[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 210 (Tuesday, November 1, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27020]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 1, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
41 CFR Part 101-6
[FPMR Amendment A-52]
RIN 3090-AE93
Fire Protection (Firesafety) Engineering
AGENCY: Public Buildings Service (PBS), GSA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a further definition of the term
equivalent level of safety. The Federal Fire Safety Act of 1992 amended
the Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 to require sprinklers or an
equivalent level of safety, in certain types of Federal employee office
buildings, Federal employee housing units, and federally assisted
housing units. This rule identifies certain performance criteria which
an alternative approach must satisfy in order to be judged equivalent.
The criteria have been selected to provide the level of life safety
prescribed in the Act.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 26, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Director, Safety and Environmental Management Division (PMS), General
Services Administration, 18th & F Streets NW., Washington, DC 20405,
(202) 501-1464.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. General Requirements of the Act
The Fire Administration Authorization Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-
522) was signed into law by the President on October 26, 1992. Section
106, Fire Safety Systems in Federally Assisted Buildings, of Title I--
United States Fire Administration, is commonly referred to as the
Federal Fire Safety Act of 1992. This section amends the Fire
Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.) to require
sprinklers or an equivalent level of safety, in certain types of
Federal employee office buildings, Federal employee housing units, and
federally assisted housing units. The Act's applicability and
requirements are very complex.
They are summarized as follows:
In Federal employee office buildings with more than 25 Federal
employees that are newly constructed, purchased, renovated, or leased
(with the Government occupying 35,000 sq. ft. or more and some portion
on or above the sixth floor):
Buildings with 6 or more stories must have sprinklers (or
an equivalent level of safety) throughout.
All other buildings must have sprinklers (or an equivalent
level of safety) in hazardous areas, as defined in National Fire
Protection Association Standard 101, Life Safety Code.
In Federal employee housing:
New or rebuilt multifamily housing must have sprinklers
(or an equivalent level of safety) throughout, and hard wired smoke
detectors.
All other housing requires hard wired smoke detectors on
tenant change or no later than October 26, 1995.
In federally assisted housing:
New multifamily housing, 4 or more stories above ground
level, must have sprinklers and hard wired smoke detectors.
New multifamily housing in New York City, 4 or more
stories above ground level, must have sprinklers (or an equivalent
level of safety) and hard wired smoke detectors.
Rebuilt multifamily property, 4 or more stories above
ground level, must comply with the chapter on existing apartment
buildings in National Fire Protection Association Standard 101, Life
Safety Code.
All other housing must have hard wired or battery operated
smoke detectors.
The requirements of the Act apply to all Federal agencies and all
federally owned and leased buildings in the United States, except those
under the control of the Resolution Trust Corporation.
In addition, there are a number of definitions associated with the
Act. The major definitions are summarized below:
Federal Employee Office Building means any building, owned
or leased by the Federal Government, that can be expected to house at
least 25 Federal employees in the course of their employment.
Renovated means the repairing or reconstructing of 50
percent or more of the current value of a Federal employee office
building, not including the land on which the Federal employee office
building is located.
Multifamily property means a residential building
consisting of more than 2 residential units under one roof housing
Federal employees or their dependents or a residential building
consisting of more than 4 residential units under one roof housing
other persons.
Rebuilding means the repairing or reconstructing of
portions of a multifamily property where the cost of the alterations is
70 percent or more of the replacement cost of the completed multifamily
property, not including the land on which the Federal employee office
building is located.
Housing assistance means assistance provided by the
Federal Government for housing, in the form of a grant, contract, loan,
loan guarantee, cooperative agreement, interest subsidy, insurance, or
direct appropriation; but does not include assistance provided by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs; the Federal Emergency Management Agency;
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under the single family
mortgage insurance programs under the National Housing Act or the
homeownership assistance program under section 235 of such Act; the
National Homeownership Trust; the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
under the affordable housing program under section 40 of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Act; or the Resolution Trust Corporation under the
affordable housing program under section 21A(c) of the Federal Home
Loan Bank Act.
Hazardous areas means those areas in a building referred
to as hazardous areas in National Fire Protection Association Standard
101, Life Safety Code, or any successor standard.
Smoke detectors means single or multiple station, self-
contained alarm devices designed to respond to the presence of visible
or invisible particles of combustion, installed in accordance with the
National Fire Protection Association Standard 74 or any successor
standard.
Automatic sprinkler system means an electronically
supervised, integrated system of piping to which sprinklers are
attached in a systematic pattern, and which, when activated by heat
from a fire:
(a) will protect human lives by discharging water over the fire
area, in accordance with National Fire Protection Association Standard
13, 13D, or 13R, whichever is appropriate for the type of building and
occupancy being protected, or any successor standard thereto; and
(b) includes an alarm signaling system with appropriate warning
signals (to the extent such alarm systems and warning signals are
required by Federal, State, or local laws or regulations) installed in
accordance with the National Fire Protection Association Standard 72,
or any successor standard.
A critical issue regarding implementation of the Act involves the
definition and determination of an equivalent level of safety. The Act
defines the term as an alternative design or system (which may include
automatic sprinkler systems), based upon fire protection engineering
analysis, which achieves a level of safety equal to or greater than
that provided by automatic sprinkler systems.
The General Services Administration is required to issue
regulations to further define the term equivalent level of safety. The
Act specifies that, to the extent practicable, these regulations be
based upon nationally recognized codes. In addition to describing the
physical characteristics of an automatic sprinkler system, the Act sets
a performance objective for the system. According to the definition,
automatic sprinkler systems installed in compliance with the Act must
protect human lives. This regulation, further defining the term
equivalent level of safety, uses this performance objective to
establish a quantifiable measure of the level of safety provided by
sprinklers. In addition, a framework is presented for evaluating
alternatives against the performance objective.
