Covers Single-Ply, Polymer-Modified BitumenSheet, Built-Up Roof (BUR) and Liquid Applied Roof Assemblies for use in Class 1 andNoncombustible Roof Deck Construction




Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Change title to reflect latest version of reference standard.



Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


495 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 552 of 717


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


496 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 553 of 717



Metal shingle roof assemblies shall be tested for wind resistance in accordance with one of the followingapplicable tests:



(3) ASTM D3161/D3161M, Standard Test Method for Wind-Resistance of Steep Slope Roofing Products(Fan-Induced Method)

(4) ANSI/FM 4474, American National Standard for Evaluating the Simulated Wind Uplift Resistance ofRoof Assemblies Using Static Positive and/or Negative Differential Pressures


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The additions of these standards keeps it current with industry for wind design.


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


497 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 554 of 717


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


498 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 555 of 717



Mineral-surfaced roll roofing assemblies shall be tested for wind resistance in accordance with one of thefollowing applicable tests:

(1) FM Approval 4470, Approval Standard for Class I Roof Covers 4470, Single-Ply, Polymer-ModifiedBitumen Sheet, Built-Up Roof (BUR) and Liquid Applied Roof Assemblies for use in Class 1 andNoncombustible Roof Deck Construction




Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Update title to reflect latest version of reference document.



Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


499 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 556 of 717


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


500 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 557 of 717



Spray polyurethane foam roof assemblies shall be tested for wind resistance in accordance with one ofthe following applicable tests:





Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Update title to reflect latest version of ref document.



Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


501 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 558 of 717


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


502 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 559 of 717


38.9.12.6.1.1

Adhered sheet membrane roof assemblies shall be tested for wind resistance in accordance with one ofthe following applicable tests:





Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Update title to reflect latest version of reference document.



Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


503 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 560 of 717


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


504 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 561 of 717


38.9.15 Vegetative Roofs.

38.9.15.1*

Vegetative roofs shall comply with 38.9.15.2 through 38.9.15.6.

38.9.15.2*

Sufficient water to prevent plants from dying An irrigation system shall be provided on the roof for thevegetative roof system unless otherwise approved .

A.38.9.15.2

Sufficient water to prevent plants from dying should be available on the roof, particularly at the time ofplant installation as well as when drought conditions exist. Access to sufficient water can be naturallyoccurring and supplemented via irrigation where needed. For vegetative roof systems designed to beself-sustaining without regularly scheduled irrigation, rooftop hose-bibs should be provided to allow forirrigation during initial stages of plant propagation and during drought conditions. For vegetative roofsystems that require regular irrigation (i.e., intensive and lawn-type vegetative roof systems), apermanent irrigation source should be provided.

An intensive vegetative roof is a classification of a roof system where vegetation can consist of a largerange of plant types, including ground cover, herbaceous plants, grasses, woody shrubs, and smalltrees. Intensive vegetative roof systems are intended to simulate landscaped park facilities and typicallyrequire continuous maintenance, including irrigation and fertilization. Growth media for intensivesystems are ≥6 in. (≥150 mm) in depth. (BLD-SCM)

A lawn-type vegetative roof is a classification of a roof system where vegetation can consist of groundcover with growth media of 8 in. to 12 in. (200 mm to 300 mm) in depth. (BLD-SCM)

38.9.15.3

The fire protection design shall comply with 38.9.15.3.1, 38.9.15.3.2 , or 38.9.15.3.2 unless otherwisepermitted by the AHJ .

38.9.15.3.1

Vegetative roofs shall be permitted to be tested in accordance with ANSI/FM 4477, American NationalStandard for Vegetative Roof Systems.

38.9.15.3.2

Vegetative roofs shall be permitted to be designed in accordance with ANSI/SPRI VF-1, External FireDesign Standard for Vegetative Roofing Systems.

38.9.15.3.3

Other types of vegetative roofs shall be permitted as approved.

38.9.15.4*

The design of vegetative roofs with regard to dead, live, rain, snow, earthquake, and wind loads shall be inaccordance with Chapter 35.

38.9.15.5*

Where the ultimate wind speed (VUSD) is greater than or equal to 126 mph (57 m/s), the size andsaturated particle density (SPD) of the aggregate portion of the growth media shall be limited to preventpotential windborne debris damage.


505 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 562 of 717

A.38.9.15.5

The FM Data Sheet 1-35, Green Roofs, does not recommend the use of vegetative roof systems inlocations where the design wind speed (VASD) is greater than or equal to 100 mph (45 m/s). That isapproximately equivalent to an ultimate wind speed (VUSD) of 126 mph (57 m/s) in the 2016 edition ofASCE/SEI 7-16 7 , Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures.The reason for this limitation is to reduce or eliminate the likelihood that growth media will becomewindborne debris and damage windows on adjacent buildings during a wind event.

This FM Data Sheet 1-35 wind restriction should not be in effect provided the saturated particle density(SPD) of the aggregate portion of the growth media complies with Table A.38.9.15.5.

Table A.38.9.15.5 Acceptable Aggregate Size and Density

Saturated Particle Density (SPD)

[lb/in.3 (g/ml)]Aggregate Size (Approximately 100% Passing

Sieve Size of ...)Conclusions

SPD ≤ 0.051 (1.4) 1⁄2 in. (12.5 mm)* Acceptable

0.051 (1.4) < SPD ≤ 0.062 (1.7) 3⁄8 in. (9.5 mm) Acceptable

SPD > 0.062 (1.7) Testing is needed.

*Aggregate size numbers 8, 89, 9, and 10 per ASTM D448, Standard Classification for Sizes ofAggregate for Road and Bridge Construction, require 100 percent of the aggregate to pass a 1⁄2 in.(12.5 mm) sieve test. Aggregate size numbers 7 and 78 require at least 90 percent to pass a 1⁄2 in.(12.5 mm) sieve and 100 percent to pass a 3⁄4 in. (19 mm) sieve test. Sizes 7 and 78 only allow aminimal amount of aggregate above a 1⁄2 in. (12.5 mm) and could also be accepted.

Most growth media used in vegetative roofs is lighter than typical roof aggregate used on top of roofcovers; however, it is usually a type that will retain much moisture, thus increasing its weight. The dryaggregate portion of the growth media is usually 65 percent to 75 percent of the volume of a typicalengineered growth media. The typical size ( [ 0.3 in. to 0.5 in.) (7.6 mm to 13 mm)] of vegetative roofgrowth media is similar to that of roof aggregate used on the multi-ply roof covers. Window glass comesin a variety of types including annealed, heat strengthened, fully tempered, and laminated. All elsebeing equal, the weakest of which is annealed. Annealed glass was chosen as because it could qualifyall other types. Limited testing done at FM Global in 2016 using 1⁄4 in. (6.4 mm) annealed glass indicatesthat green roof systems could be used in locations where VASD is greater than or equal to 100 mph(45 m/s, ASCE/SEI 7-05) ) in the 2005 edition of ASCE/SEI 7 or VUSD is greater than or equal to126 mph (57 m/s) in the 2010 or 2016 editions of ASCE/SEI 7-10 or ASCE/SEI 7-16, for the conditionsin Table A.38.9.15.5.

Where any variables including SPD or size of the aggregate portion of the growth media exceed thelimitations of Table A.38.9.15.5, testing can be conducted to determine the acceptability of the proposedgrowth media. Test procedures and pass/fail criteria can be in accordance with Florida Building CodeTAS 201, Impact Test Procedures, and TAS 203, Criteria for Testing Products Subject to Cyclic WindPressure Loading; or ASTM E1886, Standard Test Method for Performance of Exterior Windows,Curtain Walls, Doors, and Impact Protective Systems Impacted by Missile(s) and Exposed to CyclicPressure Differentials, and ASTM E1996, Standard Specification for Performance of Exterior Windows,Curtain Walls, Doors, and Impact Protective Systems Impacted by Windborne Debris in Hurricanes. Ineither case, the small missile (Missile Level A) criteria should be used; however, the proposed size andSPD of the aggregate portion of the growth media should be substituted for the steel ball normally usedin the test.

The SPD can be determined by submerging a sample of the proposed aggregate portion of the growthmedia into a calibrated beaker of water at 70°F (+/− ± 2°F) [21.1°C (±16.7°C)] for 7 days. Afterremoving the samples from the beaker, the reduction in volume should be noted and the samplesshould be weighed immediately. The sample weight should be divided by the reduction in volume todetermine the SPD.

38.9.15.6*

Plantings approved for the local hardiness zone shall be provided.


Committee: BLD-SCM


506 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 563 of 717


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Vegetative roofs were not originally addressed in the 2018 Edition of NFPA 5000. A TIA wasissued for the 2018 Edition. This reaffirms the TIA and revises the language to make itenforceable.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8149-NFPA 5000-2018



Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

17 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.

Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.




507 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 564 of 717

None


Graham, Mark S.

1) In 38.9.15.2, opposed to the requirement for an irrigation system. This is not practical in climates subject tofreezing weather. 2) In A38.9.15.5, opposed to the premise of Table A38.9.15.5. This concept permits the growingmedia to become windburn and leave the roof. This renders the vegetative roof none-functional and no provisionsfor return the vegetative roof to its intended condition are provided in NFPA 5000. It is best that the criteria berevised to maintain the growing media in-place on the rooftop.


This section is not really a mandatory section as is because it requires irrigation and fire protection unlessotherwise approved. The ahj always is entitled to change requirements and, therefore, adding those words makesthe requirements moot. Section 38.9.15.3.1 says the vegetative roofs shall be tested in accordance with the FMstandard and section 38.9.15.3.2 says they shall be tested in accordance with the SPRI standard but withoutdetails, in either section, as to what is to be tested. I assume the standards require some type of a fire test(perhaps ASTM E108) but it is not clear without obtaining the standard. I also don't know how to compare the twostandards. Is there anywhere a requirement for assessing the structural resistance associated with the weight ofthe vegetative roof? Is the fire performance of any artificial decorative vegetation taken into account? It appearsnot. Is there any requirement for dealing with the vegetation if it is not kept alive? This appears to be only in theannex.


508 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 565 of 717


38.12.1.1*

Rigid roof-mounted photovoltaic solar modules and the roof assembly they are to be mounted over shallcomply with the requirements of this chapter and with one of the following:

(1) ANSI/ FM 4478, Approval Standard for Roof-Mounted Rigid Photovoltaic Modules Module Systems

(2) UL 1703, Standard for Flat-Plate Photovoltaic Modules and Panels, and UL 2703, Standard forSafety for Mounting Systems, Mounting Devices, Clamping/Retention Devices, and Ground Lugs forUse with Flat-Plate Photovoltaic Modules and Panels


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Title has been updated to reflect latest revision of standard. The latest revision has a revisedand more realistic fire test.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8131-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.


509 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 566 of 717

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


510 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 567 of 717


38.12.2.2

Wind resistance for rigid roof-mounted photovoltaic solar modules shall be in accordance with SEAOCPV2, Wind Design for Low-Profile Solar Photovoltaic Arrays on Flat Roofs for Solar Arrays , or ASCE/SEI7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. Where atmosphericboundary layer wind tunnel tests are used to determine wind resistance, the tests shall be in accordancewith ASCE/SEI 49, Wind Tunnel Testing for Buildings and Other Structures.


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Updated title of SEAOC PV 2 to reflect latest version.



Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.


511 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 568 of 717

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


512 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 569 of 717


40.3.7 Cast-in-Place Concrete Construction.

Structural tests and inspections for cast-in-place concrete construction, including post-tensioned concrete,shall be as required in Table 40.3.7 and ACI 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural ConcreteACI 311.7, Inspection Services Specification for Concrete Construction .

Table 40.3.7 Cast-in-Place Concrete Construction

Item

Scope (frequency determined

by RDP responsible for design)

Cast-in-place concreteconstruction qualitycontrol review

Review contractor's field quality control procedures. Review frequency andscope of field testing and inspections.

Mix design Review mix designs prior to placement. Verify use of required mix design.

Materials Review material certifications for conformance to specifications.

Batching plant Review plant quality control procedures and batching and mixing methods.

Reinforcementinstallation

Inspect reinforcing for ASTM type, grade, size, quantity, condition, andplacement. Verify adequate cover per specifications.

Anchor rods Inspect anchor rods prior to and during placement of concrete.

Post-tensioningoperations

Inspect tensioning and anchorage of tendons. Inspect grouting of bondedtendons. Verify concrete strength prior to stressing of tendons and removal ofshores and forms from beams and structural slabs.

FormworkInspect form sizes for proper sizes of concrete members. Verify concretestrength prior to removal of forms and shores from beams and structural slabs.

Concrete placementand sampling freshconcrete

Observe concrete placement operations. Verify conformance to specifications,including cold-weather and hot-weather placement procedures. When concreteis sampled to make strength test specimens, perform slump and air contenttests and determine the temperature of the concrete.

Evaluation of concretestrength

Test and evaluate in accordance with the specifications.

Curing and protection Observe procedures for conformance to the specifications.

Welding reinforcingsteel

Verify weldability of reinforcing steel other than ASTM A706, StandardSpecification for Low-Alloy Steel Deformed and Plain Bars for ConcreteReinforcement .

Mechanical splices Verify proper embedment, joint fit-up, and tightness of mechanical parts.

Shotcrete Inspect shotcrete placement for proper application techniques.


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This list of criteria is not as comprehensive as the list required by ACI 318. ACI 311.7 is written tothe inspector and complies with the requirements of ACI 318.

This code change simplifies this code, references ACI 311.7 on special inspection, and removesconflicts with the requirements of ACI 318.

1) ACI 311.7 is added as a reference with charging language added to in Sections 40.3.7 and 40.3.8


513 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 570 of 717

2) Tables 40.3.7 and 40.3.8 are deleted to avoid conflicts with ACI 318 and ACI 311.7.

