96-1

Report on Proposals A2007— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 96

Report of the Committee onVenting Systems for Cooking Appliances

R. T. Leicht, ChairState of Delaware, DE [E]

Rep. International Fire Marshals Association

Phil Ackland, Phillip Ackland Holdings Ltd., Canada [SE]Bernard P. Besal, Besal Services, Inc., GA [IM] Rep. International Kitchen Exhaust Cleaning AssociationDavid R. Bouchard, Fire Consulting Associates Inc., RI [SE]Lawrence J. Capalbo, Flame Gard, Inc., CA [M]Laurence W. Caraway, Jr., Kitchen Klean Inc., NH [IM]Russell Clark, Certified Hood & Duct Cleaners Association, TN [IM]Mark De Lorenzo, Randell Manufacturing, Inc., MI [M]David P. Demers, Demers Associates Inc., MA [SE]Lee C. DeVito, FIREPRO Incorporated, MA [SE]Mark H. Finck, Burger King Corporation, FL [U]David L. Foster, Insurance Services Office, Inc., NJ [I]Rod Getz, Getz Fire Equipment, IL [IM] Rep. National Assn. of Fire Equipment DistributorsCharles H. Gibbons, Jr., Lampert-Lee & Associates, WI [SE]Donald L. Griffes, NEVTEC Ltd., VT [M]Edward J. Hard, Abco Fire Protection, OH [IM]Gary G. Hopson, Aon Risk Services, MI [I]Fred E. Kahn, Guardian Power Cleaning of Dallas, Inc., TX [IM] Rep. Air Conditioning Contractors of AmericaWilliam Klingenmaier, Tyco Suppression Systems, WI [M] Rep. Fire Equipment Manufacturers’ AssociationFrancis J. Kohout, McDonald’s Corporation, IL [U]John J. Laudun, Louisiana State Fire Marshal’s Office, LA [E]Steven F. Levin, CNA Insurance Company, IL [I]Roy A. Meacham, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., WA [RT]Philip O. Morton, Gaylord Industries Inc., OR [M]Shaun Ray, Metal-Fab, Inc., KS [M] Rep. Gas Appliance Manufacturers Assn. Inc. M. D. “Doc” Reisman, National Fire Services, IL [IM] Rep. Power Washers of North AmericaJohn G. Richards, US Department of Veterans Affairs, AP [U]Roger Rotundo, City of Phoenix, AZ [E]Harry Schildkraut, Schildkraut, Schroeder, Sedej & Associates, Inc., IL [SE] Rep. Foodservice Consultants Society International Christopher R. Schulz, Van-Packer Company, Inc., IL [M]James F. Valentine, Jr., James F. Valentine, Jr., Inc., NJ [SE]

Alternates

W. Nelson Dilg, Nelbud Services Group, NJ [IM] (Alt. to Bernard P. Besal) Rep. International Kitchen Exhaust Cleaning AssociationLeonard E. Griffes, NEVTEC Ltd., VT [M] (Alt. to Donald L. Griffes)Richard Kukla, Robert Rippe & Associates, MN [SE] (Alt. to Harry Schildkraut) Rep. Foodservice Consultants Society InternationalNorbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors, IL [IM] (Alt. to Rod Getz) John W. Rudd, Delaware State Fire Marshal Office, DE [E] (Alt. to R. T. Leicht) Rep. International Fire Marshals AssociationEmmanuel A. Sopeju, Underwriters’ Laboratories of Canada, Canada [RT] (Alt. to Roy A. Meacham) A. Elwood Willey, FIREPRO Incorporated, MA [SE] (Alt. to Lee C. DeVito) Staff Liaison: James D. Lake

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on fire safety in the design, installation, and use of exhaust systems (including hoods, grease removal devices, exhaust ducts, dampers, air-moving devices; and auxiliary equipment) for the removal of products of combustion, heat, grease, and vapors from cooking equipment, including the application of associated fire extinguishing systems.

This list represents the membership at the time the Committee was balloted on the text of this edition. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred. A key to classifications is found at the front of this book.

The Report of the Technical Committee on Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances is presented for adoption.

This Report was prepared by the Technical Committee on Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances and proposes for adoption, amendments to NFPA 96, Standard for Standard for Ventilation Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations, 2004 edition. NFPA 96 is published in Volume 6 of the 2006 National Fire Codes and in separate pam-phlet form.

This Report has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances, which consists of 31 voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.

