M E M O R A N D U M. NFPA Technical Committee on Means of Egress. Diane Matthews, Technical Projects, Administrator. Date: October 12, 2012

Transcription

1 National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA Phone: Fax: M E M O R A N D U M To: From: NFPA Technical Committee on Means of Egress Diane Matthews, Technical Projects, Administrator Date: October 12, 2012 Subject: NFPA 5000 First Draft TC FINAL Ballot Results (A14 Cycle) According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass ballot. 25 Members Eligible to Vote 1 Member Not Returned (devries) 16 Members Voted Affirmative on All (Affirmative with comment: C. Barlow, W. Bonisch, D. Frable, G. Nuschler, M. Shulman) 6 Members Voted Negative on one or more first revisions: (C. Barlow, W. Bonisch, K. Bush, D. Frable, R. Perry, J. Versteeg) 2 Members Abstained on one or more first revisions: (S. Orlowski, M. Shulman) The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the explanation of the vote for each first revision. There are two criteria necessary for each first revision to pass ballot: (1) simple majority and (2) affirmative 2 / 3 vote. The mock examples below show how the calculations are determined. (1) Example for Simple Majority: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members, 11 affirmative votes are required to pass ballot. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligible to vote 2 = = 11) (2) Example for Affirmative 2 / 3 : Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members and 1 member did not return their ballot and 2 members abstained, the number of affirmative votes required would be 12. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligble to vote 1 not returned 2 abstentions = 17 x 0.66 = = 12 ) As always please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

2 NFPA 5000 BLD-MEA FIRST DRAFT FINAL REPORT NFPA 5000 FR236 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 Entire Code S. Orlowski: NFPA 101 Technical Committees (TCs) must also act on similar or identical Proposals and Comments for NFPA This action emphasizes the unnecessary redundancy of NFPA 5000 regarding established NFPA and International Code Council codes and standards and is not supported by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). NAHB therefore abstains on this NFPA 5000 action. NFPA 5000 FR202 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR237 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 22 Negative: 1 1 Not Returned: Negative: W. Bonisch: (a) is not clear as to what protection should be provided. Should say 1 hr. constr. with opening protectives. (b) section is brand new; it is not justified yet to modify these historically provided provisions to permit such a connection. NFPA 5000 FR203 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: and

3 NFPA 5000 FR238 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 21 Negative: 2 1 Not Returned: Negative: D. Frable: I concur with the reason statements in J. Versteeg s negative ballot. J. Versteeg: The current wording of Section in the Code was introduced in the 1990's to document that the slip resistance of an egress component must be uniform from start to finish where a person would normally walk, i.e. from the bottom to the top of the ramp, versus across its width. The current wording eliminated the Code being used in litigation as a per se violation when the ramp surface was more slip resistant under the handrails where people do not walk when compared to the natural path of travel. I have no issue with the deletion of the word "uniformly", however the phrase "along the natural path of travel" must be retained. Mr. Koffel's input should be reconsidered. NFPA 5000 FR204 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR200 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: Affirmative with comment: 2

4 C. Barlow: Maybe add,... other objects in the means of egress... NFPA 5000 FR206 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR261 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR207 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR239 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 22 Negative: 1 1 Not Returned: Negative: W. Bonisch: Buildings have been designed successfully without the new for this new exception. These spaces are typically dark upon entry so they should be provided with same elevation to allow orientation. 3

5 Affirmative with Comment: M. Shulman: A limit as to how much lower the floor can be should be included, by appending the added clause with "...but shall be not more than 8 in (205 mm) lower." This will still meet the intent of the proposal since the substantiation refers to the lower floor serving to contain spilled liquids. NFPA 5000 FR240 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR208 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR264 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR210 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned:

6 NFPA 5000 FR212 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR241 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: Affirmative with Comment: D. Frable: As currently proposed to be worded, the subject the subject text is difficult to understand for users of the Code and lead to misinterpretation of the requirement. Therefore, it would be preferred that the new proposed text be written as proposed in the public input. NFPA 5000 FR214 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: (12) NFPA 5000 FR290 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 22 Negative: 1 1 Not Returned: Negative: 5