The Act did not address property protection or fire fighting.
Thorough prefire planning, required by the Act, will allow firefighters
to determine whether or not to enter a burning building solely to fight
a fire. Therefore, the regulation does not directly address these
issues either.
II. Objectives of the Legislation
Despite the widespread availability of affordable means of
preventing fire losses, the United States continues to have one of the
highest per capita fire death rates in the industrialized world. Fire
is the fourth largest accidental killer in the United States, claiming
at least 4,500 lives annually and injuring an additional 30,000
individuals. The fire vulnerability of office buildings and residential
housing units can be reduced through strong fire safety measures. It is
essential for the protection of life and property that effective
technology be employed in detecting, containing and suppressing fires.
When properly installed and maintained, automatic sprinklers and smoke
detectors provide effective safeguards against loss of life and
property from fire. According to the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA), there is no record of a multiple death fire
(involving the loss of three or more people) in a completely
sprinklered building where the system was properly operating, except in
an explosion or flash fire or where industrial fire brigade members or
employees were killed during fire suppression operations. The Federal
Government, in addition to increasing the protection provided its own
employees and individuals living in federally subsidized housing, can
set an example in the area of fire safety and, by its own actions,
encourage the private sector to use technology that has been proven to
save lives.
The Federal Fire Safety Act of 1992 was created to serve as a model
for local jurisdictions where the Congress believed not enough was
being done to promote and provide for the fire safety of citizens. The
evidence for the congressional concern is clear. According to National
Fire Protection Association data, there are about 30,000 fire
departments in the country, yet, according to the National Fire
Sprinkler Association, only 7 states and 34 local jurisdictions have
sprinkler requirements that affect existing buildings. These ordinances
have exclusions, applying to only specific occupancies. Most of them
exclude residential occupancies, the occupancy where most fire deaths
occur. The Federal Government chose to lead by example without imposing
requirements on the states and local communities.
Congress recognized the need to have legislation that proactively
addressed protection of life from fire. Throughout hearings on the Act,
many groups testified that sprinklers were not the only system
component necessary for firesafety in buildings. In addition, Congress
did not want the legislation to inhibit the development of new
technology. Therefore, the law does not simply mandate the installation
of sprinklers. The law specifies certain life safety objectives to be
achieved by the sprinkler systems. An equivalency clause was provided
to allow for the use of alternatives which satisfied the identified
life safety objectives.
III. Background
Use of automatic sprinklers may be the best, currently available
approach to providing life safety. Sprinklers respond automatically to
fire, limit fire size, and are also able to sound an alarm. In addition
to enhancing life safety, sprinklers provide property protection and
limit potential business interruption. Sprinklers can significantly
reduce the hazards firefighters must face in combating a fire. The cost
effectiveness of sprinklers for new construction cannot be overstated.
Sprinkler protection can be added with minimal impact on overall
project cost while significantly improving the level of firesafety. In
recognition of the many benefits and relatively low cost of sprinkler
protection, the General Services Administration has instituted a policy
of providing sprinklers in its new construction projects.
The issue of providing sprinkler protection in existing buildings
is not as clear cut. Typically, the cost of providing protection is
higher in existing buildings. It may not be possible to provide
complete sprinkler protection due to existing physical conditions or
competing requirements (e.g., historic preservation laws). The decision
to provide sprinkler protection must be part of an integrated fire
protection strategy. Existing building systems and applicable
requirements must be considered in developing the strategy. Most model
codes provide an equivalency concept which allows for use of
alternative approaches or systems. This concept is provided in
recognition of the fact that compliance with one prescribed solution
may not be the best alternative in every case.
These alternative systems, methods, or devices can achieve a
reasonable level of protection and can then meet the intent of the
specific code requirement. Alternative methods which might be
considered include using fire-rated enclosing barriers, low flame
spread interior finish materials, low heat release rate furnishings,
and low ignition tendency materials. In evaluating alternatives,
consideration needs to be given to the reliability of the proposed
approach over the life of a structure. In addition, enforcement and
maintenance practices will vary significantly depending on the use
(office, residence, store, factory, etc.) of the facility.
The Federal Fire Safety Act of 1992 requires that the General
Services Administration, in cooperation with the United States Fire
Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and
the Department of Defense, issue regulations further defining the term
equivalent level of safety. In developing the regulations, GSA held
meetings with a working group composed of representatives from the
agencies named in the legislation and other affected Federal agencies.
The Department of Veterans Affairs, the Social Security Administration,
the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Coast
Guard were invited to participate because of the Act's potential impact
on their office space or housing.
The group met several times during 1993 and discussed several
issues key to the development of a definition of an equivalent level of
safety. Ultimately, the group agreed that sprinklers provide a unique
combination of fire detection and suppression, and that no current
system could be considered equivalent. However, other systems in
various combinations could provide a level of safety, especially life
safety, equivalent to that provided by complete sprinkler protection.
The group determined that reaction time is the significant difference
between the two occupancy groups (office and residential) addressed by
the Act. Reaction time is especially important in analyzing equivalency
in housing. An occupant's ability to react to a fire and evacuate from
the area exposed to fire effects can be influenced by a number of
factors including physical ability, mental status, age, available
warning systems, and training.
