first draft meeting ppt
TRANSCRIPT
National Fire Protection Association
1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471
Phone: 617-770-3000 • Fax: 617-770-0700 • www.nfpa.org
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies
FROM: Kelly Carey, Project Administrator
DATE: December 2, 2015
SUBJECT: NFPA 101 First Draft Technical Committee FINAL Ballot Results (A2017)
According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass
ballot.
28 Members Eligible to Vote
5 Members Not Returned (H.W. Boyd, P. Boyer, D. Damron, J. Sharry, J. Zwirn)
15 Members Voted Affirmative on All Revisions (w/ comment: R. Asp, S. Harbuck, M. Klein,
C. Weaver)
8 Members Voted Negative on one or more Revisions (D. Buuck, M. Klein, J. Lathrop,
A. Longhitano, E. Mayl, R. Nickson, K. Spangler, C. Weaver)
0 Members Abstained on one or more Revisions
The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the
explanation of the vote for each revision.
To pass ballot, each revision requires: (1) a simple majority of those eligible to vote and (2) an
affirmative vote of 2/3 of ballots returned. See Sections 3.3.4.3.(c) and 4.3.10.1 of the Regulations
Governing the Development of NFPA Standards.
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 5
H. Wayne Boyd,Patrick
Boyer,Jeffrey D.
Zwirn,Donald P.
Damron,John A. Sharry
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 3
Marshall A. Klein The requirement addressing both NFPA 13R and NFPA 13D requirements in the same sentence is
confusing since the NFPA 13R requirements dealing with the number of stories and 60' in height only
relate to NFPA 13R, not NFPA 13D. Should read: "Where an automatic sprinkler system is installed,
either for total or partial building coverage, the system shall be in accordance with Section 9.7; in
buildings of four or fewer stories in height, and not exceeding 60 ft (18.3 m) in height above grade
plane, systems in accordance with NFPA 13R, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Low-
Rise Residential Occupancies shall be permitted; and in buildings with NFPA 13D shall also be
permitted."
Carl F. Weaver Editorial change to correlate to other codes.
NFPA 101 - TC ON RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCIES
FIRST DRAFT BALLOT - FINAL RESULTS
FR-6003, Section No. 24.3.5.2, See FR-6003
1 of 21
Roland A. Asp I agree with the concept but the wording is awkward, it sounds like this section would allow a NFPA 13D
system in a four story apartment building. Wording should be modified to something like "Where an
automatic sprinkler system is installed, either for total or partial building coverage, the system shall be
in accordance with Section 9.7; in buildings of four or fewer stories in height, and not exceeding 60 ft
(18.3 m) in height above grade plane, systems in accordance with NFPA 13R shall be permitted, in one-
and two family dwellings and manufactured homes, systems in accordance with NFPA 13D shall also be
permitted".
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 5
H. Wayne Boyd,Patrick
Boyer,Jeffrey D.
Zwirn,Donald P.
Damron,John A. Sharry
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
For Simple majority and also two-third majority election; the simple affirmative votes needed are 15 and the two-third affirmative votes
needed are 16
FR-6005, Section No. 26.3.6.2.2, See FR-6005
Total Voted : 23
2 of 21
Affirmative with Comment 1
Carl F. Weaver Editorial change to correlate to other codes.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 5
H. Wayne Boyd,Patrick
Boyer,Jeffrey D.
Zwirn,Donald P.
Damron,John A. Sharry
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 1
Carl F. Weaver Editorial change to correlate to other codes.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
FR-6007, Section No. 28.3.5.3, See FR-6007
Total Voted : 23
For Simple majority and also two-third majority election; the simple affirmative votes needed are 15 and the two-third affirmative votes
needed are 16
Total Voted : 23
For Simple majority and also two-third majority election; the simple affirmative votes needed are 15 and the two-third affirmative votes
needed are 16
3 of 21
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 5
H. Wayne Boyd,Patrick
Boyer,Jeffrey D.
Zwirn,Donald P.
Damron,John A. Sharry
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 1
Carl F. Weaver Editorial change to correlate to other codes.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 5
For Simple majority and also two-third majority election; the simple affirmative votes needed are 15 and the two-third affirmative votes
needed are 16
FR-6010, Section No. 30.3.5.2, See FR-6010
FR-6009, Section No. 29.3.5.3, See FR-6009
Total Voted : 23
4 of 21
H. Wayne Boyd,Patrick
Boyer,Jeffrey D.