7 R. Perry: Fire exit hardware is required by NFPA 80 to have a label indicating it is for use on fire resistant rated assemblies. Using this device on non fire resistant rated assemblies may cause confusion during the annual inspection process. Seeing the label, an inspector may think the opening is fire rated with the door and frame labels missing. NFPA 5000 FR242 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: Affirm with comment: W. Bonisch: Guidance should be provided where/how to measure the 39 inch height. M. Shulman: (5)(c)(ii) contains a circular reference back to itself. It should instead refer to (5)(c)(i), rather than to just "...(5)(c)". NFPA 5000 FR244 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR245 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR215 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 6

8 NFPA 5000 FR201 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR216 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR235 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR218 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned:

9 NFPA 5000 FR219 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: Affirmative with comment: C. Barlow: Clarification of the title: Exit Stair Path Markings should be changed to Luminous Egress Path Markings for Exit Stairs (or in Exit Stairways). NFPA 5000 FR222 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR223 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR270 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR248 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 8

10 Affirmative with comment: W. Bonisch: In (b) from termination of the horizontal exit should be from the intersection with the horizontal exit. NFPA 5000 FR275 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR224 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 22 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: through NFPA 5000 FR225 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR226 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned:

11 NFPA 5000 FR228 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR249 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR229 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR230 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: and NFPA 5000 FR250 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 10

12 Table Affirmative with comment: W. Bonisch: My vote contingent upon approval by mercantile/business committee. NFPA 5000 FR231 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR252 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR253 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 21 Negative: 2 1 Not Returned: Negatives: K. Bush: There are many provisions of this proposal which makes enforcement too difficult and subjective. This arrangement severely restricts the free movement of the means of egress system. See also FR255 Reason Statement. D. Frable: See comment on FR

13 NFPA 5000 FR254 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR255 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 21 Negative: 2 1 Not Returned: Negatives: K. Bush: There are many provisions of this proposal which makes enforcement too difficult and subjective. This arrangement severely restricts the free movement of the means of egress system, and contains confusing and conflicting requirements. There is no specification on the amount of delay that is intended to be served by these arrangements, and no technical justification for the area required for each building occupant or for the distance from the building implied to be a safe area. Is it intended that such space be provided for all building occupants, or those served by that particular means of egress path? There are no specifications on the design, arrangement, weather protection, walking surface, lighting, or egress path that would be required from the exterior holding space and the public way, and no means specified to notify those persons in the holding area to proceed to the public way once outside of the building. The Substantiation also states that many buildings are now completely surrounded by fences or courtyard walls. If such is the case, the requirement to provide a means to access the public way would not be possible. Means of egress should be provided with clear and unobstructed paths of sufficient widths that lead to a public way, through fence gates or designated paths if necessary, unless the building is designed, constructed, protected and maintained as a Detention and Correctional Occupancy. D. Frable: Agree with the overall concept of the public input. However, the proposed public input has been based on similar requirements for detention and correction occupancies which have occupants under varied degrees of restraint or security where such occupants are mostly incapable of selfpreservation because of security measures not under the occupants' control and are under direct supervision. Consequently, some of the proposed safeguards required may be overly restrictive for other types of occupancy chapters. In addition, the proposed text may also lead to some misinterpretation of the subject requirements (e.g., continuously maintained free, full instant use, etc.) as well as require the users of this Code to make too many assumptions regarding the necessary requirements for egress, etc. required to be met (e.g., exit capacity, egress width, locking arrangements, walking surfaces, emergency lighting, fire department operations, etc.) from within the staging area to ensure a reasonable degree of safety. Therefore, it is recommended that the proponent of the public input submit 12