The question of whether or not the regulation should have a height
threshold, specifically should it not apply to high rise buildings, was
the most difficult for the group to deal with and a consensus was never
reached. The group was divided between two opposing points of view. One
portion of the group believed that the firesafety problems inherent in
high rise buildings could only be addressed through complete sprinkler
protection, and the Act was intended to require sprinklers in high rise
buildings. Therefore, the regulation should place a maximum height
limit on the applicability of the equivalent level of safety provision.
The opposing view held that no height threshold was necessary. In high
rise buildings, fire fighting and egress will be more difficult.
However, appropriate combinations of automatic detection, fire and
smoke containment, egress facilities, and suppression could produce
effective fire protection strategies in these buildings. An analysis,
required as part of the equivalent level of safety regulation, could
adequately address the firesafety problems associated with high rise
buildings and lead to development of appropriate solutions.
Model codes support the use of equivalency concepts especially in
existing buildings. The congressional intent for an equivalency option
was reinforced by the passage of an amendment to the original
legislation providing an equivalency option in federally assisted
housing in New York City (Public Law 103-195). The legislation gives
the General Services Administration the responsibility to develop the
regulation defining an equivalent level of safety. GSA believes that
the law is clear requiring high rise (6 or more stories) Federal
employee office buildings to have sprinklers, or an equivalent level of
safety. The regulation should not have specific thresholds.
IV. Summary of Proposed Rule
In order to evaluate whether or not a life safety equivalency has
been achieved, the building systems must be defined, reasonable worst
case scenarios developed, maximum probable loss estimated, time
required for the space to become hazardous calculated, and time
required for egress determined. A number of factors are critical in
developing a life safety equivalency analysis. Rate of fire growth is
controlled by the type and location of combustible items, the layout of
the space, the materials used in construction of the rooms, openings
and ventilation, and suppression capability. Detection time, occupant
notification, occupant reaction time, occupant mobility, and means of
egress are important considerations in evaluating egress time.
The proposed regulation established a general measure of building
firesafety performance. Building environmental conditions were
specified to ensure the life safety of building occupants outside the
room of fire origin. The specified environmental conditions would be
applicable whether or not the evaluation is conducted for the entire
building or for just the hazardous areas. In the latter case, the room
of origin would be the hazardous area while any room could be a room of
origin in the entire building scenario.
Sprinklers would provide the level of life safety prescribed in the
Act by controlling the spread of fire and its effects beyond the room
of origin. In order to provide an equivalent level of safety,
alternative methods must allow sufficient time for occupants to reach
areas of safety by limiting the spread of the fire and its effects. A
typical room fire will not pose a hazard to the rest of the building
until flashover. A functioning sprinkler system should activate prior
to the onset of flashover. Smoldering fires can have significant life
safety impact beyond the room of origin. However, a typical sprinkler
system would not activate in response to a smoldering fire. Therefore,
the sprinkler system would have little or no impact on life safety in
the smoldering fire.
Flashover is a phenomenon that occurs in many building fires. In
the initial (preflashover) stages, fire development is controlled by
the amount, type, and location of combustible materials in the area and
the speed with which it spreads. As the fire develops, however, the hot
smoke and fire gases accumulate at the ceiling, heating all of the
unignited materials in the room. The hot ceiling gases radiate energy
onto the burning fuel causing it to burn faster. As the fire grows, the
available air cannot support the combustion of all of the fuel that is
produced. The unburned fuel collects in the smoke layer; the smoke
normally blackens at this time. When this combination of events reaches
a temperature of about 550 to 600 deg.C (1000 to 1100 deg.F), the
radiant heat from the hot gas layer will quickly ignite all of the
exposed combustible material. Frequently any combustible gases
accumulated in the smoke layer will find air and burn out at this time.
When this rapid ignition of combustible material or gases occurs, the
fire often violently erupts from the room of origin spreading flame,
hot fuel laden gases, and toxic smoke into adjacent spaces. This
transition is called flashover, and a fire that has undergone this
transition is called a flashed over fire.
The proposed regulation established three endpoint criteria
designed to achieve the level of life safety prescribed in the Act. To
be equivalent, an office building or housing unit must be designed,
constructed, and maintained to prevent flashover in the room of fire
origin, limit fire size to no more than 1 megawatt (950 Btu/sec), or
prevent flames from leaving the room of origin. For the purposes of
this regulation, flashover is intended to describe a fire in which the
upper layer temperature in a room reaches approximately 600 deg.C
(1100 deg.F) and the heat flux at floor level exceeds 20 kW/m2
(1.8 Btu/ft2/sec). As with the prevent flashover criteria, the
limitation on maximum heat release rate and the requirement to keep
flames within the room of fire origin are designed to limit the size of
the fire.
A 1 megawatt fire is approximately equivalent to a single burning
easy chair or two burning 1.8 m (6 ft) tall Christmas trees. In a 3.6 m
(12 ft) by 4.6 m (15 ft) gypsum board lined room with a 1.4 m (4 ft)
wide open doorway, a fire growing proportionally with time will produce
an upper gas temperature of 425 to 480 deg.C (800 to 900 deg.F) in
300 seconds. The fire heat release rate at 300 seconds would be
approximately 1 megawatt assuming a medium growth rate t-squared fire
as referenced in Appendix B of the National Fire Protection Association
Standard 72, National Fire Alarm Code. This fire is about the largest
that can occur in such a room without a substantial likelihood of
flames discharging out the room doorway.
The person conducting a life safety equivalency analysis must be
familiar with fire dynamics, building construction, hazard assessment,
and human behavior in a crisis. The proposed regulation established
minimum qualifications for the people expected to conduct the required
analyzes. In addition, the regulation specified the Federal Government
official responsible for reviewing and accepting equivalent level of
safety analyses.