3) As not to lose pertinent information provided for precast plant quality assurance and fieldcorrections for precast concrete, new provisions are added as sub-sections 40.3.8.1 and 40.3.8.2.

The list of criteria in NFPA is not as complete or precise as the criteria in ACI 311.7. ACI 311.7 isaligned with ACI 318. The omissions of criteria in ACI 318 from NFPA 5000 suggest that theadditional special inspections required by ACI 318 are not necessary. The result is that the lack ofthe special inspections as identified in ACI 318 could pose life safety issues. Coordinating andmaintaining duplicate lists is always challenging and tends to lead to omissions and errors. Tables 1and 2 of these comments demonstrate where all current criteria in NFPA 5000 are addressed in ACIdocuments.

In addition to the tabular information, ACI 311.7 is written specifically for special inspectors andprovides the necessary direction to aid special inspectors determining compliance. ACI 311.7 alsoincludes references to specifications necessary to properly conduct special inspections for specificelements, ACI 355.4 for post-installed anchors and ACI 311.6 for testing of ready-mixed concrete.

This code change avoids confusion for compliance with the intent of both NFPA 5000 and ACI 318. Italso addresses items omitted form NFPA 5000 but required in ACI 318. Proper special inspectionshould be in accordance with all criteria of ACI 318 and not only the truncated list in NFPA 5000.Without this code change, items crucial for life safety could be omitted from special inspection as theNFPA 5000 list supersedes the criteria of referenced standards.

ACI 311.7 was specifically developed by an ACI committee engaged in special inspectionrequirements. The reference of ACI 311.7 provides the special inspectors a tool without having tolook through all the provisions of ACI 318.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8144-NFPA 5000-2018



Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.


514 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 571 of 717

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


515 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 572 of 717


40.3.8 Precast Concrete.

Structural tests and inspections for precast concrete shall be as required in Table 40.3.8 and ACI 318.this subsection and ACI 311.7, Inspection Services Specification for Concrete Construction .

Table 40.3.8 Precast Concrete Construction

Item

Scope (frequency determined

by RDP responsible for design)

Precast concreteconstruction qualitycontrol review

Review contractor's field quality control procedures. Review frequency andscope of field testing and inspections.

Plant certification/qualitycontrol procedures

Review plant quality control procedures. Inspect plant storage and handlingprocedures. Confirm that approved submittals are in the plant and are beingused for fabrication. Review welder's certifications.

Materials Review material certifications for conformance to specifications.

Formwork Inspect form sizes.

Reinforcement installationInspect reinforcing and prestressing strands for size, quantity, condition, andplacement for conformance with construction documents and submittalsapproved by the RDP responsible for design. Inspect welding.

Mix design Review mix design prior to placement. Verify use of required mix design.

Concrete placement Inspect concrete placement procedures.

Curing and protection Inspect for maintenance of specified curing temperatures and techniques.

Evaluation of concretestrength

Test for conformance to specifications in accordance with approved submittal.

Prestress operationInspect application of prestressing forces. Inspect grouting of bonded, post-tensioned prestressing tendons.

Site-erected precastelements

Inspect for compliance with RDP responsible for design-approved submittalsapproved by the RDP responsible for design and the construction documentsapproved by the RDP responsible for design. Review site storage andhandling procedures for consistency with design of precast elements. Verifythat erection drawings approved by the RDP responsible for design are on-site and are being used for erection. Verify that erection procedures specifiedby the RDP responsible for design are being followed. Observe tensioningand grouting for all bonded post-tensioned tendons. Review welder'scertifications. Monitor finished products for structural defects.

Connections/embeddeditems

Inspect interface connections, including end and edge doweling. Inspectembedments for proper location. Inspect shimming, bearing, bolting, andwelding of connections.

Field correction offabricated items

Review documentation of repair approved by the RDP responsible for design,and verify completion of repairs.

40.3.8.1

Inspection of precast concrete plants shall include review of plant quality control procedures, inspectionof plant storage and handling procedures, confirmation that approved submittals are in the plant and arebeing used for fabrication, and review of the welder's certifications.

40.3.8.2

The RDP responsible for design shall approve field corrections of precast concrete and verifycompletion of repairs.



516 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 573 of 717

Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Reason: There is no reason to provide the list of criteria in the building code when a morecomprehensive list is required by ACI 318.

This code change makes 2 modifications to improve the code to avoid conflicts with the requirementsof ACI 318.

1) Tables 40.3.7 and 40.3.8 are deleted to avoid conflicts with ACI 318.

2) As not to lose pertinent information provided for precast plant quality assurance and fieldcorrections for precast concrete, new provisions are added as sub-sections 40.3.8.1 and 40.3.8.2.

The list of criteria in NFPA 5000 is not as complete or precise as the criteria in ACI 318. Theomissions of criteria in ACI 318 from NFPA 5000 suggest that the additional special inspectionsrequired by ACI 318 are not necessary. The result is that the lack of the special inspections asidentified in ACI 318 could pose life safety issues. Coordinating and maintaining duplicate lists isalways challenging and tends to lead to omissions and errors. Tables 1 and 2 of these commentsdemonstrate where all current criteria in NFPA 5000 are addressed in ACI documents.

This code change avoids confusion for compliance with the intent of both NFPA 5000 and ACI 318. Italso addresses items omitted form NFPA 5000 but required in ACI 318. Proper special inspectionshould be in accordance with all criteria of ACI 318 and not only the truncated list in NFPA 5000.Without this code change items crucial for life safety could be omitted from special inspection as theNFPA 5000 list supersedes the criteria of referenced standards.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8067-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.


517 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 574 of 717

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


518 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 575 of 717


41.7.1 General.

Shotcrete shall be defined as concrete or mortar sprayed pneumatically at high velocity onto a surface.Shotcrete and shall comply with the provisions of this chapter for reinforced and plain concreteconstruction, except as specified in 41.7.2 ACI 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete .


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Shotcrete is now specifically addressed in ACI 318. There is no reason to provide directionother than compliance with ACI 318 and ACI 506.2.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8068-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.



519 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 576 of 717

Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


520 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 577 of 717


43.2 General.

The design and construction of structural elements of unreinforced or reinforced masonry shall complywith ACI 530/530.1 TMS 402/602 , Building Code Requirements and Specification for Masonry Structures,except as modified by other provisions of this chapter.


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

As noted in related changes, in 2013 ACI and ASCE relinquished their rights to the referencedstandards to The Masonry Society. The latest editions of the standards are now referenced only asTMS 402-16 Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures and TMS 602-16 Specificationfor Masonry Structures.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8069-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.



521 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 578 of 717

Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


522 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 579 of 717


43.3 Design.

Masonry structures and their component members shall be designed in accordance with the provisions ofChapter Part 1 of ACI 530/530.1 TMS 402, Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures, andone of the following chapters from ACI 530/530.1 of TMS 402 :

(1) Allowable Stress Design — Chapter 2 8

(2) Strength Design of Masonry — Chapter 3 9

(3) Prestressed Masonry — Chapter 4 10

(4) AAC Masonry — Chapter 11

(5) Veneer — Chapter 6 12

(6) Glass Unit Masonry — Chapter 7 13

(7) Empirical Design of Masonry — Chapter 5 Appendix A


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

As noted in related changes, in 2013 ACI and ASCE relinquished their rights to the referencedstandards to The Masonry Society. The latest editions of the standards are now referenced only asTMS 402-16 Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures and TMS 602-16 Specification forMasonry Structures. Revisions proposed reflect the new layout of the standard and the correctchapters and appendices.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8070-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All



523 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 580 of 717

Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


524 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 581 of 717


43.4 Construction Documents.

Information designated in Section 1.2 of ACI 530/530.1 TMS 402, Building Code Requirements forMasonry Structures , shall be shown on construction documents.


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-8072-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.



525 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 582 of 717

Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


526 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 583 of 717


Sections] ]

Material for masonry construction shall be according to Part 2 of ACI 530.1/ASCE 6/ TMS 602,Specification for Masonry Structures.


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-8076-NFPA 5000-2018

Public Input No. 76-NFPA 5000-2018 [Section No. 43.6 [Excluding any Sub-Sections]]

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.


527 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 584 of 717

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


528 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 585 of 717


Sections] ]

Masonry construction shall comply with the requirements of 43.7.1 through 43.7.4 and ACI 530.1/ASCE6/ TMS 602, Specification for Masonry Structures .


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-8077-NFPA 5000-2018

Public Input No. 77-NFPA 5000-2018 [Section No. 43.7 [Excluding any Sub-Sections]]

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.


529 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 586 of 717

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


530 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 587 of 717

First Revision No. 8071-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Sections 43.7.1, 43.7.2, 43.7.3, 43.7.4 ]

43.7.1

Open-end units with beveled ends shall be fully grouted.

43.7.2

Head joints of open-end units with beveled ends shall not be required to be mortared.

43.7.3

The beveled ends of open-end units shall form a grout key that allows grouts within 5 ⁄8 in. (16 mm) ofthe face of the unit.

43.7.4

Open-end units shall be placed to prevent leakage of the grout.


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The requirements shown in NFPA 5000 are now included in the referenced standard TMS602-16, Article 3.3 B6 and are thus no longer needed here.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8071-NFPA 5000-2018

Public Input No. 79-NFPA 5000-2018 [Sections 43.7.1, 43.7.2, 43.7.3, 43.7.4]

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve


531 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 588 of 717

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


532 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 589 of 717


43.8.1 General.

In addition to the requirements of this chapter, the design and construction of masonry elements shallcomply with the requirements of Section 1.14 of ACI 530/530.1 Chapter 7 of TMS 402, Building CodeRequirements for Masonry Structures .


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

As noted in related changes, in 2013 ACI and ASCE relinquished their rights to the referencedstandards to The Masonry Society. The latest editions of the standards are now referenced only asTMS 402-16 Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures and TMS 602-16 Specification forMasonry Structures. Revisions proposed reflect the new layout of the standard and the correctchapter for Seismic Design Requirements for Masonry.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8075-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


533 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 590 of 717


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


534 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 591 of 717


43.8.2 One- and Two-Family Dwellings.

For detached one- and two-family dwellings of light-frame construction two or fewer stories in height,masonry veneer shall comply with the requirements of ACI 530/530.1, except that the isolationrequirements of ACI 530/530.1, Section 6.2.2.10.1.2, and the independent support requirements foreach story specified in ACI 530/530.1, Section 6.2.2.10.2.2, shall not apply in Seismic Design CategoryD.

43.8.2.1

For detached one- and two-family dwellings of light-frame construction two or fewer stories in height,masonry veneer shall comply with the requirements of ACI 530/530.1 Chapter 6 of TMS 402, BuildingCode Requirements for Masonry Structures .

43.8.2.2

The isolation requirements of ACI 530/530.1, Section 6.2.2.10.1.2, 12.2.2.11.1 of TMS 402, BuildingCode Requirements for Masonry Structures, and the independent support requirements for each storyspecified in ACI 530/530.1, Section 6.2.2.10.2.2, 12.2.2.11.2.2 of TMS 402, shall not apply in SeismicDesign Category D.


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

As noted in related changes, in 2013 ACI and ASCE relinquished their rights to the referencedstandards to The Masonry Society. The latest editions of the standards are now referenced only asTMS 402-16 Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures and TMS 602-16 Specification forMasonry Structures. Revisions proposed reflect the new layout of the standard and the correctsection references.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8074-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


535 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 592 of 717


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


536 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 593 of 717


44.2.2.1.1 Seismic Design Category B or Seismic Design Category C.

44.2.2.1.1.1

Structural steel buildings assigned to Seismic Design Category B or Seismic Design Category C shall beof any construction permitted in AISC ANSI/AISC 360, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings .

Global FR-8155

44.2.2.1.1.2

Where a response modification coefficient, R, in accordance with Table 12.2-1 of ASCE/SEI 7, MinimumDesign Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, Table 12.2-1, is used for thedesign of structural steel buildings assigned to Seismic Design Category B or Seismic Design CategoryC, the seismic force-resisting system shall be designed and detailed in accordance with the provisions ofANSI/AISC 341, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, except as permitted in 44.2.2.1.1.4.

44.2.2.1.1.3

Beam-to-column connections in special moment frames and intermediate moment frames shall beprequalified in accordance with Section K1 of ANSI/AISC 341, Seismic Provisions for Structural SteelBuildings , qualified by testing in accordance with Section K2 of ANSI/AISC 341, or prequalified inaccordance with ANSI/AISC 358, Prequalified Connections for Special and Intermediate Steel MomentFrames for Seismic Applications .

44.2.2.1.1.4

In Table 12.2-1 of ASCE/SEI 7, Table 12.2-1 , Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria forBuildings and Other Structures , the response modification coefficient, R, designated for “steel systemsnot specifically detailed for seismic resistance, excluding cantilever column systems,” shall be permittedto be used only for systems designed and detailed in accordance with the provisions of ANSI/ AISC 360,Specification for Structural Steel Buildings only .


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This introduces a new reference to an existing AISC standard in Section 44.2.2.1.1. First issued in2005, AISC 358 includes specific requirements for a number of prequalified connections forintermediate special moment frames and special moment frames. In years past, it has beenacceptable for AISC 358 to be a direct reference in AISC 341. However, supplements are now beingprocessed for AISC 358 more frequently than new editions of AISC 341. This has the net effect of notrecognizing these newer supplements in the building code, thus leading to confusion for buildingofficials, registered design professionals and manufacturers of the prequalified connections.Introduction of a direct reference in NFPA 5000 permits the most up-to-date edition of the standard tobe referenced.