14 a public comment on the first draft report to address these concerns. Lastly, it should be pointed out the annex material (see FR272) associated with FR255 has not been designated in FR255. Affirmative with comment: W. Bonisch: Should add (5) to automatically notify emergency forces so as to make sure Fire Dept. is responding. NFPA 5000 FR256 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 22 Negative:1 1 Not Returned: Negative: C. Barlow: This still in not correct - lighting controls can still turn off every normal light in the means of egress. The result is that emergency lighting is being cut off or turned on by the use of these control devices or systems, the historic minimum lighting levels for normal lighting are not maintained in the means of egress, and there remains no UL (or similar) listing service or performance standard for these lighting controls when used in the means of egress. Lighting controls should not be allowed in the means of egress while that part of the building served by that particular means of egress is occupied. The only viable exception might be a timer or other automatic lighting control device that turns off normal lighting when the building is not occupied. A better and safer solution would be to clarify that lighting controls cannot be used in the means of egress to turn off or dim lights below a minimum of 1 ft-candle illumination for normal lighting, or the illumination level(s) required specifically required by individual occupancy chapters. Better language for this section is as follows: * In the means of egress, during periods of building occupancy, lighting control devices shall not be used in the means of egress if the use of such devices might compromise the following lighting performance requirements. 1. Normal illumination shall be maintained at a minimum of 1 ft-candle when measured at floor level and on other walking surfaces. 2. If lighting control devices are used to dim lighting in the means of egress to minimum illumination levels, they shall be so configured so that the failure of any single lighting control device will not cause the illumination levels to fall below the required minimum level. 3. Lighting control devices shall not be used to control the operation or performance of emergency lighting. 13

15 4. Lighting control devices shall not affect the proper operation of emergency lighting, nor the minimum levels of performance of emergency lighting as required by this Section 7.9 Emergency Lighting. 5. Lighting control devices shall not adversely affect the normal discharging and charging cycle of emergency lighting with battery backup supply. 6. Lighting control devices shall not adversely affect the inspection, testing and maintenance of emergency lighting, as required by Section 7.9 Emergency Lighting. 7. Lighting control devices shall not be used to create confusing or disorienting performance of luminaires in the means of egress. 8. In occupancies requiring lower illumination levels than required above, during normal operation of the facility or processes, the illumination of the walking surfaces of exit access shall be a minimum of 0.2 ft-candle (2.2 lux) during periods of performances or projections involving directed light. If approved by the AHJ, the minimum illumination requirements shall not apply where operations or processes require low lighting levels. Addendum, for additional clarification. A * Lighting controls may increase the complexity of, and reduce the reliability of, operation of normal lighting in the means of egress. Redundant electrical lighting systems consist of normal lighting (operating to provide minimum illumination of the means of egress during periods of building occupancy) and emergency lighting (operating during failure of normal lighting to provide minimum illumination levels required for safe egress during emergency evacuations). Minimum lighting levels must be maintained in the means of egress during periods of building occupancy. Or, that particular exit should not be used to determine egress capacity for the building occupancy. Electrical lighting has been known to fail to operate properly during emergency evacuations. Redundancy of electrical lighting is required to increase reliability. In many high rise occupancy types, non-electrical luminous egress path markings are required to supplement electrical emergency lighting in the exit stairways. Today, various energy codes require reduced illumination levels in many areas of a facility - up to a 50% reduction in the means of egress. However, no energy code requires lighting in the means of egress to be reduced to illumination levels considered too low for safe egress. Lighting in the means of egress is specifically exempted from requirements for 100% on-off operation. Preferred lighting control schemes in the means of egress allow the use of minimum lighting levels to meet code requirements for safe egress. Any lighting control devices used in the means of egress must not compromise the proper operation of normal and emergency lighting to meet minimum illumination levels at all periods of building occupation. Minimum lighting levels can be maintained with luminaires that are not connected to any lighting control device. Under no circumstances should emergency lighting be connected to a lighting control device that will compromise its proper operation. 14