Zwirn,Donald P.
Damron,John A. Sharry
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 1
Carl F. Weaver Editorial change to correlate to other codes.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 5
H. Wayne Boyd,Patrick
Boyer,Jeffrey D.
Zwirn,Donald P.
Damron,John A. Sharry
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 1
Carl F. Weaver Editorial change to correlate to other codes.
FR-6012, Section No. 31.3.5.2, See FR-6012
Total Voted : 23
For Simple majority and also two-third majority election; the simple affirmative votes needed are 15 and the two-third affirmative votes
needed are 16
5 of 21
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 5
H. Wayne Boyd,Patrick
Boyer,Jeffrey D.
Zwirn,Donald P.
Damron,John A. Sharry
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 4
Marshall A. Klein I have changed my vote on this issue based on the negative Ballot comments of Mr. Longhitano, Mr.
Weaver and Mr. Mayl.
Carl F. Weaver I do not see how this requirement could be enforced in a single-family home.
Total Voted : 23
For Simple majority and also two-third majority election; the simple affirmative votes needed are 15 and the two-third affirmative votes
needed are 16
FR-6015, Section No. 24.3.2, See FR-6015
6 of 21
Alfred J. Longhitano This language is so broad that an inspector seeing an alcohol hand sanitizer could require egress as
required for a hazardous area.
Eric N. Mayl Compliance with §8.7.3.1 is overly restrictive in single family homes.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 5
H. Wayne Boyd,Patrick
Boyer,Jeffrey D.
Zwirn,Donald P.
Damron,John A. Sharry
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 1
Carl F. Weaver Editorial change.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
For Simple majority and also two-third majority election; the simple affirmative votes needed are 15 and the two-third affirmative votes
needed are 16
FR-6021, New Section after 26.1.1.4, See FR-6021
Total Voted : 23
Total Voted : 23
7 of 21
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 5
H. Wayne Boyd,Patrick
Boyer,Jeffrey D.
Zwirn,Donald P.
Damron,John A. Sharry
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 1
Carl F. Weaver The revision incorporates the 8.7.3.1 hazardous materials storage and handling provisions for lodging or
rooming houses.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
FR-6016, Section No. 26.3.2, See FR-6016
Total Voted : 23
For Simple majority and also two-third majority election; the simple affirmative votes needed are 15 and the two-third affirmative votes
needed are 16
For Simple majority and also two-third majority election; the simple affirmative votes needed are 15 and the two-third affirmative votes
needed are 16
FR-6022, New Section after 28.1.1.5, See FR-6022
8 of 21
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 5
H. Wayne Boyd,Patrick
Boyer,Jeffrey D.
Zwirn,Donald P.
Damron,John A. Sharry
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 1
Carl F. Weaver Editorial change.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 5
H. Wayne Boyd,Patrick
Boyer,Jeffrey D.
Zwirn,Donald P.
Damron,John A. Sharry
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 16
For Simple majority and also two-third majority election; the simple affirmative votes needed are 15 and the two-third affirmative votes
needed are 16
FR-6008, New Section after 28.2.1.3, See FR-6008
Total Voted : 23
9 of 21
Affirmative with Comment 1
Stanley C. Harbuck Affirmative Ballot Comment on FR-6008 (submitted by RES TC Representatives for APHA: Harbuck & Pauls): Grab bars for NFPA
101, Ch 28, New Hotels & Dormitories Comments by the 5 Negative Balloters (Lathrop, Buuck, Longhitano, Weaver and Mayl)
warrant rebuttal during the RES TC ballot circulation as follows. An argument, from James Lathrop, about the topic not being
appropriate for NFPA 101 because it is “typically enforced by fire safety personnel,” is ironic at best and unfair at worst. Fire
personnel now apparently respond to more non-fire injury incidents than to fire incidents. This should not be surprising in view
of epidemiological data presented in the detailed justification for grab bars for baths/showers; namely that for each civilian fire-
related injury now, there are about 13 ER-treated injuries due to falls related to baths and showers (and many more due to stair-
related injuries which has been within the scope of NFPA 101 for decades). Moreover the baths/showers-related injuries are
growing relatively rapidly—doubling or tripling respectively for ER-treated and hospital-admitted—in a two-decade period, 1991-
2010. This rapid growth is exactly opposite the declining trend seen in civilian fire-related injuries in recent decades. Fire services
have more time—not dominated by fire—on their hands now and some of that time is quite rightly going to other injury events,
notably falls and, most dramatically, falls associated with baths/showers. (These epidemiology data were in the proposal.) The
three main claims by Daniel Buuck are without foundation. First, the proposed requirements are consistent with the
requirements of the widely used standards used by the “accessibility community” at the smaller number of locations, within
bath/shower facilities, called for in the NFPA proposals; any review that has been made, and will be further made, by leaders in
the accessibility field, confirms that the safety-focused requirements are not at odds with those for accessibility. Ramifications
are, moreover, being intensively examined by US accessibility experts prior to public comment concluding in the NFPA process.