The proposed rule did not address the life safety impact of a
smoldering fire. Smoldering fires can represent a significant life
safety hazard, however, typical sprinkler systems will not control this
hazard. In addition, it did not attempt to provide guidance in
determining acceptable levels of protection against property loss or
business interruption.
V. Discussion of Comments
GSA published the proposed rule in the Federal Register (Vol. 59,
No. 99, pp. 26768-26772) for public comment on May 24, 1994. On June
30, 1994, a notice of extension of the public comment period was
published in the Federal Register (Vol. 59, No. 125, pg. 33724). The
public had until July 25, 1994, to comment on the proposed rule.
In response to the proposed rule and subsequent extension, a total
of 46 items of correspondence were received. Of these, 14 were from
state fire marshals, 10 were from professional or trade associations, 7
were from Federal Government entities, 3 were from private fire
protection engineering consultants, 1 was from academia, and 11 were
from private citizens. The comments ranged from general support or
opposition to the concept of an equivalent level of safety to very
specific comments related to technical details of the regulation. A
summary of the comments, and our responses to them, follow.
A. Intent of Legislation
Comment: Several commenters indicated that defining an equivalent
level of safety would provide a means to avoid the intent of the Act.
Response: As indicated in House Report 102-509, Part 1, the purpose
of the Federal Fire Safety Act of 1992 was to set an example for State
and local governments by mandating firesafety requirements for new or
renovated Federal office space and certain categories of federally
assisted housing. By prohibiting Federal funding for these buildings,
the Act promotes the use of automatic sprinklers, or an equivalent
level of safety. The Act defines the term equivalent level of safety as
an alternative design or system (which may include sprinkler systems),
based upon fire protection engineering analysis, which achieves a level
of safety equal to or greater than that provided by automatic sprinkler
systems. The Congress had a number of expectations concerning the
definition. The alternative would provide flexibility in instances
where fire protection engineering analyses demonstrated that other
means would yield the same level of life safety as that provided in a
fully sprinklered building. In many situations, there would be no
effective equivalent level of safety in comparison to the life safety
protection afforded by a building conforming with the requirements of
current building design criteria for a fully sprinklered building. In
addition, several factors were to be considered in further defining
equivalent level of safety: the provisions of nationally recognized
model codes and the firesafety guidelines followed by the General
Services Administration for sprinklered buildings; analyses of
potential fire loss exposures and adverse conditions related to the
firesafety of a building, and analyses of safety alternatives for a
building; and current technical research, including the study ``on the
use, in combination, of fire detection, fire suppression systems, and
compartmentation,'' of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology. The intent of the Act is very clear in requiring an
equivalent level of safety option for all situations.
Comment: A number of commenters wanted sprinklers to be the only
option.
Response: It should not be taken lightly that this legislation
originated in the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and
that one intent of the Act (as specifically articulated in the report
language) was to encourage the development and use of new technology.
The Congress recognized that the intent of the Act could not be met by
specifying only one type of currently available fire technology. The
concept of equivalent level of safety has and will continue to promote
the development of new firesafety technologies. Providing for an
equivalent level of safety is in keeping with equivalent clauses
contained in the model building and fire codes. For example, section 1-
5.1 of National Fire Protection Association Standard No. 101,
Life Safety Code, states
Nothing in this Code is intended to prevent the use of systems,
methods, or devices of equivalent or superior quality, strength,
fire resistance, effectiveness, durability, and safety as
alternatives to those prescribed by this Code, provided technical
documentation is submitted to the authority having jurisdiction to
demonstrate equivalency, and the system, method, or device is
approved for the intended purpose.
The regulation provides a means for demonstrating equivalency based
on a technical evaluation.
Comment: A few Federal agencies indicated that defining an
equivalent level of safety could jeopardize their automatic sprinkler
system installation programs.
Response: The public law sets a standard. This regulation provides
a means to achieve the standard while maintaining a degree of
flexibility. Use of this equivalent level of safety option is not
mandatory. As outlined in this regulation, there are numerous reasons
for installing automatic sprinkler systems in buildings. These reasons
cover issues well beyond the very limited scope of this regulation.
Full compliance with the sprinkler requirements contained in the
Federal Fire Safety Act will be the easiest solution, especially when
Federal agencies lack the fire protection engineering expertise to
evaluate an equivalency.
B. Scope of the Regulation
Comment: A number of comments reflected confusion concerning the
scope of the regulation.
Response: This regulation is intended solely to define an
equivalent level of safety appropriate for judging compliance with the
requirements of the Federal Fire Safety Act of 1992. It does not
necessarily apply to the evaluation of equivalency to other building
and fire code requirements. In order to address this issue, the scope
of the regulation has been refined and clarified.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concerned over the decision
to exclude firefighter safety from the regulation especially when
rescue of building occupants is required.
Response: The concept presented in the proposed regulation was not
intended to totally exclude consideration of firefighter safety. The
need for the fire department to conduct rescue operations must be
considered in an equivalent level of safety analysis. If rescue
operations are expected, then the firefighters conducting them must be
protected. Firefighter safety is not considered from the standpoint of
them entering a building solely to fight a fire and limit property
loss.
Comment: A few commenters questioned the impact of the proposed
rule on local codes.