16 Affirmative with comment: M. Shulman: The words "..loss of.." is missing from within (2). It should read "...upon loss of normal power..." NFPA 5000 FR258 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 20 Negative: 2 2 Not Returned: Negatives: C. Barlow: A minimum illumination of 1 ft-candle at floor level is sufficient. D. Frable: Agree with the proponent of the public input that the number of persons with low vision or severe visual impairments has increased and will continue to increase in the future. However, the proponent has not provided any technical substantiation or supporting materials to justify that revising the current minimum requirement of 1 ft-candle of illumination to the proposed new minimum requirement of 2 ft-candle illumination measured at the floor of all new floors and other new walking surfaces will meet the needs of persons with low vision or severe visual impairments or adequately address the proponent's issues. In addition, the proponent has not provided any economic cost analysis to verify this new requirement will only be a small and reasonable cost adjustment. Lastly, the proponent has not specifically stated what the problem (e.g., falls, delays, etc.) the current 1 ft-candle illumination causes for individuals with low vision that needs to be addressed by this proposed revision. M. Shulman: Most of the substantiation refers to emergency lighting applications, but this clause requires an increase in means of egress lighting, not emergency lighting. While this increased level of lighting may be already available, in many cases, there is no clear rationale or evidence to suggest that 2 fc is materially better than 1 fc, or that 5 fc or 10 fc wouldn't be better targets. As a minimum safety requirement, it is difficult to declare that the higher minimum lighting level will have a sufficiently positive impact to offset the added energy consumption. I do concur with the eliminating the asterisk and the annex note. NFPA 5000 FR282 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned:

17 NFPA 5000 FR284 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR232 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR289 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR233 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: NFPA 5000 FR259 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned:

18 Affirmative with Comment: G. Nuschler: I disagree with the Means of Egress Technical Committee's amendment to exclude the Pressurization System requirements ( in the submitter's proposal). The committee should retain these requirements to avoid having to harmonize this code with other codes regarding Occupant Evacuation Elevators. NFPA 5000 FR268 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 22 Negative: 1 1 Not Returned: 1 A Negative: C. Barlow: I know of no valid or widely accepted justification to allow ASTM F1679 but disallow F1677. Both methods have been withdrawn by ASTM, yet both are considered acceptable test methods. There may be validation of the Brungraber Mark II and Mark III that the English XL does not currently have. But, there is a market preference for the English XL that no other tribometer enjoys. This appears to be motivated by a commercial preference only. If both test methods are left in the appendix, I will approve the rest of the changes proposed. NFPA 5000 FR205 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 5000 FR262 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 A (2) and (3) 17

19 NFPA 5000 FR263 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 5000 FR209 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 5000 FR265 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 5000 FR211 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 5000 FR213 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 A

20 NFPA 5000 FR291 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 5000 FR243 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 5000 FR246 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 5000 FR266 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 2 Not Returned: 1 A Negative: C. Barlow: This is very badly written. Thin tape and strips are NOT projections. However, these materials may present a very real tripping hazard because of the great difference between slip resistance between the strip and the stair tread. Stair nosings do not project more than 0.25 inches above or beyond the 19

21 installation surfaces, as required elsewhere in the building and fire codes. The current language and the proposed language describe poor installation or poor maintenance, or both. There is already language in the codes requiring walking surfaces in the means of egress to be properly installed and maintained. The proposed language adds NO clarity to the addendum. The proposed language to be removed is more appropriate and useful to this addendum section than the changes proposed to be made. M. Shulman: This revision would seem to eliminate all field-installable stair nose striping products, other than paint (which is unreliable in terms of installation consistency, performance compliance, and degrades over time). There is clearly a conflict between such field-installable products and the 'no vertical projections' requirement of , and I appreciate the proponent's effort to seek clarity on this issue. If we must force a choice between reducing trip hazards or promoting visibility in the dark, the trip hazard (which would exist 100% of the time) is probably more significant. But solutions that could provide for some balance and retain the opportunity to apply reliable, long-lasting (and slip-resistant) marking products to existing stair nosings should be further explored. NFPA 5000 FR269 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 5000 FR267 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 22 Negative: 0 2 Not Returned: 1 A M. Shulman: This revision would seem to eliminate all field-installable stair nose striping products, other than paint (which is unreliable in terms of installation consistency, performance compliance, and degrades over time). There is clearly a conflict between such field-installable products and the 'no vertical projections' requirement of , and I appreciate the proponent's effort to seek clarity on this issue. If we must force a choice between reducing trip hazards or promoting visibility in the dark, the trip hazard (which would exist 100% of the time) is probably more significant. But solutions that could provide 20