Finally, the fear about children climbing the vertical pole-form grab bars is completely unfounded; as specified in the proposed
requirements—without footholds, they are not conducive to climbing. Pulling yes, but climbing no. Alfred Longhitano is being
unfair with the characterization that a fire safety standard (which is an outdated characterization of NFPA 101 which is
concerned with life safety with regard to means of egress) is being turned into a “social engineering document.” Furthermore,
given the proposal’s explicit statements that the proposed measures do NOT provide what is in the usual accessibility standards
and rules, it is unfair to claim that the proposal requires “every bathtub to be fully handicapped-accessible.” That requires more
features than included in the proposal. Carl Weaver apparently misunderstands the comparisons made between baths/showers
and stairs in terms of relative risks per use and the significantly more conservative approach traditionally taken by the NFPA
documents in requiring at least twice as many “points of control” for stairs as is now the common situation with baths/showers
which have only one point of control and a dicey one at that, i.e., one foot on a potentially slippery surface. Before making the
groundless statement that “mandating grab bars for all hotel rooms is not warranted,” Eric Mayl should perhaps stay in more
hotels, especially the chain that has had a chain-wide policy to provide at least one grab bar for baths/showers for a long time.
Apparently he is as confused about the scope of full accessibility for certain hotel rooms versus the simpler set of fall-mitigation
measures proposed now for all new hotel baths/showers based on safety, not full accessibility!
Negative 6
10 of 21
James K. Lathrop Although I concur with the intent of this provision. I should be in NFPA 5000 but not NFPA 101. NFPA
101 is typically enforced by fire safety personnel
Daniel Buuck A Committee Input should have been created for this section similar to CI 6004 which, according to the
Committee Statement, "is intended to solicit public comments for review during the second draft
stage." First of all, I am concerned that the proposed requirements have not been adequately reviewed
by the accessibility community. There is also the issue of the proposed vertical grab bars, especially
those from the floor to the ceiling, which will be inviting for children to climb. This will more than likely
lead to the unintended consequence of serious injuries due to the misuse of the grab bars in hotels and
apartment buildings. It is obvious that the ramifications of this major change to the nation’s living
spaces has not been fully vetted.
Alfred J. Longhitano While I agree that providing the structural blocking to accommodate grab bars makes sense in new
construction, I am not willing to turn a fire safety standard into a social engineering document by
requiring every bathtub to be fully handicapped-accessible.
Carl F. Weaver While I agree that there have been injuries in the bathtub, I believe this is a stretch to equate entering
and exiting a bathtub to using stairs in a means of egress.
Eric N. Mayl Mandating grab grab in all hotel rooms is not warranted.
11 of 21
Kevin Spangler Suggest adjusting code requirement to only be required for Dormitories, not hotels. The reason being
that hotels are provided with ADA compliant rooms with the grab bar provisions. Many examples
provided in the justification included persons in their home rather than hotels, which would indicate
dormitories would be an appropriate inclusion in the code. In hotel settings, higher risk individuals, such
as the data examples of an elderly individual with a walker who fell, would be in an ADA room with the
grab bar provisions. Requiring grab bars in all hotel rooms is an unnecessary cost for all rooms.
Additional data should be provided for hotel injuries to require hotel grab bars as part of the code.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 5
H. Wayne Boyd,Patrick
Boyer,Jeffrey D.
Zwirn,Donald P.
Damron,John A. Sharry
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 21
Affirmative with Comment 1
FR-6017, New Section after 28.3.2.2.3, See FR-6017
Total Voted : 23
For Simple majority and also two-third majority election; the simple affirmative votes needed are 15 and the two-third affirmative votes
needed are 16
12 of 21
Carl F. Weaver The revision incorporates the 8.7.3.1 hazardous materials storage and handling provisions for hotels and
dormitories.