96-2

Report on Proposals A2007— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 96_______________________________________________________________96-1 Log #36 Final Action: Reject(Entire Document) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment DistributorsRecommendation: Change “fire-extinguishing system” to “fire suppression system”.Substantiation: The manufacturers of the fire protection systems all call their systems suppression systems not extinguishing systems.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Not consistent with other NFPA standards.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C.________________________________________________________________96-2 Log #64 Final Action: Reject(1.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Phil Ackland, Phillip Ackland Holdings Ltd.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: Maintenance and inspection requirements of all components shall be based on this edition of the standard regardless of date of installation. Substantiation: Regardless of when a component was constructed or installed, the need for maintenance and inspection must relate to the present.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Chapter 11 stands on its own and addresses inspection and maintenance appropriately as is. If there is a need to modify a specific component retroactively it should be addressed in that section of the standard.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C.Explanation of Negative: REISMAN, M.: Antiquated systems installed at one time with type 2 ductwork would be an example of why we should ask those responsible to stay up to code. Although we may argue the exhaust system may still function life and property are at risk.Without specific wording we allow the system to be circumvented. _______________________________________________________________96-3 Log #3 Final Action: Accept in Part(2.3.1 & 4.3.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Vickie J. Lovell, Brandon Cordts, 3M Company, William Fitch Omega Point Lab., InterCode IncorporatedRecommendation: NOTE: This Proposal originates from Tentative Interim Amendment 96-04-2 issued by the Standards Council on January 2005. 1. Add new section 2.3.1 and renumber 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 as 2.3.2 and 2.3.3. 2.3.1 ASTM Publications. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 ASTM E2336-04 Standard Test Methods for Fire Resistive Grease Duct Enclosure Systems. 2. Revise section 4.3.1 to read: 4.3.1 Field-applied grease duct enclosures and factory-built grease duct enclosures shall be listed in accordance with UL 2221, Standard for Tests of Fire Resistive Grease Duct Enclosure Assemblies, or ASTM E2336 Standard Test Methods for Fire Resistive Grease Duct Enclosure Systems, and installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and the listing requirements.Substantiation: The above named proponents are requesting that the NFPA 96 Technical Committee review the testing and listing requirements for testing grease ducts to UL 2221 as approved by their committee action and the resulting membership vote. Since the close of the public comment period a new standard, ASTM E2336-04 “Standard Test Methods for Fire Resistive Grease Duct Enclosure Systems”, has been completed and published. This standard was developed by ASTM Subcommittee 05.11 and, unlike UL 2221, is ANSI approved. The majority of the ASTM E2336 standard is based on the Model Building Code Evaluation Service Acceptance Criteria titled ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR GREASE DUCT ENCLOSURE ASSEMBLIES, AC101, which was created in 1994. The majority of design listings and labeled materials in existence today are based on the provisions of this standard. Reference only to the UL 2221 or “equivalent standard” will result in the AHJ having to somehow determine that equivalence with unknown standards or in banning the use of the majority of already Listed and accepted products and systems. These test methods evaluate the enclosure materials and the grease duct enclosure systems using the following test methods: noncombustibility, fire resistance, durability, internal fire, and fire-engulfment with a through-penetration fire stop. These test methods prescribe a standardized fire exposure for comparing the test results of the enclosure materials and grease duct enclosure systems. The proponents are aware of another TIA proposal submitted by Mr. Leicht to remove reference to UL 2221 altogether and replace it with ASTM E2336 and are supportive of that TIA. As stated from the floor at the Salt Lake City meeting and to the Standards Council at their July hearing the version of UL 2221 proposed for reference in NFPA 96 has many technical flaws. This is why it failed its ANSI ballot, which UL failed to reveal to the Technical Committee. If however, the TC is unwilling to rescind its previous action on UL 2221, then the following is a minimum change that must be made.