22 for some balance and retain the opportunity to apply reliable, long-lasting (and slip-resistant) marking products to existing stair nosings should be further explored. NFPA 5000 FR247 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 22 Negative: 0 2 Not Returned: 1 A M. Shulman: This revision would seem to eliminate all field-installable stair nose striping products, other than paint (which is unreliable in terms of installation consistency, performance compliance, and degrades over time). There is clearly a conflict between such field-installable products and the 'no vertical projections' requirement of , and I appreciate the proponent's effort to seek clarity on this issue. If we must force a choice between reducing trip hazards or promoting visibility in the dark, the trip hazard (which would exist 100% of the time) is probably more significant. But solutions that could provide for some balance and retain the opportunity to apply reliable, long-lasting (and slip-resistant) marking products to existing stair nosings should be further explored. NFPA 5000 FR220 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 5000 FR221 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 A (1) NFPA 5000 FR277 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 A

23 NFPA 5000 FR271 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 5000 FR276 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 : A NFPA 5000 FR251 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 A Affirmative with comment: C. Barlow: This is a well written proposed change to the addendum; very nicely justifying the change to a "concentrated business use". I wonder if these changes to the code and the addendum will compromise the stated principle of this Code, "to provide means of egress for the maximum probable number of occupants,.... I assume that another goal of this code it to provide SAFE means of egress.... NFPA 5000 FR278 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 A

24 NFPA 5000 FR272 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 21 Negative:2 1 Not Returned: 1 A Negatives: K. Bush: See Reason Statement for FR 255. D. Frable: See comment on FR255. NFPA 5000 FR257 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 5000 FR279 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 5000 FR280 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 A

25 Affirmative with comment: C. Barlow: This may be true, and if so, I am pleased to see this statement in the addendum. But, I have seen too much disagreement with this - most recently 90% lumen depreciation rather than 70%; over the past few years, 50% or less for LED exit signs, but maybe not for LED lighting used to provide minimum emergency lighting illumination. NFPA 5000 FR281 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 22 Negative: 1 1 Not Returned: 1 A Negative: C. Barlow: This addendum should not be taken out. NFPA 5000 FR285 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 22 Negative: 1 1 Not Returned: 1 A Negative: C. Barlow: This addendum should not be changed as proposed. The suggested simplification changes the intent of the language proposed to be taken out. NFPA 5000 FR283 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 22 Negative: 1 1 Not Returned: 1 A Negative: 24

26 C. Barlow: Unless this is defined differently elsewhere, this addendum should not be changed. If it is changed, it should reflect the new or current definition for illumination uniformity ratio. If we are to maintain minimum illumination levels in the means of egress, we must do it without blinding or confusing occupants trying to evacuate during an emergency. NFPA 5000 FR286 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 22 Negative: 1 1 Not Returned: 1 A Negative: C. Barlow: Do not change this addendum. Why would we take out the language suggested by this proposal? The AHJ will make that call based precisely on the language suggested to be taken out. NFPA 5000 FR287 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 5000 FR288 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 22 Negative: 1 1 Not Returned: 1 A Negative: C. Barlow: Do not change this addendum, unless this conflicts with current code language. 25

27 NFPA 5000 FR234 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 5000 FR274 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 5000 FR260 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 Negative: 0 1 Not Returned: 1 A