Response: Legally, buildings built on Federal property are exempt
from local building codes. In the case of buildings developed on
private land to be leased by the Federal Government, the applicable
local codes govern. Public Law 100-678 requires, among other things,
that Federal agencies comply ``to the maximum extent feasible'' with
``one of the nationally recognized model building codes and with other
applicable nationally recognized codes'' when constructing or altering
Federal buildings. This law also directs agencies to comply with State
and local zoning laws to submit plans for buildings being altered or
constructed to State or local officials for review prior to
construction, and to permit local officials to inspect Federal
buildings while under construction or alteration. However, the law
places limitations on the obligations of Federal agencies; for example,
agencies can limit the time local officials have for plans review to 30
days, are not required to follow the recommendations of local
officials, and are not allowed to pay any fees or fines to local
governments. The impact of the Federal Fire Safety Act will primarily
be an additional requirement with which Federal buildings, both owned
and leased, will have to comply. However, firesafety protection
measures required in order to comply with local codes or other
requirements can and should be considered in assessing the existence of
an equivalent level of safety.
Comment: Some commenters questioned the applicability of existing
equivalency clauses in currently available consensus standards and
their relationship to the proposed rule.
Response: Equivalency as described in national standards requires
approval by an authority having jurisdiction. No specific performance
measures are provided for making the judgment as to the level of
equivalency, leading to non-uniform application and acceptance. The
rule provides a performance definition, as required by the law. It is
possible the philosophy outlined in the proposed rule could form the
basis for further development and adoption of performance-based
equivalency measures in the national consensus codes.
C. Technical Issues
Comment: Several commenters recommended the establishment of a
threshold height limit above which only total sprinkler protection
would be acceptable. However, other commenters indicated that the
height issue could be addressed in the required engineering analysis.
Respose: The objective was not to rewrite the law. The Act requires
that the General Services Administration further define the term
equivalent level of safety. By specifying a maximum height threshold,
the equivalency option specifically intended by Congress would be
eliminated without their consent. The intent of Congress to provide an
equivalency option without height limitations is further evidenced by
the addition of an equivalency option after the bill had been passed
(Public Law 103-195).
Comment: A number of comments were received concerning whether or
not meeting one or all of the selected equivalency criteria was
sufficient. These commenters recommended replacing the word or in the
phrase ``prevent flashover in the room of origin, limit fire size to no
more than 1 megawatt (950 Btu/sec), or prevent flames from leaving the
room of origin'' with the word and.
Response: The word or was chosen specifically in preference to and.
The intent of this statement was that the condition or conditions
producing the most hazardous exposure to building occupants be selected
for measuring equivalency. For example, it could be concluded that an
acceptable level of safety had been achieved if flames did not extend
beyond the room of origin. If flashover or the 1 MW fire represented a
more severe hazard to building occupants, this conclusion would not be
valid.
Comment: Many commenters raised issues associated with the
definition of the room of origin, specifically raising concerns related
to establishing an appropriate size. Is it appropriate to use a closet
as the room of origin? What would the room of origin be in an area with
open plan space?
Response: The concept of room of origin was deliberately left open
to encourage comments. Based on comments received, the definition of
room of origin is being refined to include a maximum area limitation of
200 m2 (2000 ft.2). Fires involving areas greater than 200
m2 pose substantial difficulties for firefighters and threaten
occupants, especially those located on upper levels of high-rise
structures. Exit paths are easily jeopardized by fires involving 200 or
more square meters of floor area. In order to provide equivalent life
safety, especially in high-rise structures, no fire area should be
permitted to exceed 200 m2. Fire separations or other protective
measures should be provided to limit potential fire areas.
Comment: A few commenters questioned the use of flashover as an
endpoint criteria.
Response: Flashover was selected as an endpoint for two reasons.
First, the potential for flashover can have a significant impact on
required notification time. Prior to flashover, a fire represents a
hazard primarily to occupants in the room of origin. The energy
released by the fire is insufficient to ``drive'' significant
quantities of products of combustion beyond the room of origin. Any
smoke that leaves is low temperature and contains minimal amounts of
toxic gases. Based on a series of fire tests in mobile homes,
researchers at the National Bureau of Standards (now the National
Institute of Standards and Technology) concluded ``Limiting conditions
adverse to life safety are likely to be reached in the living room at
the end of the mobile home remote from the bedroom where the fire
started at approximately the same time that flashover occurs in the
bedroom. Limiting levels of carbon monoxide and oxygen are less likely
to be reached in the living room if flashover does not occur in the
bedroom.''(Budnick, E.K., Klein, D.P., and O'Laughlin, R.J., ``Mobile
Home Bedroom Fire Studies: The Role of Interior Finish,'' NBSIR 78-
1531, National Bureau of Standards Center for Fire Research, September
1978.) Occupants in the room of origin should be able to detect a fire
and leave prior to flashover. If flashover is expected, the use of
sophisticated fire alarm systems will be required to provide sufficient
egress time for building occupants outside the room of origin.
A second reason for flashover as an endpoint is its use as a
firesafety performance objective in the national consensus standards.
Two of the three sprinkler installation standards referenced in the
Federal Fire Safety Act use flashover as an objective. These two
standards (NFPA 13D and 13R) indicate that a sprinkler system
``installed in accordance with this standard is expected to prevent
flashover (total involvement) in the room of fire origin, where
sprinklered, and to improve the chance for occupants to escape or be
evacuated.'' The third standard (NFPA 13) simply states that its
objective is ``to provide a reasonable degree of protection for life
and property from fire.'' Currently, compliance with the specifications
contained in the standard is the only way to judge whether or not the
proposed performance objective has been achieved. Several large loss
fires have indicated that complying with the requirements in the
standard may not always adequately protect the specific hazard and
ensure attainment of the firesafety objective. In recognition of this,
the NFPA has recently formed a group, composed of members of the
sprinkler installation standard committee, to develop a fully
performance oriented sprinkler installation standard. In addition, the
NFPA has established a project, under the Committee on Hazard and Risk
of Contents and Furnishings, to develop a document on prevention of
flashover titled Guide on Methods for Decreasing the Probability of
Flashover.
