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 101 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) 17 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) 1 Member Abstained on one or more first revisions: (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 101 SAF-MEA FIRST DRAFT FINAL REPORT NFPA 101 FR222 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 Entire Document NFPA 101 FR280 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (13) NFPA 101 FR202 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 1 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: W. Bonisch: (9) (a) is not clear since corridors are permitted to have 0 rating when sprinklered. (9) (a) should say 1 hr. const. with opening protectives. (9) (b) Section 7.13 is brand new; (9) (b) is not justified to now permit such a connection. NFPA 101 FR209 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: NFPA 101 FR201 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 22 2 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 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 Page 1

3 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 in Log 376 should be reconsidered. NFPA 101 FR210 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: NFPA 101 FR211 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: NFPA 101 FR212 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: Affirmative with Comment: C. Barlow: Could lighting controls be considered an "impediment to full instant use"? NFPA 101 FR255 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: NFPA 101 FR223 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 1 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: W. Bonisch: Examples listed in statement have been designed successfully without the need for this new exception. These not normally occupied spaces are typically dark so the entry therein should be provided with same elevation to allow orientation. If this is accepted, needs to be amended to ref. new Affirmative with Comment: Page 2

4 M. Shulman: A limit as to how much lower the floor can be should be included, such as is provided for in , 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 101 FR224 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: NFPA 101 FR Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned:2 NFPA 101 FR225 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 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 101 FR213 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (12) NFPA 101 FR281 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 NFPA 101 FR226 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: Page 3

5 Affirmatives with Comment: W. Bonisch: Guidance should be provided where/how to measure the 39 inch height requirement, and indicate committee concern/intent related to height requirement given the variation in similar devices to turnstiles. 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 101 FR228 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: NFPA 101 FR229 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: Affirmative with comment: W. Bonisch: Although the statement may be technically correct (as to Ch. 7 doors vs. Ch. 8 doors) these revisions just further confuse the user by unnecessarily dividing door inspection provisions between 2 chapters. NFPA 101 FR233 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: NFPA 101 FR214 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: NFPA 101 FR215 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 1 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: K. Bush: This proposed wording seems confusing and difficult to understand and apply. The multiple references to stairs and corridors do not clearly what is intended for outside egress Page 4

6 components and what is intended for interior components. As an example, a reference is made to outside stairs in the base paragraph, however the first subparagraph refers to sprinklers in stairs without further explanation. Further work needs to be done to clarify these provisions. NFPA 101 FR235 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: NFPA 101 FR237 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 0 Abstain: 1 Not Returned: Abstain: 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 slipresistant) marking products to existing stair nosings should be further explored. Affirmative with Comment: C. Barlow: Can we add clarification to ? Exit Stair Path Markings, could be changed to Luminous Egress Path Markings for Exit Stairs (or in Exit Stairways). The change in title for this section would remove any possible confusion of the paragraph with Stairway Tread Marking. NFPA 101 FR220 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: NFPA 101 FR260 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: NFPA 101 FR239 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: Page 5

7 Affirmative with comment: W. Bonisch: In (b), from termination of the horizontal exit should be from the intersection with the horizontal exit. NFPA 101 FR266 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: NFPA 101 FR216 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: NFPA 101 FR240 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: NFPA 101 FR241 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: NFPA 101 FR217 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (6) NFPA 101 FR242 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: NFPA 101 FR218 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: NFPA 101 FR243 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 Table Page 6

8 Affirmative with comment: W. Bonisch: My vote contingent upon approval by mercantile/business committee. NFPA 101 FR219 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: NFPA 101 FR245 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: NFPA 101 FR246 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: NFPA 101 FR247 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 22 2 Abstain: 0 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 FR249 Reason Statement. D. Frable: See comment on FR249. NFPA 101 FR248 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: NFPA 101 FR249 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 22 2 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: Page 7

9 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. It is 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 a clear and unobstructed paths of sufficient widths that leads 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 a public comment on the first draft report to address these concerns. Lastly, it should be pointed out the annex material (see FR263) associated with FR249 has not been designated in FR249. Affirmative with comment: W. Bonisch: Should add (5) to automatically notify emergency forces so as to make sure Fire Department is responding. NFPA 101 FR250 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 1 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: Page 8