It adopts a new supplement for AISC 358, which is not recognized by AISC 341-16. AISC 358-16Supplement 1(2018) adds a new prequalified moment connection, the proprietary SlottedWebMoment Connection, in a new Chapter 14. Additionally, Chapter 11 covering the SidePlate MomentConnection has been expanded to include HSS columns and to permit bolted connections. Finally,Chapter 10 covering the ConXtech CONXL Moment Connection has been revised to address amanufacturing safety issue.

AISC standards are free and can be downloaded from: https://www.aisc.org/.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8079-NFPA 5000-2018


537 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 594 of 717


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


538 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 595 of 717


44.2.2.1.2 Seismic Design Category D, Seismic Design Category E, or Seismic Design Category F.

Global FR-8155

44.2.2.1.2.1

Seismic force-resisting systems in structural steel buildings assigned to Seismic Design Category D,Seismic Design Category E, or Seismic Design Category F shall be designed and detailed in accordancewith ANSI/AISC 341, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings , except as permitted in Table15.4.1 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and OtherStructures Table 15.4.1.

44.2.2.1.2.2

Beam-to-column connections in special moment frames and intermediate moment frames shall beprequalified in accordance with Section K1 of ANSI/AISC 341, Seismic Provisions for Structural SteelBuildings , qualified by testing in accordance with Section K2 of ANSI/AISC 341, or prequalified inaccordance with ANSI/AISC 358, Prequalified Connections for Special and Intermediate Steel MomentFrames for Seismic Applications .


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This introduces a new reference to an existing AISC standard in Section 44.2.2.1.2. First issued in2005, AISC 358 includes specific requirements for a number of prequalified connections forintermediate special moment frames and special moment frames. In years past, it has beenacceptable for AISC 358 to be a direct reference in AISC 341. However, supplements are now beingprocessed for AISC 358 more frequently than new editions of AISC 341. This has the net effect of notrecognizing these newer supplements in the building code, thus leading to confusion for buildingofficials, registered design professionals and manufacturers of the prequalified connections.Introduction of a direct reference in the NFPA 5000 permits the most up-to-date edition of thestandard to be referenced.

This adopts a new supplement for AISC 358, which is not recognized by AISC 341-16. AISC 358-16Supplement 1(2018) adds a new prequalified moment connection, the proprietary SlottedWebMoment Connection, in a new Chapter 14. Additionally, Chapter 11 covering the SidePlate MomentConnection has been expanded to include HSS columns and to permit bolted connections. Finally,Chapter 10 covering the ConXtech CONXL Moment Connection has been revised to address amanufacturing safety issue.

AISC standards are free and can be downloaded from: https://www.aisc.org/.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8080-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned


539 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 596 of 717

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


540 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 597 of 717


44.6 Steel Storage Racks.

44.6.1

This subsection shall apply to steel storage racks that include, but are not limited to, pallet storageracks, selective racks, movable-shelf racks, rack-supported systems, automated storage and retrievalsystems (stacker racks), push-back racks, pallet-flow racks, case-flow racks, pick modules, and rack-supported platforms.

44.6.2

Steel storage racks shall not include other types of rackswhere such other racks are classified as drive-in or drive-through racks, cantilever racks, or portable racks, or where parts of such racks are made ofmaterials other than steel.

44.6.1

The design, testing, and utilization of steel storage racks at or below grade shall be in accordance withRMI/ ANSI MH16.1, Specification for the Design, Testing and Utilization of Industrial Steel Storage Racks.

44.6.2

The design, testing, and utilization of cantilevered storage racks shall be in accordance with RMI/ANSIMH16.3, Specification for the Design, Testing and Utilization of Industrial Steel Cantilevered StorageRacks .

Global FR-8155

44.6.3

Where required by ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and OtherStructures, the seismic design of steel storage racks and cantilever storage racks shall also be inaccordance with the requirements of Section 15.5.3 of ASCE/SEI 7.


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revision adopts a new standard for cantilever storage racks, MH 16.3. Second, it makes afew editorial improvements to the section. The first two sections are not necessary because thescope clarifies what is covered.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8078-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention


541 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 598 of 717

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


542 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 599 of 717


45.5.8 Cross-Laminated Timber.

Cross-laminated timbers shall be manufactured and identified as required by ANSI/APA PRG 320-2011. ,Standard for Performance-Rated Cross-Laminated Timber .


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This product standard has been updated and now includes more strigent requirements forand testing of adhesives.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8082-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.


543 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 600 of 717

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


544 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 601 of 717


46.8.4

The requirements for sloped glazing and skylight frames shall be as follows:

(1) In Type I and Type II construction, sloped glazing and skylight frames shall be constructed ofnoncombustible materials.

(2) In structures where acid fumes deleterious to metal are incidental to the use of the buildings,approved pressure-treated wood or other approved noncorrosive materials shall be permitted to beused for sash and frames.

(3) Sloped glazing and skylights shall be designed for tributary roof loads in Section 35.7.

(4) Skylights set at an angle of less than 45 degrees (0.79 rad) from the horizontal plane shall bemounted at least 4 in. (100 mm) above the plane of the roof on a curb construction as required for theframe.

(5) Skylights shall not be installed in the plane of the roof where the roof pitch is less than 45 degrees(0.79 rad) from the horizontal.

(6) Curbs for skylights shall not be required on roofs with a minimum slope of 14 degrees (3 units verticalin 12 units horizontal) in one- and two-family dwellings, and the following also shall apply:

(a) All unit skylights installed in a roof with a pitch flatter than 14 degrees (0.25 rad) shall bemounted at least 4 in. (100 mm) above the plane of the roof on a curb construction as requiredfor the frame.

(b) The requirement of 46.8.4(6)(a) shall not apply unless otherwise specified in the manufacturer'sinstallation instructions.


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: It is unnecessary to specify a process.



Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.


545 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 602 of 717

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


546 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 603 of 717


48.3.3.2*

The thermal barrier material shall comply with one of the following:

(1) The thermal barrier shall be 1⁄2 in. (13 mm) gypsum board.

(2) The thermal barrier material shall comply with the requirements of the temperature transmission firetest and of the integrity fire test in NFPA 275.

(3) The thermal barrier material shall comply with the temperature transmission test in NFPA 275 andwith the conditions of acceptance of ANSI/ FM Approval 4880, Class 1 Fire Rating of Insulated Wallor Wall and Roof/Ceiling Panels, Interior Finish Materials, or Coatings and Exterior WallSystems American National Standard for Evaluating the Fire Performance of Insulated Building PanelAssemblies and Interior Finish Materials ; ANSI/UL 1040, Standard for Fire Test of Insulated WallConstruction; or ANSI/UL 1715, Standard for Fire Test of Interior Finish Material, when tested inconjunction with the foam plastic insulation for a period of 15 minutes.

(4) Heavy timber [Type IV(2HH)] shall be permitted to be used as a thermal barrier material in a roofdeck.


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Revised document title and standard received ANSI designation.




Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.


547 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 604 of 717

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


548 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 605 of 717


48.4.4.1

The requirements of 48.3.3 through 48.4.3 shall be permitted to be replaced by special testing, and theapproval of foam plastic shall be based on large-scale tests such as, but not limited to, the following:

(1) UL 1715, Standard for Fire Test of Interior Finish Material, including smoke measurements, with total

smoke release not to exceed 10,764 ft2 (1000 m2)

(2) UL 1040, Standard for Fire Test of Insulated Wall Construction

(3) ANSI/ FM Approval 4880, Approval American National Standard for Class 1 Evaluating the FireRating Performance of Insulated Wall or Wall and Roof/Ceiling Panels, Building Panel Assembliesand Interior Finish Materials or Coating, and Exterior Wall Systems

(4) NFPA 286 with the acceptance criteria of 10.4.5.2 10.2.3.2


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement




Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.


549 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 606 of 717

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


550 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 607 of 717


48.4.4.3

Cellular or foamed plastic materials tested in accordance with UL 1040, Standard for Fire Test of InsulatedWall Construction, or ANSI/ FM Approval 4880, Approval American National Standard forClass I Evaluating the Fire Rating Performance of Insulated Wall or Wall and Roof/CeilingPanels, Building Panel Assemblies and Interior Finish Materials or Coating, and Exterior Wall Systems ,shall also be tested for smoke release using NFPA 286, with the acceptance criterion of total smoke

release not exceeding 10,764 ft2 (1000 m2).


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement




Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.



551 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 608 of 717

Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


552 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 609 of 717


48.7.2 Flammability Specifications.

Plastics used for exterior veneer and light-transmitting applications shall meet all of the following criteria:

(1) They shall have a self-ignition temperature of 650°F (343°C) or greater when tested in accordancewith ASTM D1929, Standard Test Method for Determining Ignition Temperature of Plastics .

(2) They shall have a smoke developed index not greater than 450 when tested in the manner intendedfor use in accordance with ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics ofBuilding Materials , or UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of BuildingMaterials , or a smoke density rating not greater than 75 when tested in the thickness intended foruse in accordance with ASTM D2843, Standard Test Method for Density of Smoke from the Burningor Decomposition of Plastics.

(3) They shall meet the criteria of one of the following classifications:

(a) CC1 — Plastic materials that have a burn length of 1 in. (25 mm) or less and flameextinguishment when tested at a nominal thickness of 0.060 in. (1.5 mm), or in the thicknessintended for use, in accordance with ASTM D635, Standard Test Method for Rate of Burningand/or Extent and Time of Burning of Plastics in a Horizontal Position

(b) CC2 — Plastic materials that have a burning rate of 21⁄2 in./min (64 mm/min) or less when testedat a nominal thickness of 0.060 in. (1.5 mm), or at a thickness intended for use, in accordancewith ASTM D635


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

ASTM E84 assesses smokde eveloped index values but ASTM D2843 assesses smokedensity rating values. No changes are proposed for CC1 or CC2.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8060-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.


553 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 610 of 717

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


554 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 611 of 717


48.7.6.6

Where the building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance withNFPA 13, the maximum percentage area of an exterior wall in any story in light-transmitting plastic wallpanels, and the maximum square footage of a single area given in Table 48.7.6.5.1, shall be permitted tobe increased by 100 percent provided that the area of light-transmitting plastic wall panels does notexceed 50 percent of the wall area in any story, or the area permitted for unprotected openings, whicheveris smaller. These limitations shall be exempt from height limitations.


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This eliminates the permission for light transmitting wall panels to be installed in unlimited heightswhen the building is protected by sprinklers. There should be no allowance to use light transmittingwall panels in unlimited heights simply because of sprinkler exceptions, since sprinklers do notcontrol outside fires. According to an NFPA study published in 2014 (Fire Hazards of Exterior WallAssemblies Containing Combustible Components), slightly more than half of the exterior facade firesoriginated from interior ignition. Sprinklers will help restrict an interior fire from reaching the exteriorfacade, but will have limited effect on exterior ignition or fire spread across combustible assemblies.

Also keep in mind that when these fires occur, occupants have little choice but to evacuate and stairsare not designed for full building evacuation. It can be expected that evacuating occupants willencounter stairs overflowing with other evacuating occupants. As observed during the 63 storyAddress Hotel fire in Dubai on New Year’s Eve 2015, these situations increase the tendency to panicand cause crushes. In addition, most stair pressurization systems take outside air from the roof,which can be expected to bring in contaminated air, decreasing the level of comfort for evacuatingoccupants. And, those aren't even the worst scenarios. When occupants evacuate stair enclosures atgrade, they are greeted with flaming debris raining down on them.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8061-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.


555 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 612 of 717

Affirmative All


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


556 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 613 of 717


55.2.2.10.3

In new construction, where required by Chapters 15 through 31 and 33 through 34 , the alarmnotification signal in sleeping rooms resulting from activation of smoke alarms shall be a 520 Hz low-frequency signal complying with NFPA 72 . The effective date for compliance with 55.2.2.10.3 shall beJanuary 1, 2023.


Committee: BLD-BSF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

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

ResponseMessage:

FR-8134-NFPA 5000-2018

Public Input No. 57-NFPA 5000-2018 [Sections 55.2.2.10.2, 55.2.2.10.3]

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention


557 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 614 of 717

Not Returned

Donga, Paul M.

Jardin, Joseph M.

Klinker, Richard L.

White, Kristian

Affirmative All

Balido, Jodi S

Bradley, Harry L.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Brock, Pat D.

Chen, Flora F.

Dempsey, Bryan

Grill, Raymond A.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Hutton, Claude O.

Kellett, Michael

Lazarz, Daniel J.

Panowitz, Scott E.

Reed, Ray F.

Reiswig, Rodger


Ruchala, Kurt A.

Shudak, Lawrence J.

Szmanda, Michael R.

Warner, Todd W.

Wren, Carl D.

Wyatt, David M.


Dale, Stephen E.

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

Killian, David A.

This requirement falls under the jurisdiction of the Fire Alarm Code (NFPA 72) and should be clearly stated there,not NFPA 5000. Placing it into Building Construction and Safety Code would create conflict and confusionbetween the 2 Codes.

Larrimer, Peter A.

It seems to me that NFPA 72, 29.5.10.1 already requires those rooms that are required to be accessible for thosewith mild to severe hearing loss as identified in NFPA 72 to be provided with the low frequency alarms and there isno effective date of 2023. Since NFPA 5000 references NFPA 72 for the installation of smoke alarms, the lowfrequency alarms are already going to be required in those rooms that are to be accessible by ADA or similar law.However, this change appears to establish a requirement for all smoke alarms provided in any sleeping room tobe designed for those with mild to severe hearing loss as identified in NFPA 72. It doesn’t appear that justificationhas been provided to mandate this in NFPA 5000. If this is such a good idea, why not mandate the installation low


558 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 615 of 717

frequency alarms in all sleeping rooms in NFPA 72 so there is no apparent conflict. While enhanced audiblecharacteristics in smoke alarms in every sleeping room of every occupancy might be beneficial, the increase insafety versus the increase in costs, has not been established, especially when one considers that NFPA 5000 alsousually requires sprinkler protection to be installed to protect sleeping occupants in the occupancy chapters.