Comment: A number of commenters questioned the definition of
reasonable worst case scenario and several provided recommendations for
improving the definition.
Response: The reasonable worst case scenario definition was not
intended to be an all inclusive listing of things to be considered in
conducting an equivalency analysis. Based on comments received, the
definition is being expanded to identify additional items which should
be considered in establishing reasonable worst case scenarios. Specific
issues to be considered as part of a worst case scenario are types of
fuel (paper, plastics, chemicals), form and arrangement of fuel
(furniture, shredded newspaper, stacked chairs), availability of
suppression systems (sprinkler system, fire department), capability of
suppression systems (proper sprinkler system design, fire department
manning, fire department response time) and capability of occupants
(awake, asleep, intoxicated, physically or mentally impaired).
Comment: A few commenters suggested identifying recommended
alternatives to complete sprinkler protection such as specific
compartmentation or detection system requirements.
Response: The Act specifies one method, complete sprinkler
protection, of achieving a prescribed level of life safety. The
equivalent level of safety option is the exception to the general rule
of complete sprinkler protection. If a list of alternatives was
provided, sprinkler protection would become one of several options
instead of the intended primary choice. In applying the equivalent
level of safety provision, each building must be evaluated on its own
merits and an individualized fire protection strategy developed. Each
application of the equivalent level of safety option will involve a
different set of circumstances. A list of recommended alternatives
would not provide the necessary flexibility or allow for scientific and
technological advancements.
Comment: A few comments expressed concern that the regulation
attempts to force the use of computer based fire models which the
commenters suggested were in the infancy stages of development and
produced inconsistent results.
Response: The law is explicit that equivalency be based on a fire
protection engineering analysis. The proposed rule suggests several
tools that can be chosen based on the specific situation, including
fire models. The decision of which tools to use is left to the engineer
and agency to decide, based on the needs of each case. The use of
engineering calculation methods is encouraged, models are but one way
of efficiently applying first principles.
From a public policy perspective, the use of engineering
applications must be encouraged to better prepare the engineering
community for global competition. A Conference on Firesafety Design in
the 21st Century, held in May 1991, at Worcester Polytechnic Institute,
graphically illustrated how far the United States had lagged behind
other countries in developing performance-based building codes and
applying analytical measurement techniques. Computer based models are
readily accepted for use in a variety of countries, including Japan,
United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia. These countries have
embraced these design concepts and are capable of building and
operating better performing and most cost-effective facilities.
Recognizing this face, the National Fire Protection Association has
established a task force on its Board of Directors to expedite its
activities in the development and dissemination of computational
methods.
These computational methods are no longer research and development
activities. A variety of validation tests on many different models have
been reported and indicate very good correlation with full scale fire
tests and experience. Calculation procedures, including computer
models, have been used in fire reconstruction with excellent results in
determining the course of events. New information is being developed
almost daily, supporting the use of calculation methods and models to
develop sound engineering solutions to fire protection problems.
Finally, the various tools suggested in the proposed rule have a
wide variety of support. The Fire Safety Evaluation System, for
example, is codified in the manual Alternative Approaches to Life
Safety (NFPA 101M), which is developed and accepted through the
national consensus standards process. Numerous calculation methods have
been accepted and compiled in the Handbook of Fire Protection
Engineering, the source document for engineering methods for the fire
protection engineering profession. The use of calculation methods and
computer models is commonplace in other engineering disciplines. If
fire protection engineering is to be accepted as an engineering
discipline, it must accept, understand, and use these analytical tools.
D. Qualifications and Consistency Issues
Comment: Several comments were received regarding the
qualifications of the personnel conducting the equivalent level of
safety analyses.
Response: The required years of experience factor has been
increased from two to four. This modification brings the three
qualification options into closer agreement. The education requirement
has been modified to reflect technical differences between
undergraduate and graduate engineering programs. In addition, it has
been revised to allow for engineers trained outside the United States.
Comment: A number of commenters inquired as to who should or could
review equivalent level of safety analyses.
Response: As stated in the proposed rule, the head of the agency
making facility improvements or providing Federal assistance is
ultimately responsible for determining the acceptability of an
equivalent level of safety analysis. In developing this determination,
an independent review of the analysis by Government fire protection
engineering professionals will be required. However, a few fire
protection engineering professionals, employed by Federal Government
agencies, indicated they did not have the expertise to conduct the
required reviews. This concern was not shared by other fire protection
engineers, including those working for private consulting firms.
Comments from these engineers indicated they could conduct and review
the analyses as appropriate. It may be necessary for Government
agencies who lack in-house professional expertise to contract with
private firms or other Government agencies (General Services
Administration Central Office for example) for services to review
equivalent level of safety analyses.
Several commenters expressed a desire to have specific Federal
Government agency, the General Services Administration, responsible for
the review of all equivalent level of safety analyses. Discussion of
the issues associated with this option is beyond the scope of this
regulation. As resources permit, the General Services Administration
will develop and distribute, from time to time, information on
conducting and evaluating equivalent level of safety analyses. In
addition, the GSA will maintain a library of its own successful
analyses and will seek to establish a dialogue with other agencies
concerning determining an equivalent level of safety. Other Federal
agencies should consider maintaining their own libraries of equivalent
level of safety analyses.
A final issue associated with review of equivalent level of safety
analyses concerns the involvement of local jurisdictions.