Negative 1
Alfred J. Longhitano This language is so broad that an inspector seeing an alcohol hand sanitizer could require egress as
required for a hazardous area.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 5
H. Wayne Boyd,Patrick
Boyer,Jeffrey D.
Zwirn,Donald P.
Damron,John A. Sharry
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 1
Carl F. Weaver Editorial change.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Total Voted : 23
For Simple majority and also two-third majority election; the simple affirmative votes needed are 15 and the two-third affirmative votes
needed are 16
FR-6023, New Section after 29.1.1.5, See FR-6023
13 of 21
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 5
H. Wayne Boyd,Patrick
Boyer,Jeffrey D.
Zwirn,Donald P.
Damron,John A. Sharry
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 21
Affirmative with Comment 1
Carl F. Weaver The revision incorporates the 8.7.3.1 hazardous materials storage and handling provisions for hotels and
dormitories.
Negative 1
Alfred J. Longhitano This language is so broad that an inspector seeing an alcohol hand sanitizer could require egress as
required for a hazardous area.
Abstain 0
For Simple majority and also two-third majority election; the simple affirmative votes needed are 15 and the two-third affirmative votes
needed are 16
FR-6018, New Section after 29.3.2.2.3, See FR-6018
Total Voted : 23
Total Voted : 23
For Simple majority and also two-third majority election; the simple affirmative votes needed are 15 and the two-third affirmative votes
needed are 16
14 of 21
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 5
H. Wayne Boyd,Patrick
Boyer,Jeffrey D.
Zwirn,Donald P.
Damron,John A. Sharry
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 1
Carl F. Weaver Editorial change.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 5
H. Wayne Boyd,Patrick
Boyer,Jeffrey D.
Zwirn,Donald P.
Damron,John A. Sharry
FR-6024, New Section after 30.1.1.4, See FR-6024
Total Voted : 23
For Simple majority and also two-third majority election; the simple affirmative votes needed are 15 and the two-third affirmative votes
needed are 16
FR-6011, New Section after 30.2.1.2, See FR-6011
15 of 21
Stanley C. Harbuck Affirmative Ballot Comment on FR-6011 (submitted by RES TC Representatives for APHA: Harbuck & Pauls): Grab bars for NFPA
101, Ch 30, New Apartment Buildings Comments by the 6 Negative Balloters (Lathrop, Buuck, Longhitano, Weaver, Nickson and
Mayl) warrant rebuttal during the RES TC ballot circulation as follows. An argument, from James Lathrop, about the topic not
being appropriate for NFPA 101 because it is “typically enforced by fire safety personnel,” is ironic at best and unfair at worst.
Fire personnel now apparently respond to more non-fire injury incidents than to fire incidents. This should not be surprising in
view of epidemiological data presented in the detailed justification for grab bars for baths/showers; namely that for each civilian
fire-related injury now, there are about 13 ER-treated injuries due to falls related to baths and showers (and many more due to
stair-related injuries which has been within the scope of NFPA 101 for decades). Moreover the baths/showers-related injuries
are growing relatively rapidly—doubling or tripling respectively for ER-treated and hospital-admitted—in a two-decade period,
1991-2010. This rapid growth is exactly opposite the declining trend seen in civilian fire-related injuries in recent decades. Fire
services have more time—not dominated by fire—on their hands now and some of that time is quite rightly going to other injury
events, notably falls and, most dramatically, falls associated with baths/showers. (These epidemiology data were in the
proposal.) The three main claims by Daniel Buuck are without foundation. First, the proposed requirements are consistent with
the requirements of the widely used standards used by the “accessibility community” at the smaller number of locations, within
bath/shower facilities, called for in the NFPA proposals; any review that has been made, and will be further made, by leaders in
the accessibility field, confirms that the safety-focused requirements are not at odds with those for accessibility. Ramifications
are, moreover, being intensively examined by US accessibility experts prior to public comment concluding in the NFPA process.