559 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 616 of 717


55.2.3.2.1

In new construction, where required by Chapters 15 through 31 and 33 through 34 , the alarmnotification signal in sleeping rooms resulting from activation of smoke alarms shall be a 520 Hz low-frequency signal complying with NFPA 72 . The effective date for compliance with 55.2.3.2.1 shall beJanuary 1, 2023.

55.2.3.2.2

Elevator lobby, hoistway, and associated machine room smoke detectors used solely for elevator recall,and heat detectors used solely for elevator power shutdown, shall not be required to activate the buildingevacuation alarm if the power supply and installation wiring to such detectors are monitored by thebuilding fire alarm system, and if the activation of such detectors initiates a supervisory signal at aconstantly attended location.


Committee: BLD-BSF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

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

ResponseMessage:

FR-8136-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters


560 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 617 of 717

4 Not Returned

21 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Donga, Paul M.

Jardin, Joseph M.

Klinker, Richard L.

White, Kristian

Affirmative All

Balido, Jodi S

Bradley, Harry L.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Brock, Pat D.

Chen, Flora F.

Dempsey, Bryan

Grill, Raymond A.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Hutton, Claude O.

Kellett, Michael

Lazarz, Daniel J.

Panowitz, Scott E.

Reed, Ray F.

Reiswig, Rodger


Ruchala, Kurt A.

Shudak, Lawrence J.

Szmanda, Michael R.

Warner, Todd W.

Wren, Carl D.

Wyatt, David M.


Dale, Stephen E.

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

Killian, David A.

This requirement falls under the jurisdiction of the Fire Alarm Code (NFPA 72) and should be clearly stated there,not NFPA 5000. Placing it into Building Construction and Safety Code would create conflict and confusionbetween the 2 Codes.

Larrimer, Peter A.


561 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 618 of 717

There is no reason to add this to NFPA 5000. A fire alarm system required by NFPA 5000 points the user toNFPA 72. NFPA 72, 18.4.6.3 already requires low frequency audibles for sleeping areas that are intended toawaken occupants. Adding this in Chapter 55 and the other companion requirements in the occupancy chapters isdetrimental to the code. For example, for Large Board and Care Occupancies, a new fire alarm system is requiredwith low frequency sounders to wake the residents, but only because NFPA 5000 points to NFPA 72 for theinstallation and the requirement is already in Chapter 18 of NFPA 72. Since this new section has the requirementof “where required by Chapter 15 through 31…” it implies that low frequency audibles are not required since therequirement for low frequency audibles has not been added in the board and care chapter. This requirementshould be deleted from Chapter 55. In addition, the new requirements added to all the occupancy chapters shouldbe also be deleted. Low frequency audibles are already a requirement since NFPA 5000 requires fire alarmsystem to be installed in accordance with the requirements of NFPA 72 and NFPA 72 requires the low frequencyalarms in Chapter 18.


562 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 619 of 717


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

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

A.55.2.5

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


Committee: BLD-BSF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

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

ResponseMessage:

FR-8138-NFPA 5000-2018

Public Input No. 274-NFPA 5000-2018 [New Section after 55.2.4.2]

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Donga, Paul M.

Jardin, Joseph M.

Klinker, Richard L.

White, Kristian

Affirmative All

Balido, Jodi S


563 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 620 of 717

Bradley, Harry L.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Brock, Pat D.

Chen, Flora F.

Dempsey, Bryan

Grill, Raymond A.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Hutton, Claude O.

Kellett, Michael

Killian, David A.

Lazarz, Daniel J.

Panowitz, Scott E.

Reed, Ray F.

Reiswig, Rodger


Ruchala, Kurt A.

Shudak, Lawrence J.

Szmanda, Michael R.

Warner, Todd W.

Wren, Carl D.

Wyatt, David M.


Dale, Stephen E.

.


Larrimer, Peter A.

NFPA 5000 should not try to restrict specific systems. This (Monitor-It-Yourself {MIY} System) is only one systemand I have no idea what it is, but NFPA 5000, 5.2.4 already requires off premises connections to be by one of fourtypes that are recognized in NFPA 72. If this MIY System meets one of those four types, it should be okay,otherwise it already doesn’t meet the code. Chapter 55 should not try to restrict each system that doesn’t meet therequirements of this code.


564 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 621 of 717


55.4.1

New buildings shall be equipped with a Class I standpipe system installed in accordance withNFPA 14 the provisions of NFPA 1 where any of the following conditions exist:

(1) The building is four or more stories in height. More than three stories above grade where the buildingis protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system

(2) More than two stories above grade where the building is not protected by an approved automaticsprinkler system

(3)

(4) The building is more More than one story below grade plane.

(5) The building is more More than 20 ft (6100 mm) (6.1 m) below grade plane.

[ 1: 13.2.2.2]


Committee: BLD-BSF


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The standpipe provisions from NFPA 1 should be extracted.



Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Donga, Paul M.

Jardin, Joseph M.

Klinker, Richard L.

* The building is more More than 50 ft (15 m) above grade plane and contains containingintermediate stories or balconies

A.55.4.1(3)

Building height should be measured in accordance with the building code adopted in thejurisdiction. [ 1: A.13.2.2.2(3)]


565 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 622 of 717

White, Kristian

Affirmative All

Balido, Jodi S

Bradley, Harry L.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Brock, Pat D.

Chen, Flora F.

Dempsey, Bryan

Grill, Raymond A.

Hutton, Claude O.

Kellett, Michael

Killian, David A.

Larrimer, Peter A.

Lazarz, Daniel J.

Panowitz, Scott E.

Reed, Ray F.

Reiswig, Rodger


Ruchala, Kurt A.

Shudak, Lawrence J.

Szmanda, Michael R.

Warner, Todd W.

Wren, Carl D.

Wyatt, David M.


Dale, Stephen E.

.


Hugo, Jeffrey M.

I agree with the extract correlation with NFPA 1, but the charging text for the installation of standpipes should beto the installation standard, NFPA 14, not another code.


566 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 623 of 717


55.11 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Detection and Warning Equipment.

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


Committee: BLD-BSF


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The requirements are now found in 72.


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Donga, Paul M.

Jardin, Joseph M.

Klinker, Richard L.

White, Kristian

Affirmative All

Balido, Jodi S

Bradley, Harry L.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Brock, Pat D.

Chen, Flora F.

Dempsey, Bryan

Grill, Raymond A.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Hutton, Claude O.

Kellett, Michael

Killian, David A.


567 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 624 of 717

Larrimer, Peter A.

Lazarz, Daniel J.

Panowitz, Scott E.

Reed, Ray F.

Reiswig, Rodger


Ruchala, Kurt A.

Shudak, Lawrence J.

Szmanda, Michael R.

Warner, Todd W.

Wren, Carl D.

Wyatt, David M.


Dale, Stephen E.

.


568 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 625 of 717


55.13* Risk Analysis for Mass Notification Systems.

55.13.1 Where Required.

55.13.1.1*

Where required by Chapters 11 through 43 another section of this Code , a risk analysis for massnotification systems shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 24 of NFPA 72,and the provisions of 55.13.2 through 55.13.3 .

A.55.13.1.1

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

55.13.1.2

Where a mass notification system is required by the risk analysis in 55.13.1.1, the system shall be inaccordance with the requirements of Chapter 24 of NFPA 72.

55.13.2 Purpose.

55.13.2.1

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

55.13.2.2

The purpose of the emergency action plan (EAP) for the mass notification system shall be to identify themass notification system design and performance requirements in accordance with the results of therisk analysis.

55.13.3 Documentation.

55.13.3.1

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

55.13.3.2*

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

A.55.13.3.2

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


Committee: BLD-BSF


Committee Statement


569 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 626 of 717

CommitteeStatement:

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

working to develop examples of risk analysis levels for the Second Draft meeting.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8142-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Donga, Paul M.

Jardin, Joseph M.

Klinker, Richard L.

White, Kristian

Affirmative All

Balido, Jodi S

Bradley, Harry L.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Brock, Pat D.

Chen, Flora F.

Dempsey, Bryan

Grill, Raymond A.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Hutton, Claude O.

Kellett, Michael

Killian, David A.

Larrimer, Peter A.

Lazarz, Daniel J.

Panowitz, Scott E.

Reed, Ray F.

Reiswig, Rodger


Ruchala, Kurt A.

Shudak, Lawrence J.

Szmanda, Michael R.

Warner, Todd W.

Wren, Carl D.


570 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 627 of 717

Wyatt, David M.


Dale, Stephen E.

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


571 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 628 of 717


55.14* Two-Way Radio Communication Enhancement Systems.

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

A.55.14

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


Committee: BLD-BSF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision seeks to:

1. Ensure reliable emergency responder communications in new buildings when theauthority having

jurisdiction determines the building fails to meet the radio thresholds specified in NFPA 1221.

2. Correlate the requirements for two-way radio communication enhancement systems withsection

11.10 of NFPA 1 and section 510 of the International Fire Code.

Two-way radio communication enhancement systems are designed to protect life andproperty by

assuring effective public safety radio communications among emergency responsepersonnel during

fire and all other emergencies.

This revision is supported by the scope of the Code. Code requirements that contribute tothe safe movement of

people during fire emergencies might also assist in responding to many other hazards thatrequire

decisions about where people can be safely located.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8141-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned


572 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 629 of 717

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Donga, Paul M.

Jardin, Joseph M.

Klinker, Richard L.

White, Kristian

Affirmative All

Balido, Jodi S

Bradley, Harry L.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Brock, Pat D.

Chen, Flora F.

Dempsey, Bryan

Grill, Raymond A.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Hutton, Claude O.

Kellett, Michael

Killian, David A.

Larrimer, Peter A.

Lazarz, Daniel J.

Panowitz, Scott E.

Reed, Ray F.

Reiswig, Rodger


Ruchala, Kurt A.

Shudak, Lawrence J.

Szmanda, Michael R.

Warner, Todd W.

Wren, Carl D.

Wyatt, David M.


Dale, Stephen E.

This is where this requirement belongs, and not in 101.


573 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 630 of 717

First Revision No. 8458-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Section No. A.22.1.1.2 ]

A.22.1.1.2

The Code specifies that, wherever there are three or more living units in a building, the building isconsidered an apartment building and is required to comply with Chapter 25 either Chapter 30 orChapter 31 , as appropriate . A townhouse unit is considered to be an apartment building if there are threeor more units in the building. The type of wall required between units in order to consider them asseparate buildings is normally established by the authority having jurisdiction. If the units are separatedby a wall of sufficient fire resistance and structural integrity to be considered as separate buildings, thenthe provisions of Chapter 22 24 apply to each townhouse. Condominium status is a form of ownership,not occupancy; for example, there are condominium warehouses, condominium apartments, andcondominium offices.

The provisions of 22.1.1.2 24.1.1.2 state that, in one- and two-family dwellings, each dwelling unit can be“occupied by members of a single family with not more than three outsiders. … ” The Code does notdefine the term family. The definition of the term familyis might be subject to federal, state, and localregulations and might not be restricted to a person or a couple (two people) and their children. Thefollowing examples aid in differentiating between a one single -family dwelling and a lodging or roominghouse:

(1) An individual or a couple (two people) who rent a house from a landlord and then sublease space forup to three individuals should be considered a family renting to a maximum of three outsiders, andthe house should be regulated as a one single -family dwelling in accordance with Chapter 22 24 .

(2) A house rented from a landlord by an individual or a couple (two people) in which space is subleasedto 4 or more individuals, but not more than 16, should be considered and regulated as a lodging orrooming house in accordance with Chapter 23 26 .

(3) A residential building that is occupied by 4 or more individuals, but not more than 16, each rentingfrom a landlord, without separate cooking facilities, should be considered and regulated as a lodgingor rooming house in accordance with Chapter 23 26 .

It is not the intent of the Code to restrict occupancy to persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption asin the traditional opinion of a family. Regulations affecting occupant safety under the Life Safety Codediffer greatly from zoning regulations that attempt to control who may, and who may not, live in aresidential area designated a “single family” zone. Community zoning regulations address problems ofnoise, pollution, littering, overcrowding, and traffic. Restricting occupancy of single-family housing basedon the biological or legal relationships between its inhabitants bears no reasonable relationship to thegoals of life safety.

A group of nonrelatives living together in a nontraditional group can be the “functional equivalent” of amore traditional family unit. The factors that must be considered by the authority having jurisdiction arewhether the group shares the entire house other than individual bedrooms, lives, cooks, and functionstogether as a single housekeeping unit, and is primarily nontransient.


Committee: BLD-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

To address the common occurrence of nonrelatives living together in a nontraditionalgroup.


Public Input No. 264-NFPA 5000-2018 [Section No. A.22.1.1.2]

Ballot Results

This item has not been balloted


574 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 631 of 717


A.3.3.68.16 Special Amusement Building.

Special amusement buildings include amusements such as a haunted house, a roller coaster-type ridewithin a building, a multilevel play structure within a building, a submarine ride, and similar amusementswhere the occupants are not in the open air typically found in theme parks such as a roller coaster–typeride within a building, a multilevel play structure within a building, a submarine ride, and similaramusements where the occupants are not in the open air and might or might not be confined to a ridevehicle and/or unable to self-evacuate. Examples of temporary special amusement buildings includemobile fun-houses typically found in carnivals or a gymnasium converted to a haunted house forHalloween .