Implementation of the Federal Fire Safety Act and this regulation
cannot place a burden on local jurisdictions. Local jurisdictions
cannot be required to review or evaluate an equivalent level of safety
analysis. However, the equivalent level of safety analysis should be
provided to the local jurisdiction as part of the required prefire
planning.
Comment: Some comments were received concerning the consistency to
be expected from the equivalent level of safety analyses.
Response: Any engineering analysis is dependent on a variety of
assumptions. Individuals are likely to make different assumptions. Even
in the interpretation of written words in a code book, different
courses of action are recommended by different individuals. Uniformity
of application is an issue inherent in dealing with human beings, and
not unique to engineering analyses. An analysis based on the
application of science-based first principles should provide consistent
results. While the recommended corrective actions may differ, the use
of personnel with the minimum qualifications identified in the
regulation will ensure that the technical support for the
recommendations is consistent with the governing principles of physics
and chemistry.
E. Miscellaneous
Comment: A number of commenters identified editorial corrections or
provided updated or corrected statistical data.
Response: These comments have been adopted to the extent the
referenced section of the regulation remains in the final rule.
VI. Summary of Changes
As a result of the public comments, a number of changes were made
to the regulation. These changes are briefly outlined in this section.
1. The scope of the regulation has been modified and expanded to
clarify the intent of this regulation and its impact on local codes and
standards.
2. The qualification requirements have been modified to bring the
three alternatives into closer alignment, clarify some issues, and
provide opportunities for engineers educated in other countries.
3. The room of origin has been defined to set a maximum limit on
the potential size of an involved area.
4. The definition of reasonable worst case scenario has been
expanded to clarify its meaning.
5. The equivalency criteria have been changed to better link the
equivalency measurement to the mandated baseline level of safety
associated with complete sprinkler protection.
The General Services Administration (GSA) has determined that this
rule is a significant regulatory action for the purposes of Executive
Order 12866. The rule is written to ensure maximum benefits to Federal
agencies. This Governmentwide management regulation will have little or
no cost effect on society. Therefore, the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 101-6
Civil rights, Government property management, Grant programs,
Intergovernmental relations, Surplus Government property, Relocation
assistance, Real property acquisition, Fire protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 41 CFR Part 101-6 is
amended as follows:
PART 101-6--MISCELLANEOUS REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for 41 CFR Part 101-6 continues to read
as follows:
Authority: Sec 205(c), 63 Stat. 390; 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 31 U.S.C.
1344(e)(1).
Subpart 106-6.6--Fire Protection (Firesafety) Engineering
2. Subpart 101-6.6 is added to read as follows:
Subpart 101-6.6--Fire Protection (Firesafety) Engineering
Sec.
101-6.600 Scope of subpart.
101-6.601 Background.
101-6.602 Application.
101-6.603 Definitions.
101-6.604 Requirements.
101-6.605 Responsibility.
Sec. 101-6.600 Scope of subpart.
This subpart provides the regulations of the General Services
Administration (GSA) under Title I of the Fire Administration
Authorization Act of 1992 concerning definition and determination of
equivalent level of safety. The primary objective of this regulation is
to provide a quantifiable means of determining compliance with the
requirements of the Act. It is not a substitute for compliance with
building and fire code requirements typically used in construction and
occupancy of buildings.
Sec. 101-6.601 Background.
(a) The Fire Administration Authorization Act of 1992 (Pub. Law
102-522) was signed into law by the President on October 26, 1992.
Section 106 Fire Safety Systems in Federally Assisted Buildings, of
Title I--United States Fire Administration, is commonly referred to as
the Federal Fire Safety Act of 1992. This section amends the Fire
Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.) to require
sprinklers or an equivalent of safety, in certain types of Federal
employee office buildings, Federal employee housing units, and
federally assisted housing units.
(b) The definition of an automatic sprinkler system is unique to
the Act. In addition to describing the physical characteristics of an
automatic sprinkler system, the definition sets a performance objective
for the system. Automatic sprinkler systems installed in compliance
with the Act must protect human lives. Sprinklers would provide the
level of life safety prescribed in the Act by controlling the spread of
fire and its effects beyond the room of origin. A functioning sprinkler
system should activate prior to the onset of flashover.
(c) This subpart establishes a general measure of building
firesafety performance. To achieve the level of life safety specified
in the Act, the structure under consideration must be designed,
constructed, and maintained to minimize the impact of fire. As one
option, building environmental conditions are specified in this subpart
to ensure the life safety of building occupants outside the room of
fire origin. They should be applicable independent of whether or not
the evaluation is being conducted for the entire building or for just
the hazardous areas. In the latter case, the room of origin would be
the hazardous area while any room, space, or area could be a room of
origin in the entire building scenarious.
(d) The equivalent level of safety regulation in this subpart does
not address property protection, business interruption potential, or
firefighter safety during fire fighting operations. In situations where
firefighters would be expected to rescue building occupants, the safety
of both firefighters and occupants must be considered in the equivalent
level of safety analysis. Thorough prefire planning will allow
firefighters to choose whether or not to enter a burning building
solely to fight a fire.
Sec. 101-6.602 Application.
The requirements of the Act and this subpart apply to all Federal
agencies and all federallly owned and leased buildings in the United
States, except those under the control of the Resolution Trust
Corporation.
