Fire Protection (Firesafety) Engineering

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