5-2 Evaluation of Emergency Nature. Determination of an emergency nature shall include but not be limited to one or more of the following factors:(a) The document contains an error or an omission that was over-looked during a regular revision process. The development, presentation, and promotion of the 2001 Edition of UL 2221 to the NFPA committee and the NFPA voting membership as the only test method for testing grease ducts was based on erroneous and omitted information regarding its true status. (f) This proposed TIA intends to correct a circumstance in which the revised document has resulted in an adverse impact on a product or method that was inadvertently overlooked in the total revision process, or was without adequate technical (safety) justification for the action. Inclusion of the 2001 Edition of UL 2221 has created an artificially contrived crisis that has no technical justification within the factory built and site built grease duct manufacturing community. It gives preferential treatment to one segment of the industry and would potentially eliminate the majority of currently approved systems with no technical justification for such action. The inclusion of ASTM E 2336 alongside UL 2221 in the NFPA 96 standard, which has broader based industry support, will resolve the immediate problem and provide the market place with compliant products. This will resolve the issue of NFPA establishing a requirement favoring one segment of the industry and restraining the trade of a competing segment. Additionally, UL has already significantly revised UL 2221 from the 2001 version which is proposed for the 2004 NFPA 96 since the time it was submitted to the NFPA 96 technical committee. Although several changes to UL 2221 have industry support, such revisions have not been approved by the UL STP and have not been presented to the Technical Committee for review and therefore were not deliberated by the TC. UL 2221 has not yet been approved by the ANSI consensus process. UL representatives participated on the ASTM committee with other industries cooperating to develop ASTM E 2336 while simultaneously promoting UL 2221-2001 as the only test standard in the NFPA 96 development process. We now must strongly object to the introduction of the 2001 Edition of UL 2221 as the only method of testing. We therefore request that ASTM E 2336 be incorporated into the text of the 2004 NFPA 96.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Part Accept the change to 2.3.1 Do not accept the revision to 4.3.1Committee Statement: Committee Action on Proposal 96-10 (Log #35) addresses 4.3.1 revisions.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-4 Log #13 Final Action: Accept(2.3.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: William Klingenmaier, Tyco Suppression Systems / Rep. Fire Protection Manufacturer’s Association (FEMA)Recommendation: 2.3.2 UL Publications. (Add UL 710, and UL 710B).Substantiation: UL 710 will be referenced in the new 5.4.1. Reference to UL 710B is currently included in A.4.1.1.1, and is proposed for change to in 10.2.5 below.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-5 Log #CP1 Final Action: Accept(Chapter 3 Definitions (GOT)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances, Recommendation: Adopt the preferred definitions from the NFPA Glossary of Terms for the following terms:Combustible Material. (preferred)220, 1999 ed. A material capable of undergoing combustion.Combustible Material. (secondary) NFPA 96, 2004 ed. A material capable of undergoing combustion.Noncombustible Material. (preferred) NFPA 220, 1999 ed. A substance that will not ignite and burn when subjected to a fire.Noncombustible Material. (secondary) NFPA 96, 2004 ed. A material not capable of supporting combustion. Substantiation: Adoption of preferred definitions will assist the user by providing consistent meaning of defined terms throughout the National Fire Codes. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Committee Statement: The actual text of defined term Combustible Material in 220 is as follows:Any material that will burn, regardless of its autoignition temperature. The committee accepts this definition.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C.

96-3

Report on Proposals A2007— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 96_______________________________________________________________96-6 Log #63 Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.3 Cleaning) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Phil Ackland, Phillip Ackland Holdings Ltd.Recommendation: Define: Clean(ing): The act of removing combustible grease and oil deposits from the interior of the exhaust system. Substantiation: This definition of “cleaning” is required to emphasize that this action is one of fire prevention not simply cosmetic.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add definition: Clean(ing). For kitchen exhaust systems and cooking equipment, the act of removing grease, oil deposits and other residue. Committee Statement: Adds a delimiting phrase as the preferred definition does not apply.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-7 Log #37 Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.3.9 & A.3.3.9) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment DistributorsRecommendation: Delete current 3.3.9 and replace with the following: Certified Person. A person that has been certified by a recognized organization through a formal certification program or by an equipment manufacturer that has a certification program, that is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction. Substantiation: Fire extinguishing system manufacturers certify the individual not the company. This revision addresses certification of the individual.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Retain definition of Certified and add the following definition: Certified Person: A person trained and certified by the equipment manufacturer, or by a recognized organization through a formal certification program for the system to be serviced or cleaned, that is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.Committee Statement: The term certified is necessary in the standard. The added term further clarifies the committee’s intent as to the qualifications of a certified person.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-8 Log #14 Final Action: Reject(4.1.1.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: William Klingenmaier, Tyco Suppression Systems / Rep. Fire Protection Manufacturer’s Association (FEMA)Recommendation: Add 4.1.1.3 to read as follows: 4.1.1.3 Cooking equipment listed for reduced grease emissions in accordance with 4.1.1.1, recirculating systems listed in accordance with 13.2.12(2), and down draft appliance ventilations systems in accordance with 15.1.1, shall automatically shutdown the cooking operation if grease emissions exceed 5 mg/m 3 .Substantiation: In the event of a fire with no containment overhead, it is necessary that grease cannot collect on surfaces overhead.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The technology is not available to constantly monitor these devices and automatically shut down. The standard does address the proper operation of recirculating systems and downdraft systems. Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-9 Log #15 Final Action: Reject(4.1.1.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: William Klingenmaier, Tyco Suppression Systems / Rep. Fire Protection Manufacturer’s Association (FEMA)Recommendation: Add 4.1.1.4 to read as follows: 4.1.1.4 Surfaces above grease producing cooking equipment meeting the requirements of 4.1.1.2 shall be of noncombustible or limited combustible materials.Substantiation: In the event of a fire with no containment overhead, it is necessary that surfaces overhead be at least of limited combustible materials.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: A recirculating system installed in accordance with Chapter 13 and listed to UL 197 must demonstrate limited grease production and have an appropriate fire protection system.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C.