Other occupancies might also fall into the classification of special amusement building if the conditionsdescribed in the definition apply. Escape rooms are an example of where such conditions might exist. It isincumbent on the authority having jurisdiction to inquire if the conditions in the escape room meet thedefinition of a special amusement building. Where such conditions exist, escape rooms should beclassified as special amusement buildings. Where such conditions do not exist, escape rooms might beclassified as another occupancy type, such as business.

It is important for the authority having jurisdiction to recognize that the Code requires an occupancy to beclassified as a special amusement building if the conditions in the space meet the definition of specialamusement building , regardless of the occupant load of the space. No minimum occupant load thresholdmust be met for a space to be classified as a special amusement building. A space could be classified asa special amusement building even where the occupant load is significantly fewer than the 50 occupantsrequired for classification of other assembly occupancies.


Committee: BLD-AXM


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.


Tubbs, Jeffrey S.


575 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 632 of 717

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Washburn, Janet A.


576 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 633 of 717

First Revision No. 8192-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Section No. A.3.3.489 ]

A.3.3.490 Photoluminescent.

The released light is normally visible for a limited time if the ambient light sources are removed or partiallyobscured. [101 , 2012 301, 2018 ]


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


577 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 634 of 717


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


578 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 635 of 717


A.3.3.665 Unstable Reactive Gas.

Wood or wood products with topically applied materials or chemicals are not fire-retardant-treated wood.


Committee: BLD-IND


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The annex note does not belong with the associated term in the body of the Code. The definedterm has the correct Annex included in Section 3.3.2.8.1.11.

Note to Correlating Committee: Direct the deleted text be moved to new A.3.3.690.1.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8373-NFPA 5000-2018

Public Input No. 226-NFPA 5000-2018 [Section No. A.3.3.665]

Ballot Results


27 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cummings, Ryan

Jones, Adam C.

Klinkhardt, Jeffrey

Vosicky, John

Affirmative All

Birchler, Donald C.

Dacus, Sheldon

Dale, Stephen E.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Desrosier, John

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Early, Rob

Hanson, Robert E.


579 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 636 of 717

Humble, Jonathan

Johnson, Aaron

Klein, Andrew S.


Kraus, Richard S.

Laberge, Todd



Pierrottie, Jerald

Pruett, Scot

Sheldon, Steven A.


Swiecicki, Bruce J.

White, Michael S.

Wren, Carl D.


580 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 637 of 717

First Revision No. 8266-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Section No. A.5.1 ]

A.5.1

The performance-based option of this Code establishes acceptable levels of risk for buildings andstructures as addressed in Section 1.2. While the performance-based option of this Code does containgoals, objectives, and performance criteria necessary to provide for an acceptable level of risk, it does notdescribe how these goals, objectives, and performance criteria are to be met. Design and engineering areneeded to meet the provisions of Chapter 5. For fire protection designs, the SFPE Engineering Guide toPerformance-Based Fire Protection Analysis and Design of Buildings provides a framework for theseassessments.


Committee: BLD-FUN


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Edit needed to provide correct title of the SFPE Guide.


Public Input No. 131-NFPA 5000-2018 [Section No. A.5.1]

Ballot Results


20 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

17 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cheng, Amy Y.

Hopkins, Mark

Laramee, Scott T.

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid


Finnegan, Daniel P.

Frable, David W.

Groner, Norman E.

Jacoby, David J.

Jelenewicz, Chris


581 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 638 of 717

Klein, David P.

Lathrop, James K.


Murga, Ricardo

Pauls, Jake


Roberts, Jon G.

Tyree, David P.

Vann, Joshua


582 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 639 of 717


A.5.2.2

The SFPE Engineering Guide to Design Performance-Based Fire Protection Analysis and Design ofBuildings contains performance criteria associated with reducing the probability of fire spread.


Committee: BLD-FUN


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Edit needed to include the correct title of the SFPE Guide.


Public Input No. 136-NFPA 5000-2018 [Section No. A.5.2.2]

Ballot Results


20 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

17 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cheng, Amy Y.

Hopkins, Mark

Laramee, Scott T.

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid


Finnegan, Daniel P.

Frable, David W.

Groner, Norman E.

Jacoby, David J.

Jelenewicz, Chris

Klein, David P.

Lathrop, James K.



583 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 640 of 717

Murga, Ricardo

Pauls, Jake


Roberts, Jon G.

Tyree, David P.

Vann, Joshua


584 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 641 of 717



585 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 642 of 717

A.5.2.2.2


586 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 643 of 717

NFPA 555 includes both testing methods and modeling techniques that help in preventing the spread offire beyond the compartment of fire origin, which is one of the criteria for flashover. Many of theperformance criteria related to safety from fire can also be found in NFPA 101.

One of the methods that follows can be used to avoid exposing occupants to untenable conditions.

Method 1. The design team can set detailed performance criteria that ensure that occupants are notincapacitated by fire effects. The SFPE Engineering Guide to Performance-Based Fire Protectiondescribes a process of establishing tenability limits.

The guide references D. A. Purser, “Assessment of Hazards to Occupants from Smoke, Toxic Gasses,and Heat,” Chapter 2/6 Chapter 63 , SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, which describes afractional effective dose (FED) calculation approach, which is also contained in NFPA 269. FEDaddresses the effects of carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen chloride,hydrogen bromide, and anoxia. It is possible to use the test data, combined with laboratory experience, toestimate the FED value that leads to the survival of virtually all people. This value is about 0.8.

There is a relationship between exposures leading to death and those leading to incapacitation. Kaplan[Kaplan et al. and Hartzell , Journal of Fire Science, 2:286–305 (1984)] found that rodent susceptibility issimilar to that of humans and that, for the narcotic gases, CO and HCN, incapacitation is estimated tooccur at one-third to one-half of the lethal exposure. A set of very large statistical studies on humanlethality associated with carbon monoxide involving almost 5000 fatalities (Hirschler et al., “CarbonMonoxide and Human Lethality monoxide and human lethality : Fire and Non-Fire Studies non-firestudies ,” Elsevier, 1993) showed that the vast majority of fire deaths are attributable to carbon monoxidepoisoning, which results in lethality at levels as low as 25 percent carboxyhemoglobin (much lower thanpreviously believed) without requiring the effect of additional toxicants. This work was also confirmed byGann [Gann et al., Fire and Materials, 18:193 (1994)], who also found that carbon monoxide dominatesthe lethality of fire smoke, since most fire deaths occur remote from the fire room in fires that haveproceeded past flashover. Thus, if an FED value of 0.8 were used for a nonlethal exposure, an FED of 0.3would be reasonable for a nonincapacitating exposure.

If the authority having jurisdiction or the design professional is concerned with potential toxic fire effectsother than those addressed by the FED procedure as documented, the calculation procedure can beexpanded by adding additional terms to the FED equation, with each term expressed as a ratio. Thenumerator of the ratio is the cumulative exposure to that fire effect, measured as an integral of the productof instantaneous exposure (concentration for toxic products) and time. The denominator of the ratio is thequantity of cumulative exposure for which FED equals the chosen threshold value (i.e., 0.8 or 0.3) basedon that fire effect alone. A complete analysis of tenability requires consideration of tenability criteria forthermal effects (convected heat and radiated heat) and smoke obscuration, as well as those for smoketoxicity. An , and an example of the application of such criteria is shown in ASTM E2280, Standard Guidefor Fire Hazard Assessment of the Effect of Upholstered Seating Furniture Within Patient Rooms of HealthCare Facilities.

For buildings where an unusually large fraction of the occupants are especially vulnerable, the calculationprocedure for the smoke toxicity incapacitating criterion should be modified to use FED values lower than0.8 or 0.3.

Method 2. For each design fire scenario and set of design specifications, conditions, and assumptions,the design team can demonstrate that each room or area will be fully evacuated before the smoke andtoxic gas layer in that room descends to a level lower than 6 ft (1830 mm) above the floor. The timing ofsuch an evacuation means that no occupant is exposed to fire effects. Such an evacuation requirescalculation of the locations, movement, and behavior of occupants, because fire effects and occupants arekept separate separated by moving the occupants. A level of 60 in. (1525 mm) is often used incalculations, but, at that level, a large fraction of the population would not be able to stand, walk, or runnormally and still avoid inhalation of toxic gases. They would have to bend over or otherwise move theirheads closer to the floor level.

Method 3. For each design fire scenario and set of design specifications and assumptions, the designteam can demonstrate that the smoke and toxic gas layer will not descend to a level lower than 6 ft(1830 mm) above the floor in any occupied room. The advantage of this procedure is that it conservativelyrequires that no occupant need be is exposed to fire effects, regardless of where occupants are located orwhere they move. This removes eliminates the need to make any for calculations regarding occupants,including their behavior, movement locations, pre-fire characteristics, and reactions to fire effects. Thisprocedure is even more conservative and simpler than the procedure in Method 2, because it does notallow fire effects in occupied rooms to develop to a point where people could be affected at any timeduring the fire.

Method 4. For each design fire scenario and set of design specifications and assumptions, the designteam can demonstrate that no fire effects will reach any occupied room. The advantage of this procedureis that it removes eliminates the need to make any for calculations regarding occupants, including theirbehavior, movement, locations, pre-fire characteristics, and reactions to fire effects. A further advantage is


587 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 644 of 717

that it also removes eliminates the need for some of the modeling of fire effects, because it is notnecessary to model the filling of rooms, only the spread of fire effects to those rooms. This procedure iseven more conservative and simpler than the procedures in Method 2 and Method 3, because it does notallow any fire effects in occupied rooms.


Committee: BLD-FUN


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Edit needed to reference the correct chapter in the current SFPE guide.



Ballot Results


20 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

17 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cheng, Amy Y.

Hopkins, Mark

Laramee, Scott T.

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid


Finnegan, Daniel P.

Frable, David W.

Groner, Norman E.

Jacoby, David J.

Jelenewicz, Chris

Klein, David P.

Lathrop, James K.


Murga, Ricardo

Pauls, Jake


Roberts, Jon G.


588 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 645 of 717

Tyree, David P.

Vann, Joshua


589 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 646 of 717


A.5.2.2.6

The SFPE Engineering Guide to Design Performance-Based Fire Protection Analysis and Design ofBuildings contains performance criteria associated with reducing the probability of fire spread.


Committee: BLD-FUN


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Edit needed to identify the correct title of the SFPE Guide.



Ballot Results


20 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

17 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cheng, Amy Y.

Hopkins, Mark

Laramee, Scott T.

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid


Finnegan, Daniel P.

Frable, David W.

Groner, Norman E.

Jacoby, David J.

Jelenewicz, Chris

Klein, David P.

Lathrop, James K.



590 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 647 of 717

Murga, Ricardo

Pauls, Jake


Roberts, Jon G.

Tyree, David P.

Vann, Joshua


591 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 648 of 717


A.5.8.11.1

Documentation for modeling should conform to ASTM E1472, Standard Guide for Documenting ComputerSoftware for Fire Models, although most, if not all, models were originally developed before this standardwas promulgated. and the SFPE Guidelines for Substantiating a Fire Model for a Given Application .

Information regarding the use of DETACT-QS can be found in the SFPE Engineering Guide – Evaluationof the Computer Fire Model DETACT-QS.


Committee: BLD-FUN


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The deletion was suggested as there have been numerous models developed since standard waspublished. Also, the SFPE Guide for Substantiating a Fire Model for a Given Application wasadded as it provides specific information in regards to fire models.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8270-NFPA 5000-2018


Ballot Results


20 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

17 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cheng, Amy Y.

Hopkins, Mark

Laramee, Scott T.

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid


Finnegan, Daniel P.

Frable, David W.

Groner, Norman E.

Jacoby, David J.


592 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 649 of 717

Jelenewicz, Chris

Klein, David P.

Lathrop, James K.


Murga, Ricardo

Pauls, Jake


Roberts, Jon G.

Tyree, David P.

Vann, Joshua


593 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 650 of 717


A.8.2.1.1

UL 263, Standard for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, and ASTM E119, Standard TestMethods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, are considered nationally recognizedmethods of determining fire resistance ratings and have been found to yield equivalent test results.

Materials used to construct fire-resistance-rated elements and assemblies, such as columns, beams,roofs, and floors, might include spray fire-resistive materials (SFRM), intumescent fire-resistive materials(IFRM), and other materials or systems can be tested in accordance with ASTM E119 or ANSI/UL 263.The materials or systems are installed and inspected in accordance with a listed design, constructiondocuments, and the manufacturer’s installation instructions that describe the thickness, type, or othercharacteristics of materials required to meet the required fire resistance rating.


Committee: BLD-FIR


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Columns and beams, and other fire resistive assemblies are not described in NFPA 5000's

annex. This adds these commonly used materials to the code. Language is consistent withnew

annex language added to NFPA 101.


Public Input No. 270-NFPA 5000-2018 [New Section after A.8.2.1.1]

Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Graupmann, Joseph

Jones, Adam C.

Klein, Marshall A.

Affirmative All


Cahanin, Gregory J.


594 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 651 of 717

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Devlin, John F.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Francis, Sam W.


Gump, Jack A.

Hall, William J.


Hopper, Howard

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Humble, Jonathan

Jackson, Waymon

Koffel, William E.


Morris, Jeramie W.

Roeper, Kurt A.

Shino, Gregory K.


Wittasek, Nathan B.



595 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 652 of 717

First Revision No. 8097-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Sections A.11.2.1.2.3.2(2), A.11.2.1.2.3.2(3) ]

A.11.2.1.2.3.2(2)

An example of a room that is “not required to be accessible to persons with severe mobility impairments”is one that is not required to be accessible by Chapter 10 12.