10 C. Barlow: This still is 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. 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. 9. 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). Page 9

11 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. Affirmative with Comment: M. Shulman: The words "..loss of.." is missing from within (2). It should read "...upon loss of normal power..." NFPA 101 FR252 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 21 2 Abstain: 1 Not Returned: 1 Negatives: C. Barlow: 1 ft-candle of illumination 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. Page 10

12 Abstain: 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 101 FR270 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: NFPA 101 FR272 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: NFPA 101 FR274 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: NFPA 101 FR279 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: (1) NFPA 101 FR264 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: NFPA 101 FR253 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: Affirmative with Comment: Page 11

13 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 101 FR203 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 1 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 A C. Barlow: We are possibly getting hoo-doo'd on this change. And, the previous change that gave us this current language. Please review the language in NFPA A ; FR268. ASTM F1637 merely repeats what is said in this addendum. Test methods ASTM F1677 and F1679, although withdrawn by ASTM, remain the industry standard and are widely used. ASTM F1679 (specifically written for the English XL tribometer) remains the industry standard for slip and fall consulting. ASTM F1637 does not mention a test method; only the requirements of a safe walking surface. The newest standard, ASTM F2508 (I think) is an attempt to qualify acceptable test instruments to measure slip resistance. I would like to suggest that this addendum for NFPA 101 be harmonized to read the same thing as that for NFPA 5000 (continuing the reference for both ASTM F1677 and F1679). You could justifiably reference all (3) ASTM standards and test methods. But, be aware that this field is changing and that ASTM and NFSI (National Floor Safety Institute) are creating standards and test methods as fast as possible, and often in direct conflict with each other. NFPA 101 FR256 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 A (2) and (3) NFPA 101 FR257 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 101 FR259 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 101 FR282 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 1 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 A Page 12

14 R. Perry: I believe this should be FR281 which I am voting against. 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 101 FR227 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 101 FR232 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 101 FR230 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 101 FR231 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 101 FR234 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 101 FR204 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 22 1 Abstain: 1 Not Returned: 1 A Page 13

15 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 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. Abstain: 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 slipresistant) marking products to existing stair nosings should be further explored. NFPA 101 FR206 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 A (2) NFPA 101 FR236 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 A (K) NFPA 101 FR205 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 0 Abstain: 1 Not Returned: 1 A Abstain: 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 Page 14

16 could provide for some balance and retain the opportunity to apply reliable, long-lasting (and slipresistant) marking products to existing stair nosings should be further explored. NFPA 101 FR238 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 0 Abstain: 1 Not Returned: 1 A Abstain: 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 slipresistant) marking products to existing stair nosings should be further explored. NFPA 101 FR208 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 NFPA 101 FR261 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 101 FR207 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 101 FR244 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 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,.... Page 15

17 I assume that another goal of this code it to provide SAFE means of egress.... NFPA 101 FR262 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 101 FR221 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 Table A.7.6 NFPA 101 FR263 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 22 2 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 A Negatives: K. Bush: See Reason Statement for FR249. D. Frable: See comment on FR249. NFPA 101 FR251 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 101 FR269 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 1 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 A C. Barlow: Why is this language objectionable? NFPA 101 FR267 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 A Page 16

18 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 101 FR268 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 1 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 A C. Barlow: This addendum should not be taken out. NFPA 101 FR271 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 1 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 A 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 101 FR273 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 1 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 A 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 101 FR275 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 1 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 A Page 17

19 C. Barlow: Do not change this addendum as suggested. A better solution would be to leave in the last sentence of this addendum; remove the first sentence. NFPA 101 FR276 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 1 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 A 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 101 FR277 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 101 FR278 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 23 1 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 A C. Barlow: Do not change this addendum, unless this conflicts with current code language. NFPA 101 FR265 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 A NFPA 101 FR254 Eligible To Vote: 25 Affirmative: 24 0 Abstain: 0 Not Returned: 1 Page 18