Sec. 101-6.603 Definitions
(a) Qualified fire protection engineer is defined as an individual,
with a thorough knowledge and understanding of the principles of
physics and chemistry governing fire growth, spread, and suppression,
meeting one of the following criteria:
(1) An engineer having an undergraduate or graduate degree from a
college or university offering a course of study in fire protection or
firesafety engineering, plus a minimum of four (4) years work
experience in fire protection engineering,
(2) A professional engineer (P.E. or similar designation)
registered in Fire Protection Engineering, or
(3) A professional engineer (P.E. or similar designation)
registered in a related engineering discipline and holding Member grade
status in the International Society of Fire Protection Engineers.
(b) Flashover means fire conditions in a confined area where the
upper gas layer temperature reaches 600 deg.C (1100 deg.F) and the
heat flux at floor level exceeds 20 kW/m\2\ (1.8 Btu/ft\2\/sec).
(c) Reasonable worst case fire scenario means a combination of an
ignition source, fuel items, and a building location likely to produce
a fire which would have a significant adverse impact on the building
and its occupants. The development of reasonable worst case scenarios
must include consideration of types and forms of fuels present (e.g.,
furniture, trash, paper, chemicals), potential fire ignition locations
(e.g., bedroom, office, closet, corridor), occupant capabilities (e.g.,
awake, intoxicated, mentally or physically impaired), numbers of
occupants, detection and suppression system adequacy and reliability,
and fire department capabilities. A quantitative analysis of the
probability of occurrence of each scenario and combination of events
will be necessary.
(d) Room of origin means an area of a building where a fire can be
expected to start. Typically, the size of the area will be determined
by the walls, floor, and ceiling surrounding the space. However, this
could lead to unacceptably large areas in the case of open plan office
space or similar arrangements. Therefore, the maximum allowable fire
area should be limited to 200 m\2\ (2000 ft\2\) including intervening
spaces. In the case of residential units, an entire apartment occupied
by one tenant could be considered as the room of origin to the extent
it did not exceed the 200 m\2\ (2000 ft\2\) limitation.
Sec. 101-6.604 Requirements.
(a) The equivalent level of life safety evaluation is to be
performed by a qualified fire protection engineer. The analysis should
include a narrative discussion of the features of the building
structure, function, operational support systems and occupant
activities which impact fire protection and life safety. Each analysis
should describe potential reasonable worst case fire scenarios and
their impact on the building occupants and structure. Specific issues
which must be addressed include rate of fire growth, type and location
of fuel items, space layout, building construction, openings and
ventilation, suppression capability, detection time, occupant
notification, occupant reaction time, occupant mobility, and means of
egress.
(b) To be acceptable, the analysis must indicate that the existing
and/or proposed safety systems in the building provide a period of time
equal to or greater than the amount of time available for escape in a
similar building complying with the Act. In conducting these analyses,
the capability, adequacy, and reliability of all building systems
impacting fire growth, occupant knowledge of the fire, and time
required to reach a safety area will have to be examined. In
particular, the impact of sprinklers on the development of hazardous
conditions in the area of interest will have to be assessed. Three
options are provided for establishing that an equivalent level of
safety exists.
(1) In the first option, the margin of safety provided by various
alternatives is compared to that obtained for a code complying building
with complete sprinkler protection. The margin of safety is the
difference between the available safe egress time and the required safe
egress time. Available safe egressd time is the time available for
evacuation of occupants to an area of safety prior to the onset of
untenable conditions in occupied areas or the egress pathways. The
required safe egress time is the time required by occupants to move
from their positions at the start of the fire to areas of safety.
Available safe egress times would be developed based on analysis of a
number of assumed reasonable worst case fire scenarios including
assessment of a code complying fully sprinklered building. Additional
analysis would be used to determine the expected required safe egress
times for the various scenarios. If the margin of safety plus an
appropriate safety factor is greater for an alternative than for the
fully sprinklered building, then the alternative should provide an
equivalent level of safety.
(2) A second alternative is applicable for typical office and
residential scenarios. In these situations, complete sprinkler
protection can be expected to prevent flashover in the room of fire
origin, limit fire size to no more than 1 megawatt (950 Btu/sec), and
prevent flames from leaving the room of origin. The times required for
each of these conditions to occur in the area of interest must be
determined. The shortest of these three times would become the time
available for escape. The difference between the minimum time available
for escape and the time required for evacuation of building occupants
would be the target margin of safety. Various alternative protection
strategies would have to be evaluated to determine their impact on the
times at which hazardous conditions developed in the spaces of interest
and the times required for egress. If a combination of fire protection
systems provides a margin of safety equal to or greater than the target
margin of safety, then the combination could be judged to provide an
equivalent level of safety.
(3) As a third option, other technical analysis procedures, as
approved by the responsible agency head, can be used to show
equivalency.
(c) Analytical and empirical tools, including fire models and
grading schedules such as the Fire Safety Evaluation System
(Alternative Approaches to Life Safety, NEPA 101M) should be used to
support the life safety equivalency evaluation. If fire modeling is
used as part of an analysis, an assessment of the predictive
capabilities of the fire models must be included. This assessment
should be conducted in accordance with the American Society for Testing
and Materials Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability
of Fire Models (ASTM E 1355).
Sec. 101-6.605 Responsibility.
The head of the agency responsible for physical improvements in the
facility or providing Federal assistance or a designated representative
will determine the acceptability of each equivalent level of safety
analysis. The determination of acceptability must include a review of
the fire protection engineer's qualifications, the appropriateness of
the fire scenarios for the facility, and the reasonableness of the
assumed maximum probable loss. Agencies should maintain a record of
each accepted equivalent level of safety analysis and provide copies to
fire departments or other local authorities for use in developing
prefire plans.
Dated: September 29, 1994.
Julia M. Stasch,
Acting Administrator of General Services.
[FR Doc. 94-27020 Filed 10-31-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-23-M