A.11.2.1.2.3.2(3)

A An example of a room that is “not required to be accessible to persons with severe mobilityimpairments” is one that is not required to be accessible by Chapter 10 12.


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The proposed change to Chapter 12 aligns with the contents of NFPA 5000. Currently theexisting reference to Chapter 10 refers to interior finish and not accessibility.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8097-NFPA 5000-2018

Public Input No. 1-NFPA 5000-2018 [Sections A.11.2.1.2.3.2(2), A.11.2.1.2.3.2(3)]

Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.


596 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 653 of 717

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


597 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 654 of 717

First Revision No. 8193-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Section No. A.11.2.1.4.1 ]

A.11.2.1.4.1

Where doors are subject to two-way traffic, or where their opening can interfere with pedestrian traffic, anappropriately located vision panel can reduce the chance of accidents.

Swinging doors in horizontal- or vertical-rolling partitions should be permitted in a means of egress wherethe following criteria are met:

(1) The door or doors comply with 11.2.1.4.

(2) The partition in which the doors are mounted complies with the applicable fire protection rating andcloses upon smoke detection or power failure at a speed not exceeding 9 in./s (230 mm/s) and notless than 6 in./s (150 mm/s).

(3) The doors mounted in the partition are self-closing or automatic-closing in accordance with 11.2.1.8.

Pivoted-swinging-type doors include balanced doors.


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The revision clarifies that balanced doors are a type of pivoted-swinging door.


Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.


598 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 655 of 717

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


599 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 656 of 717


A.11.2.1.6

None of the special locking arrangements addressed in 11.2.1.6 are intended to permit allow credentialedegress, request to exit or similar provisions, where an occupant cannot leave the building without swipinga card through a reader. Where such an arrangement is desired to keep track of occupants, the swiping ofcards needs to be procedural but not necessary for releasing the door lock or latch. Free egress Egressneeds to be available at all times . as required by this Code .


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.


600 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 657 of 717

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


601 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 658 of 717


A.11.2.1.6.2

It is not the intent to require doors that restrict access but comply with 11.2.1.5.3 to comply with thesensor-release of electrical locking systems provisions of 11.2.1.6.2. The term sensor-release was chosenwhen the requirements of 11.2.1.6.2 were first added to the Code to describe the function where a door iselectronically locked from the inside in a way that restricts egress. It is not the Code's intent to prohibitmethods of securing the door in a locked position from the outside with access control products providedthat the egress requirements of 11.2.1.6.2 are met.

Doors with a sensor-release electrical locking system are equipped with an electrical locking system thatis released by a sensor activated by the normal motions of an occupant egressing through that door. Theactivation of the sensor to cause the electrical lock to release is usually by passive action by theoccupant, such as walking to the door. A manual release device, such as a push-button switch thatdirectly interrupts the power to the electrical lock, is required by item (3) as a backup. With most sensor-release electrical locking systems, the occupant might not notice the door is electrically locked in thedirection of egress. Doors equipped with these locking systems provide unobstructed, immediate egress.

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


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.


602 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 659 of 717

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


603 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 660 of 717


A.11.2.1.9

Horizontal-sliding doors Special-purpose horizontally sliding accordion or folding door assembliesinstalled in accordance with 11.2.1.13 should not be considered powered doors subject to the provisionsof 11.2.1.9.

Powered doors are divided into two categories — power-assisted and or low-energy power-operateddoors, and power-operated doors . Power-assisted doors Doors that conform to ANSI/BHMA A156.19,Power Assist & and Low Energy Power Operated Doors, or ANSI/BHMA A156.38, Low Energy PowerOperated Sliding and Folding Doors , use limited power to operate the door. They require fewersafeguards compared to full power-operated doors. These door operators are for swinging doors only ,sliding, or folding doors. Power-assisted and low-energy power-operated doors require fewer safeguardsas compared to power-operated doors. Power-operated doors Doors that conform to ANSI/BHMAA156.10, American National Standard for Power Operated Pedestrian Doors, require more power tooperate the door and require additional safeguards to provide protection against personal injury. Power-operated doors can be swinging, sliding, or folding doors.


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel


604 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 661 of 717

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


605 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 662 of 717



606 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 663 of 717

A.11.3.3.2

The effective capacity of stairways has been shown by research to be proportional to the “ effective width”of the stairway, which is the nominal width minus 12 in. (305 mm). This phenomenon, and the supportingresearch, were described in the chapter “Movement of People” in the first, second, and thirdeditions Chapter 59, “Employing the Hydraulic Model in Assessing Emergency Movement,” in the fifthedition of the SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering and was also addressed in Appendix D ofthe 1985 edition of NFPA 101, among several other publications. In 1988, this appendix was moved toform Chapter 2 of the 1988 edition of NFPA 101M. (This document was later designated as NFPA 101A,and this chapter remained in the document through the 1998 edition.) In essence, the “ effective width”phenomenon recognizes that there is an edge or boundary effect at the sides of a circulation path. It hasbeen best examined in relation to stairway width, where the edge effect was estimated to be 6 in.(150 mm) on each side, but a similar phenomenon occurs with other paths, such as corridors and doors,although quantitative estimates of their edge effect are not as well established as they are have been forstairways, at least those stairways studied in Canada from during the late 1960s and through the 1970sin office building evacuation drills and in crowd movement in a variety of buildings with assemblyoccupancy.

More recent studies have not been performed to determine how the edge effect might be changing (or haschanged) with demographic changes to larger, heavier, occupants moving more slowly, and thus swayinglaterally, to maintain balance when walking. The impact of such demographic changes, which aresignificant and influential for evacuation flow and speed of movement on stairs, for example, has the effectof increasing the time of evacuation in a way that affects all stair widths but will be most pronounced fornominal widths less than 56 in. (1420 mm).

Without taking into account occupant demographic changes in the last few decades, which that affectevacuation performance, especially on stairs, the formula for enhanced capacity of stairways wider than44 in. (1120 mm) assumes that any portion of the nominal width greater than 44 in. (1120 mm) is aseffective proportionally as is the effective width of a nominal 44 in. (1120 mm) stair, that is, 32 in.(810 mm). Thus, the denominator (0.213 0.218 ) in the equation is simply the effective width of 32 in.(810 mm) divided by the capacity of 147 persons that is credited, by the 0.3 in. (7.6 mm) capacity factor inTable 11.3.3.1, to the corresponding nominal width, 44 in. (1120 mm).

The resulting permitted stairway capacities, based on the occupant load of single stories (in accordancewith 11.3.1.4), for several stairway widths are shown in Table A.11.3.3.2.

Table A.11.3.3.2 Permitted Stair Capacity as Related to Effective Width

Permitted

Capacity

(no. of

persons)

Nominal

Width

Clear Width

Between

Handrailsa

Effective

Width

in. mm in. mm in. mm

1202b 36 915 28 710 24 610

147 44 1120 36 915 32 810

202 56 1420 48 1220 44 1120

257 68 1725 60c 1525c 56 1420

a A reasonable handrail incursion of only 4 in. (100 mm) into the nominal width is assumed on each sideof the stair, although 11.3.2.2 permits a maximum incursion of 41⁄2 in. (114 mm) on each side.

b Other Code sections limit the occupant load for such stairs more severely (e.g., 50 persons in11.2.2.2.1.1). Such lower limits are partly justified by the relatively small effective width of such stairs,which, if taken into account by Table 11.3.3.1, would result in a correspondingly low effective capacity ofonly 110 persons (24 divided by 0.218) or a more realistic capacity factor of 0.327, applicable to nominalwidth.

c A clear width of 60 in. (1525 mm) is the maximum permitted by the handrail reachability criteria in11.2.2.4.1.2. Although some prior editions of NFPA 101 permitted wider portions of stairs up to [7 ft4 in. 88 in. (2235 mm, ) between handrails) ], such wider portions are less effective for reasonably safecrowd flow and generally should not be used not for major crowd movement. To achieve the maximumpossible, reasonably safe egress capacity for such stairs, retrofit of an intermediate — not necessarilycentral — handrail is recommended; for example, with an intermediate handrail located 36 in. (915 mm)from the closest side handrail. In this case, the effective capacity would be 358 persons for the formerlypermitted, now retrofitted, stair. This capacity is based on a retrofitted effective width of about 6 ft 6 in. 78in. (1980 mm) [subtracting 2 in. (51 mm) from each usable side of a handrail and assuming a 2 in.(51 mm) wide retrofitted intermediate handrail].


607 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 664 of 717


Committee: BLD-MEA


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The revision reflects the current edition of the SFPE Handbook.


Ballot Results


32 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

30 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Chan, Mark

Phelan, Kevin

Affirmative All

Alles, Ryan

Barlow, Charles V.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Bush, Kenneth E.

Buuck, Daniel

Collins, David S.

Coombs, Christopher

Crowley, Michael A.

Day, Richard L.

Di Pilla, Steven

Dove, Paul L.

Frable, David W.

Guest, Rita C.


Hu, Xianxu (Sherri)

Jackson, Waymon

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Pappas, Denise L.


608 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 665 of 717

Pauls, Jake

Perry, Robert R.

Quinterno, Vincent

Saks, Kenneth

Shulman, Michael S.

Simard, J. Francois

Tilton, Kelly R.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Woestman, John

de Vries, David A.


609 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 666 of 717


A.12.33.1

Section 12.33 outlines the requirements for residential facilities subject to the Americans with DisabilitiesAct of 1990. The facilities covered by Section 12.33, as well as other facilities not covered by this section,may can still be subject to other Federal federal laws such as the Fair Housing Act and Section 504 of theRehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. For example, the Fair Housing Act requires that certainresidential structures having four or more multi-family dwelling units, regardless of whether they areprivately owned or federally assisted, include certain features of accessible and adaptable designaccording to guidelines established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).These laws and the appropriate regulations should be consulted before proceeding with the design andconstruction of residential facilities.

Residential facilities containing residential dwelling units provided by entities subject to HUD’s Section 504regulations and residential dwelling units covered by 12.33.3 must comply with the technical and scopingrequirements in Chapters 1 through 10 included this document. Section 12.33 is not a stand-alonesection; this section only addresses the minimum number of residential dwelling units within a facilityrequired to comply with Chapter 8 of ICC/ANSI A117.1, Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities .However, residential facilities must also comply with the requirements of this document. Forexample: , 12.6.5.4 requires all doors and doorways providing user passage in residential dwelling unitsproviding mobility features to comply with ICC/ANSI A117.1, 404; 12.6.7.6 permits platform lifts to be usedto connect levels within residential dwelling units providing mobility features; Section 12.8 providesgeneral scoping for accessible parking and 12.8.2.3.1 specifies the required number of accessible parkingspaces for each residential dwelling unit providing mobility features; 12.28.2 requires mail boxes to bewithin reach ranges when they serve residential dwelling units providing mobility features; play areas areaddressed in Section 12.40; and swimming pools are addressed in Section 12.42. There are specialprovisions applicable to facilities containing residential dwelling units at: No. 3; No.?; 12.3.8 ; and No. 4 .[2010 ADA Standards — Advisory 233.1]


Committee: BLD-BSY


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This extracted section from ADA 2010 has been modified to remove confusing language. Thereference has not changed but utilizing ADA 2010 will help the user to clarify requirements.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8090-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


13 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

9 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Ambrefe, William


610 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 667 of 717

Forner, Phil

Shingleton, Frank

Whitman, Steven J.

Affirmative All

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Clary, Shane M.

Hansen, Raymond N.

Novosel, Davor

Rickard, John A.

Siegel, Shelley

Smith, James B.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


611 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 668 of 717


A.16.4.2.1

Life safety evaluations are examples of performance-based approaches to life safety. In this respect,significant guidance in the form and process of life safety evaluations is provided by Chapter 5, keeping inmind the fire safety emphasis in Chapter 5. The general approach to performance criteria, scenarios,evaluation, safety factors, documentation, maintenance, and periodic assessment (including a warrant offitness) applies to the broader considerations in a life safety evaluation. A life safety evaluation deals notonly with fire but also with fire, storm, collapse, crowd behavior, and other related safety considerations forwhich a checklist is provided in A.16.4.2.3. Chapter 5 provides guidance, based on fire safetyrequirements, for establishing a documented case showing that products of combustion in all conceivablefire scenarios will not significantly endanger occupants using means of egress in the facility (e.g., safetyfactors such as fire detection, automatic suppression, smoke control, large-volume space, or managementprocedures). Moreover, means of egress facilities plus facility management capabilities should beadequate to cope with scenarios where certain egress routes are blocked for some reason.

In addition to making realistic assumptions about the capabilities of persons in the facility (e.g., anassembled crowd including many disabled persons or persons unfamiliar with the facility), the life safetyevaluation should include a factor of safety of not less than 2.0 in all calculations relating to hazarddevelopment time and required egress time (the combination of flow time and other time needed to detectand assess an emergency condition, initiate egress, and move along the egress routes). The factor ofsafety takes into account the possibility that half of the egress routes might not be used (or be usable) incertain situations.

Regarding crowd behavior, the potential hazards created by larger masses of people and greater crowddensities (which can be problematic during ingress, occupancy, and egress) demand that technology beused by designers, managers, and authorities responsible for buildings to compensate for the relaxedegress capacity provisions of Table 16.4.3.3 . In very large buildings for assembly use, the hazard ofcrowd crushes can exceed that of fire or structural failure. Therefore, the building designers, managers,event planners, security personnel, police authorities, and fire authorities, as well as the buildingconstruction authorities, should understand the potential problems and solutions, including coordination oftheir activities. For crowd behavior, this understanding includes factors of space, energy, time, andinformation, as well as specific crowd management techniques such as metering. Published guidance onthese factors and techniques is found in the SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, Section 3,Chapter 13, pp. 3-263–3-285 (Pauls, J., “Movement of People”), Chapter 59, pp. 2115–2151 (Gwynne, S.M. V. and Rosenbaum, E. R., “Employing the Hydraulic Model in Assessing Emergency Movement”), theSFPE Engineering Guide to Human Behavior in Fire , and the publications referenced therein.