Finally, the fear about children climbing the vertical pole-form grab bars is completely unfounded; as specified in the proposed
requirements—without footholds, they are not conducive to climbing. Pulling yes, but climbing no. Alfred Longhitano is being
unfair with the characterization that a fire safety standard (which is an outdated characterization of NFPA 101 which is
concerned with life safety with regard to means of egress) is being turned into a “social engineering document.” Furthermore,
given the proposal’s explicit statements that the proposed measures do NOT provide what is in the usual accessibility standards
and rules, it is unfair to claim that the proposal requires “every bathtub to be fully handicapped-accessible.” That requires more
features than included in the proposal. Carl Weaver apparently misunderstands the comparisons made between baths/showers
and stairs in terms of relative risks per use and the significantly more conservative approach traditionally taken by the NFPA
documents in requiring at least twice as many “points of control” for stairs as is now the common situation with baths/showers
which have only one point of control and a dicey one at that, i.e., one foot on a potentially slippery surface. Ron Nickson’s
statement is if it is qualified to state ANSI A117.1’s provisions address accessibility for a small subset of the population, not
safety for the entire population. Eric Mayl’s comment should have recognized that apartments are occupied by many persons
vulnerable to falls and, increasingly, persons whose falls result in more serious, life-changing injuries and disabilities at worst and
fear of taking showers and baths at best.
Negative 6
17 of 21
James K. Lathrop Although I concur with the intent of this provision. I should be in NFPA 5000 but not NFPA 101. NFPA
101 is typically enforced by fire safety personnel
Daniel Buuck A Committee Input should have been created for this section similar to CI 6004 which, according to the
Committee Statement, "is intended to solicit public comments for review during the second draft
stage." First of all, I am concerned that the proposed requirements have not been adequately reviewed
by the accessibility community. There is also the issue of the proposed vertical grab bars, especially
those from the floor to the ceiling, which will be inviting for children to climb. This will more than likely
lead to the unintended consequence of serious injuries due to the misuse of the grab bars in hotels and
apartment buildings. It is obvious that the ramifications of this major change to the nation’s living
spaces has not been fully vetted.
Alfred J. Longhitano While I agree that providing the structural blocking to accommodate grab bars makes sense in new
construction, I am not willing to turn a fire safety standard into a social engineering document by
requiring every bathtub to be fully handicapped-accessible.
Carl F. Weaver While I agree that there have been injuries in the bathtub, I believe this is a stretch to equate entering
and exiting a bathtub to using stairs in a means of egress.
Ronald G. Nickson Necessary grab bar provisions are already covered by ANSI A117.1
Eric N. Mayl Requiring grab bars in all apartment showers is not warranted.
Abstain 0
For Simple majority and also two-third majority election; the simple affirmative votes needed are 15 and the two-third affirmative votes
needed are 16
Total Voted : 23
18 of 21
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 5
H. Wayne Boyd,Patrick
Boyer,Jeffrey D.
Zwirn,Donald P.
Damron,John A. Sharry
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 21
Affirmative with Comment 1
Carl F. Weaver The revision incorporates the 8.7.3.1 hazardous materials storage and handling provisions for
apartment buildings.
Negative 1
Alfred J. Longhitano This language is so broad that an inspector seeing an alcohol hand sanitizer could require egress as
required for a hazardous area.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 5
FR-6019, New Section after 30.3.2.1.2, See FR-6019
FR-6025, New Section after 31.1.1.4, See FR-6025
Total Voted : 23
For Simple majority and also two-third majority election; the simple affirmative votes needed are 15 and the two-third affirmative votes
needed are 16
19 of 21
H. Wayne Boyd,Patrick
Boyer,Jeffrey D.
Zwirn,Donald P.
Damron,John A. Sharry
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 22
Affirmative with Comment 1
Carl F. Weaver Editorial change.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 5
H. Wayne Boyd,Patrick
Boyer,Jeffrey D.
Zwirn,Donald P.
Damron,John A. Sharry
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 21
Affirmative with Comment 1
Total Voted : 23
For Simple majority and also two-third majority election; the simple affirmative votes needed are 15 and the two-third affirmative votes
needed are 16
FR-6020, New Section after 31.3.2.1.2, See FR-6020
20 of 21
Carl F. Weaver The revision incorporates the 8.7.3.1 hazardous materials storage and handling provisions for
apartment buildings.
Negative 1
Alfred J. Longhitano This language is so broad that an inspector seeing an alcohol hand sanitizer could require egress as
required for a hazardous area.
Abstain 0
For Simple majority and also two-third majority election; the simple affirmative votes needed are 15 and the two-third affirmative votes
needed are 16
Total Voted : 23
21 of 21