Table 16.2.3.2.1 and Table 16.4.3.3 are based on a linear relationship between number of seats andnominal flow time, with not less than 200 seconds (3.3 minutes) for 2,000 seats plus 1 second for everyadditional 50 seats up to 25,000. Beyond 25,000 total seats, the nominal flow time is limited to660 seconds (11 minutes). Nominal flow time refers to the flow time for the most able group of patrons;some groups less familiar with the premises or less able groups might take longer to pass a point in theegress system.


Committee: BLD-AXM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Edit needed to identify the correct chapter that is in the current edition of the SFPE Handbook ofFire Protection Engineering. Also, the SFPE Guide to Human Behavior in Fire provides the typeof guidance that is referenced.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8340-NFPA 5000-2018



612 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 669 of 717

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.


Tubbs, Jeffrey S.

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Washburn, Janet A.


613 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 670 of 717


A.16.4.9

Special amusement buildings are unique structures that can present challenges not common in assemblyor other occupancies. Hazards in special amusement buildings can include industrial, electrical,pneumatic, stored energy systems, or other systems and equipment associated with the ride and/or showsystems. Occupants are typically not familiar with their surroundings, and the provided exit access mightnot be apparent while the building is operating in show conditions.

Additionally, special amusement buildings might present design challenges, which the authority havingjurisdiction might need to consider. For example, a ride building containing a roller coaster might meet theheight requirements for a high-rise structure but only contain one story of height and mezzanines orcatwalks at upper levels for evacuation. Portions of a ride might exit and return into the building, traverseto an open structure, be surrounded by water, or contain an atrium. Each of these conditions presentschallenges to the design of fire protection, fire alarm, and life safety systems, as well as the emergencyaction plan.

Where a special amusement building is installed inside another building on a temporary basis , such aswithin an exhibit hall, the special amusement building requirements apply only to the portions of thebuilding used as a special amusement building. . For example, the smoke detectors required by 16.4.8.4are not required to be connected to the building’s fire alarm system. Where installed in an exhibit hall,such smoke detectors are also required to comply with the provisions applicable to an exhibit.


Committee: BLD-AXM


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The revisions are intended for consistency with changes to NFPA 101 (see 101 FR-6703 &FR-6710).


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

5 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cook, David

Herrera, Mark A.

Keberle, Kenneth F.


Tubbs, Jeffrey S.


614 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 671 of 717

Affirmative All

Bushey, George D.

Center, Eric

Conner, William

Deacon, Nils

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Gandy, Max L.

Goosman, Donald G.

Hansen, Harold C.

Hollinger, David W.

Humble, Jonathan

Lake, John

Lambert, Josh

Morin, Kevin D.

Pauls, Jake

Peterson, Ryan

Quinterno, Vincent

Roether, Ed

Ruling, Karl G.



Sherman, Philip R.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Washburn, Janet A.


615 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 672 of 717

First Revision No. 8459-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Sections

A.22.2.8, A.22.2.8.1.2, A.22.2.8.2, A.22.2.8.2.1, ... ]

A.22.2.8

The grab bars and stanchions required by 22.2.8 are designed to improve safety of showering andbathing by ambulatory users, typically entering and exiting a bath, bathtub-shower combination, or showerfacility for showering while standing, or for other forms of bathing that can entail transition to/from acrouching or sitting position.

For grab bar requirements appropriate for other uses and users, especially users with disabilities, refer tothe requirements in ICC/ANSI A117.1, Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities. Generally, the grabbars specified for this Code will not interfere with other grab bars installed in accordance with therequirements of ICC/ANSI A117.1, and they can contribute to meeting the requirements of ICC/ANSIA117.1 and vice versa. For example, combination vertical and horizontal grab bars (e.g., in an Lconfiguration), as addressed by ICC/ANSI A117.1, can meet the requirements of this Code for a verticalgrab bar. Similarly, requirements for a horizontal grab bar or horizontal stanchion on the non-access sideor back wall are compatible.

Dimensions for the height of grab bars are based on typical, mass-produced bathtubs with a wall heightabove the finished floor of about 15 in. (380 mm) and the bottom of the bathtub within 1 in. to 2 in. (25 mmto 51 mm) of the finished floor elevation. Adjustments to stipulated grab bar and horizontal stanchionheight limits and ranges, referenced to the bathtub rim, should be considered for bathtubs having higherwalls and, thus, rim heights, above the bottom of the tub and, possibly, also the wall height above thefinished floor. ICC/ANSI A117.1 references grab bar height dimensions to the bathtub rim and, forconsistency with this widely used ANSI standard, that convention is maintained in this Code.

A.22.2.8.1.2

The provision of 22.2.8.1.2 is intended to ensure that grab bars, if provided voluntarily (i.e., asnonrequired) for dedicated showers, meet the requirements of 22.2.8 so that something appearing to be agrab bar can effectively perform as one. However, such grab bars would only be considered nonrequiredin the case of dedicated showers not involving misstep and fall dangers addressed by 11.1.6.2 and11.1.6.4. This means that walking surfaces must be at least as safe, in terms of underfoot conditions, asany other portion of the means of egress (where, for example, handrails are not required) for users nothaving mobility disabilities. This would require exceptionally careful choice and maintenance of underfootmaterials as well as very effective control of water within and adjacent to the dedicated shower facility.

A.22.2.8.2

The requirements within this section provide design options for points of control when entering and/orexiting a bathtub or shower. Points of control are critical to providing guidance and stability to an occupantmuch the same as a handrail provides on stairs. The different points of control specified by this section,wall-mounted grabs grab bars or vertical poles stanchions , provide options for compliance in a widerange of conditions. It is important to note that only one point of control is required for entry and egresstransfers. The use of a vertical pole stanchion is not required and is offered as an option to wall-mountedgrab bars.

A.22.2.8.2.1

Grab bars located where they interfere with sealing or with a shower curtain against escape of water —especially to the floor surface outside the shower facility — might introduce safety problems in the form ofgreatly reduced slip resistance of the walking surface, which could violate this Code. This can be avoidedwith a 6 in. (150 mm) horizontal separation between the shower curtain rod and the grab bar. It isassumed that other forms of water control, such as an installed enclosure, will not interfere with the use ofgrab bars and stanchions .

A.22.2.8.2.3

A freestanding pole top-and-bottom fixed, vertical stanchion satisfying requirements for a grab bar canoffer flexibility in placement, for example, within the close quarters of a small bathroom where there is awater closet adjacent to the bathing facility and a single grab bar or vertical stanchion can serve bothfacilities. Where the bathing facility is freestanding, without walls, especially with large soaking tubs,including those on pedestals, the vertical pole–type grab bar stanchion is especially useful. Thepole stanchion also can solve attachment problems where walls are nonexistent or difficult to use forinstalling conventional wall-mounted grab bars.


616 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 673 of 717

A.22.2.8.3.1

Using the midpoints of the distance ranges and the minimum distance from the control end wall results ina 45-degree angle for the diagonal grab bar. Such a diagonal grab bar (or alternatively, a horizontal grabbar fairly similar to the option provided by 24.2.8.3.1, which meets requirements of ICC/ANSI A117.1,Standard for Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities) was found suitable in tests performed ofseveral grab bar options with 103 independent-living seniors with an average age of 70. [Sveistrup et al.,2003.]

A.22.2.8.4

The best-performing grab bars are in the middle third of the permitted range for circular diameter. Forsome grab bar designs, with undulations and other surface geometry features to improve slip resistancefor users’ hands, these dimensions will be nominal with small variations depending on wheremeasurements are taken. Children and others with smaller hands will be able to use the diameters withinthe lower part of the permitted range. When using a freestanding pole for a grab bar vertical stanchion ,structural considerations, especially for stiffness, might dictate using diameters in the upper part of thepermitted range.

Note that a minimum clearance between the grab bar or stanchion and an adjacent surface is specified.With grab bars, especially horizontal ones, on which large, downward loads are imposed by the arms ofusers, there is some concern about people’s hands slipping into the clear space; however, this can occureven with an absolute 1.5 in. (38 mm) clearance, as some standards specify and most grab bar designsprovide. Thus the main difference in the end result is where, along its length, the arm gets wedged behindthe grab bar, not the complete prevention of this happening at all.


Committee: BLD-RES


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Minor, largely editorial changes have been made for consistency with the requirements thatare proposed to use the

term "stanchion" in place of "pole." Related to this, there has been clarification in a fewinstances of the orientation of

the stanchion as either vertical or horizontal. Note also that a related Public Input provides adefinition of "stanchion."

ResponseMessage:

FR-8459-NFPA 5000-2018

Public Input No. 248-NFPA 5000-2018 [Sections A.22.2.8, A.22.2.8.1.2, A.22.2.8.2, A.22.2.8.2.1, ...]

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.


617 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 674 of 717

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.

Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


Buuck, Daniel

The term "stanchion" is problematic. Merriam-Webster defines it as an *upright* bar, post, or support (as for a roofor a ship's deck). The proposed use of "horizontal stanchion" in Section 24.2.8.3 will cause confusion.


This requirement invades the privacy of a single-family homeowner who, in the vast majority of cases, doesn'tneed or want this extensive system of support bars.

Spangler, Kevin

Agree with Alfred's comment. This section should be relocated in the chapters pertaining to PUBLIC safety, suchas hotels, motels and dormitories. It should not be part of the single family chapter.


618 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 675 of 717


A.22.3.4.3

The placement requirements of NFPA 720 NFPA 72 are modified specifically for one- and two-familydwellings as required by this Code and not other regulations within a jurisdiction.


Committee: BLD-RES


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Finnegan, Daniel P.


619 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 676 of 717

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


620 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 677 of 717


A.23.3.4.6.2

The placement requirements of NFPA 720 NFPA 72 are modified to accommodate lodging or roominghouse occupancies that are part of multiple occupancy buildings (for example, an on-call physicians’sleeping room in a hospital). The placement requirements of NFPA 720 NFPA 72 are modified specificallyfor lodging or rooming houses as required by this Code and not other regulations within a jurisdiction.


Committee: BLD-RES


Committee Statement



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

7 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Boyd, H. Wayne

Cook, David

Damron, Donald P.

Haidar, Abir

Klein, Marshall A.

Sharry, John A.


Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Bradley, Harry L.

Buuck, Daniel

Carter, Donald Lee

Coats, Paul D.

Cronin, Bradford T.

Dawe, Nicholas A.


621 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 678 of 717

Finnegan, Daniel P.

Hall, William J.

Isman, Kenneth E.

Lambert, Josh

Larson, Mark

Lathrop, James K.


Mayl, Eric N.


Paszczuk, Henry

Pauls, Jake



Spangler, Kevin

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Zwirn, Jeffrey D.


622 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 679 of 717


A.27.4.4

This section provides an optional, not mandatory, arrangement for the design and construction of mallstructures. At the discretion of the designer, these structures may can be designed as a single buildingprovided that they comply with the applicable requirements of the intended occupancy and with therequirements of 6.1.14 Section 6.2 for buildings housing more than one occupancy.


Committee: BLD-MER


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Updated text to the correct cross reference.


Ballot Results


26 Eligible Voters

6 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Burrus, William J.

Donovan, Scott

Jackson, Ricky R.


Vosicky, John

Yonkers, Ernest D.

Affirmative All

Aaby, Mark J.

Bellamy, Tracey D.


Bush, Kenneth E.

Cole, Anthony W.

Dawe, Nicholas A.

Derr, Kevin L.

Dodge, David A.


623 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 680 of 717

Frable, David W.

Freels, Douglas R.

Gauvin, Daniel J.


Humble, Jonathan

Martin, Jeff

Mourao, Bridget

Murdock, Amy J.

Rice, Sarah A.

Shirey, Jeffrey

Smith, James B.

Stocker, Warren G.


624 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 681 of 717

First Revision No. 8298-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Section No. A.33.3.1.2(2) ]

A.33.3.1.2(2)

Public safety radio enhancement systems provide for greater flexibility and safety for emergencyresponders during in-building operations. The two-way radio communication enhancement systemsprovisions of NFPA 1221 can be used to facilitate adoption of code language prescribing design,installation, testing, and maintenance criteria for such systems.

First responders depend on the use of portable radios during incidents for operational and safetypurposes. Equivalent coverage occurs when the public safety two-way communications system utilized bythe agency provides coverage throughout the building's general areas and critical areas as identified byNFPA 1221 , with or without a two-way radio enhancement system.



5000_FUN_FR-8298_A.33.3.1.2_2_final.docx For staff use


Committee: BLD-FUN


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The proposed revision is intended for consistency with revisions to NFPA 101 (FR-6647).


Ballot Results


20 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

17 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cheng, Amy Y.

Hopkins, Mark

Laramee, Scott T.

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid


Finnegan, Daniel P.


625 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 682 of 717

Frable, David W.

Groner, Norman E.

Jacoby, David J.

Jelenewicz, Chris

Klein, David P.

Lathrop, James K.


Murga, Ricardo

Pauls, Jake


Roberts, Jon G.

Tyree, David P.

Vann, Joshua


626 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 683 of 717


Global FR-8155

A.35.3.1.1

Table 1.5-2 of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and OtherStructures, Table 1.5-2, is reprinted in this section as Table A.35.3.1.1 with the permission of ASCE/SEI.

Table A.35.3.1.1 Importance Factors by Risk Category of Buildings and Other Structures for Snow, Ice,

and Earthquake Loadsa

Risk Categoryfrom

Table 1.5-1

SnowImportance

Factor,

Is

Ice ImportanceFactor —

Thickness,

Ii

Ice ImportanceFactor —

Wind,

Iw

SeismicImportance

Factor,

Ie

I 0.80 0.80 1.00 1.00

II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

III 1.10 1.25 1.00 1.25

IV 1.20 1.25 1.00 1.50

aThe component importance factor, Ip , applicable to earthquake loads, is not included in this tablebecause it is dependent on the importance of the individual component rather than that of the building asa whole, or its occupancy. Refer to Section 13.1.3 of ASCE/SEI 7.


Committee: BLD-SCM


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Provides a direct reference to the Table to comply with MOS.


Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Htway, Tin

Rotondo, Jason D.

Affirmative All


627 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 684 of 717


Collins, David S.

Feid, Jeffrey

Fitch, William E.

Garis, Steve

Graham, Mark S.

Hall, William J.

Harrington, John C.


Holland, Joseph T.

Kaplan, Moriel E.

Lowery, Kenneth

Manley, Bonnie E.

Nesvold, Scott

Schmeida, Michael

Tyree, David P.

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.



None


628 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 685 of 717


A.55.3.2.1

NFPA 72 , provides details of standard practice in sprinkler supervision. Subject to the approval of theauthority having jurisdiction, sprinkler supervision is also permitted to be provided by direct connectionto municipal fire departments or, in the case of very large establishments, to a private headquartersproviding similar functions. NFPA 72 covers such matters. Where municipal fire alarm systems areinvolved, reference should also be made to NFPA 1221 .

Monitoring should include, but not be limited to, monitoring of control valves, water tank levels andtemperatures, tank pressure, and air pressure on dry-pipe valves.


Committee: BLD-BSF


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The existing annex note does not provide any additional information that is not alreadyaddressed in the body of the Code.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8140-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Donga, Paul M.

Jardin, Joseph M.

Klinker, Richard L.

White, Kristian

Affirmative All

Balido, Jodi S

Bradley, Harry L.

Brinkman, Kevin L.

Brock, Pat D.

Chen, Flora F.

Dempsey, Bryan


629 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 686 of 717

Grill, Raymond A.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.

Hutton, Claude O.

Kellett, Michael

Killian, David A.

Larrimer, Peter A.

Lazarz, Daniel J.

Panowitz, Scott E.

Reed, Ray F.

Reiswig, Rodger


Ruchala, Kurt A.

Shudak, Lawrence J.

Szmanda, Michael R.

Warner, Todd W.

Wren, Carl D.

Wyatt, David M.


Dale, Stephen E.

.


630 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 687 of 717

First Revision No. 8317-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Section No. D.3.5.5 ]

D.3.5.5

The area of unprotected openings permitted by Table D.3.5(a) and Table D.3.5(b) shall be permitted to bedoubled under either of the following conditions:

(1) Where the building is protected throughout with an approved electrically supervised automaticsprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13 , NFPA 13D , and NFPA 13R 55.3.1.1 and electricallysupervised in accordance with 55.3.2

(2) Where the openings are protected with a fire window assembly or other listed opening protectivehaving a fire protection rating in accordance with Table D.3.5.5

Table D.3.5.5 Minimum Fire Protection Ratings for Exterior Opening Protectives

Wall Fire Resistance Rating

(hr)

Fire

Protection Rating

(hr)

2 11⁄2

1 3⁄4


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This correlates with other sections of NFPA 5000 as it points to the supervision section andsprinkler system section within the document, not the specific sprinkler installation standard. Thisallows for uniform enforcement by eliminating an interpretation of permitting locking valves open(permitted by NFPA 13) and provides for consistent installation.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8317-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled


631 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 688 of 717

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


632 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 689 of 717

First Revision No. 8316-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Section No. D.4.2.1.2 ]

D.4.2.1.2

The maximum EF compartment area values in Table D.4.2.1(b) shall be applied only where the EFcompartment is protected throughout with an approved, electrically supervised automatic sprinkler systemin accordance with NFPA 13 55.3.1.1 (1) and electrically supervised in accordance with 55.3.2 .


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-8316-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.


633 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 690 of 717

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


634 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 691 of 717


D.4.2.2.2

Table D.4.2.2.1(b) shall be applied only where the EF compartment is protected throughout with anapproved, electrically supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13 55.3.1.1 (1)and electrically supervised in accordance with 55.3.2 .


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-8315-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.


635 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 692 of 717

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


636 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 693 of 717


D.4.2.3.2

The fire resistance rating requirements in Table D.4.2.1(b) shall be applied only where the EFcompartment on each side of the EFC barrier is protected throughout with an approved, electricallysupervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13 55.3.1.1 (1) and electricallysupervised in accordance with 55.3.2 .


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-8314-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.


637 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 694 of 717

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


638 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 695 of 717

First Revision No. 8313-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Section No. D.4.3.3.2.1 ]

D.4.3.3.2.1

The area of an EF compartment shall not be limited in a one-story building used for business, industrialoccupancies with ordinary hazard contents, mercantile occupancies, or assembly uses intended forviewing of indoor sporting events with spectator seating where provided with an approved, electricallysupervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13 55.3.1.1 (1) and electricallysupervised in accordance with 55.3.2 , and surrounded and adjoined by public ways or yards not lessthan 60 ft (18 m) in width.


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-8313-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.


639 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 696 of 717

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


640 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 697 of 717


D.4.3.3.3 Sprinklered One- or Two-Story Storage Building.

The area of an EF compartment shall not be limited in a building with a number of two stories of two orfewer used for storage of ordinary hazard contents, provided that both of the following requirements aremet:

(1) The entire building is protected throughout with an approved, electrically supervised automaticsprinkler system installed in accordance with NFPA 13 . 55.3.1.1 (1) and electrically supervised inaccordance with 55.3.2 .

(2) The exterior walls face public ways or yards not less than 60 ft (18 m) in width.


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-8312-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.


641 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 698 of 717

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


642 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 699 of 717


D.4.3.3.4 Sprinklered Two-Story Building.

The area of an EF compartment shall not be limited in a building with a number of stories of two storiesor fewer used for business, industrial, or mercantile occupancies where provided with an approved,electrically supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13 55.3.1.1 (1) andelectrically supervised in accordance with 55.3.2 , and surrounded and adjoined by public ways or yardsnot less than 60 ft (18 m) in width.


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This correlates with other section of NFPA 5000 as it points to the supervision section and not thespecific sprinkler installation standard. This allows for uniform enforcement by eliminating aninterpretation of permitting locking valves open (permitted by NFPA 13) and provides for consistentinstallation.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8311-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.


643 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 700 of 717

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


644 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 701 of 717


D.4.3.3.7 Sprinklered One-Story Educational Building.

The area of an EF compartment shall not be limited in a one-story building of Type II(111), Type II(000),Type III(211), or Type IV construction used for educational occupancies where the following criteria aremet:

(1) Each classroom shall have not less than two means of egress, with one of the means of egress beinga direct exit to the outside of the building.




Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-8310-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark


645 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 702 of 717

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


646 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 703 of 717


D.4.3.3.8 Sprinklered One-Story Motion Picture Theaters.

The area of an EF compartment shall not be limited in one-story motion picture theaters in buildings ofType II construction where provided with an approved, electrically supervised automatic sprinkler systemthroughout in accordance with NFPA 13 55.3.1.1 (1) and electrically supervised in accordance with55.3.2 , and surrounded and adjoined by public ways or yards not less than 60 ft (18 m) in width.


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-8309-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.


647 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 704 of 717

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


648 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 705 of 717


D.4.3.3.9 Sprinklered One-Story Assembly Building.

The area of an EF compartment shall not be limited in a one-story assembly building used as anauditorium, church, community hall, dance hall, exhibition hall, gymnasium, lecture hall, indoor swimmingpool, or tennis court of Type II construction where all the following criteria are met:

(1) The building shall not have a theatrical stage other than a raised platform.

(2) The building shall be equipped with an approved, electrically supervised automatic sprinkler systemin accordance with NFPA 13 55.3.1.1 (1) and electrically supervised in accordance with 55.3.2 .

(3) The assembly floor shall be located as follows:

(a) At or within 21 in. (535 mm) of the level of the exterior exit discharge accessible from the mainentrance/exit

(b) For buildings that do not have a main entrance/exit, within 21 in. (535 mm) of the level of theexterior exit discharge accessible from any of the required exits

(4) All exits and exit discharges shall be level or provided with ramps to a public way.



Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-8308-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled


649 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 706 of 717

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


650 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 707 of 717

First Revision No. 8306-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Section No. D.6.1 ]

D.6.1 Aircraft Hangars.

The height of one-story aircraft hangars shall not be limited where the building is surrounded by publicspace, streets, or permanent open yards not less in width than 11⁄2 times the height of the building, andwhere the building is protected with an approved, electrically supervised sprinkler system in accordancewith NFPA 13 55.3.1.1 (1) and electrically supervised in accordance with 55.3.2 . (See Chapters 29 and30 for special occupancy requirements.)


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-8306-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.


651 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 708 of 717

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


652 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 709 of 717


D.6.4 Type V Residential Construction.

The height of residential occupancy buildings of Type V construction shall be permitted to be increased10 ft (3050 mm) above the limit shown in Table D.4.2.1(b) where protected throughout with an approved,supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13R 55.3.1.1 (2) .


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This correlates with other section of NFPA 5000 as it points to the installation section and notthe specific sprinkler installation standard.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8307-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.


653 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 710 of 717

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


654 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 711 of 717


D.6.5 Small Board and Care Occupancies.

For board and care occupancies, the values in Table D.4.2.1(b) and Table D.4.2.2.1(b) for sprinkleredbuildings shall also apply to buildings four or fewer stories in height above grade plane protectedthroughout with an approved, electrically supervised sprinkler system in accordance withNFPA 13R 55.3.1.1 (2) and electrically supervised in accordance with 55.3.2 .


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-8305-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.


655 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 712 of 717

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


656 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 713 of 717


D.6.6 Enclosed Parking Structures with Occupancies Above.

A basement or first story above grade plane of a building shall be considered as a separate and distinctbuilding for the purpose of determining the location of the occupancies and type of construction, providedthat all of the following conditions are met:

(1) The basement or first story above grade plane shall be of Type I construction and shall be separatedfrom the building above with a horizontal assembly having a minimum 3-hour fire resistance rating.

(2) Shaft, stairway, ramp, or escalator enclosures through the horizontal assembly shall comply witheither of the following conditions:

(a) The enclosures shall have not less than a 2-hour fire resistance rating with opening protectives inaccordance with Table 8.7.2.2.

(b) Where the walls below the horizontal assembly have a minimum 3-hour fire resistance rating withopening protectives as required for walls forming a 3-hour fire barrier, the enclosure wallsextending above the horizontal assembly shall be permitted to have a 1-hour fire resistancerating, provided that all the following conditions are met:

i. The building above the horizontal assembly is not required to be of Type I construction.

ii. The enclosure connects less than four stories above the horizontal assembly.

iii. The enclosure opening protectives above the horizontal assembly have a minimum 1-hourfire protection rating.

(3) The building above the horizontal assembly shall contain only business, mercantile, storage, orresidential occupancies or assembly occupancies having an assembly room with an occupant load ofless than 300.

(4) The building below the horizontal assembly shall be an enclosed or open parking structure used forthe parking and storage of private motor vehicles, unless otherwise permitted by the following:

(a) Entry lobbies, mechanical rooms, and similar uses incidental to the operation of the building shallbe permitted.

(b) Business, mercantile, and assembly occupancies having an assembly room with an occupantload of less than 300 shall be permitted in addition to those uses incidental to the operation of thebuilding (including storage areas), provided that the entire structure below the horizontalassembly is protected throughout by an approved, electrically supervised automatic sprinklersystem installed in accordance with NFPA 13 55.3.1.1 (1) and electrically supervised inaccordance with 55.3.2 .

(5) The maximum building height in feet shall not exceed the limits set forth in Table D.4.2.2.1(a) or TableD.4.2.2.1(b) for the least restrictive type of construction involved.


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

FR-8304-NFPA 5000-2018


657 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 714 of 717

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


658 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 715 of 717


D.7.5 Power-Generation Structures.

Structures of Type I or Type II construction used exclusively for the enclosure of steam generators, steamturbines, gas turbines, heat recovery generators, and flue gas treatment equipment shall be permitted tobe of unlimited building height and EF compartment area when special hazards are protected by anautomatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13 55.3.1.1 (1), or a water spray fixed system inaccordance with NFPA 15, or a combination thereof.

Note: See NFPA 850 for protection recommendations.


Committee: BLD-BLC


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This correlates with other sections of NFPA 5000 by pointing to the section in NFPA 5000that references NFPA 13.

ResponseMessage:

FR-8303-NFPA 5000-2018

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dalton, James M.

Grant, Kurtis

Heiza, Khaled

Affirmative All


Alfawakhiri, Farid

Chrisman, Mark

Collins, David S.

Davis, Richard J.

Day, Richard L.

Dopart, Alan J.

Frable, David W.


659 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 716 of 717

Francis, Sam W.

Gaut, James W.

Hall, William J.

Hanson, Robert E.

Holland, Joseph T.

Hugo, Jeffrey M.


Johnson, Aaron

Koffel, William E.

LaPine, Edward R.

Lowery, Kenneth

McElvaney, Joe

Schiffer, Brad

Schmeida, Michael

Schneider, Stephen

Versteeg, Joseph H.

Walke, Richard N.

Willse, Peter J.

Zemel, Felix I.


660 of 660 11/29/2018, 10:59 AM

Page 717 of 717