Comment on Affirmative: MEACHAM, R.: Based on the action taken by the committee on Log #13, 22 and 26, we believe the committee statement should reference UL 710B rather than UL 197.

_______________________________________________________________96-10 Log #35 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.3.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Tony Crimi, A.C. Consulting Solutions, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.3.1 Field applied Fire Resistive grease duct enclosures and factory built grease duct enclosures shall be protected with a through penetration firestop system classified in accordance with ASTM E814 having an “F” and “T” rating equal to the fire resistance rating of the assembly being penetrated. The surface of the grease duct shall be continuously covered on all sides from the point at which the duct enclosure penetrates a ceiling, wall or floor to the outlet terminal, and where the field applied or factory built grease duct protection system shall be listed in accordance with is listed in accordance with UL 2221, Standard for Tests of Fire Resistive Grease Duct Enclosure Assemblies, or ASTM E 2336 Standard Test Methods for Fire resistive Grease Duct Enclosure Systems, and installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and the listing requirements. ( New) 4.3.2 Factory-built grease duct enclosures shall be protected with a through-penetration firestop system classified in accordance with ASTM E814 having an “F” and “T” rating equal to the fire resistance rating of the assembly being penetrated from the point at which the duct penetrates a ceiling, wall or floor to the outlet terminal, and the factory-built grease duct protection system shall be listed in accordance with UL 2221, Standard for Tests of Fire Resistive Grease Duct Enclosure Assemblies and installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and the listing requirements. Substantiation: This proposal seeks to further clarify the application of UL 2221 and ASTM E2336 which were the subject of NFPA TIA 96-04-2 related to the test methods for testing grease duct enclosure protection materials and systems. This proposal makes the application of the UL 2221, Standard for Tests of Fire Resistive Grease Duct Enclosure Assemblies, and ASTM E 2336 Standard Test Methods for Fire Resistive Grease Duct Enclosure Systems consistent with recent changes adopted in the International Mechanical Code. As indicated by the proposal, these changes make UL 2221 applicable to factory-built grease duct enclosures, and ASTM E2336 applicable to field-applied grease duct enclosure systems. This proposal is also consistent with the manner in which these two Standards are employed by the affected industries. In addition, the requirement to fire stop around around the exterior of the grease duct enclosure is also added for consistency with the model Codes. Reference to ASTM E814 Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Through-Penetration Fire Stops will also need to be added to Section 2.3.1. Two copies of ASTM E814 are provided as reference material for use by the Technical Committee. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle 4.3.1 Field applied grease duct enclosures and factory built grease duct enclosures shall be protected with a through penetration firestop system classified in accordance with ASTM E814 having an “F” and “T” rating equal to the fire resistance rating of the assembly being penetrated. The surface of the field fabricated grease duct shall be continuously covered on all sides from the point at which the duct enclosure penetrates a ceiling, wall or floor to the outlet terminal, and listed in accordance with ASTM E 2336 Standard Test Methods for Fire Resistive Grease Duct Enclosure Systems, and installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and the listing requirements. ( New) 4.3.2 Factory-built grease duct enclosures shall be protected with a through-penetration firestop system classified in accordance with ASTM E814 having an “F” and “T” rating equal to the fire resistance rating of the assembly being penetrated from the point at which the duct penetrates a ceiling, wall or floor to the outlet terminal, and the factory-built grease duct protection system shall be listed in accordance with UL 2221, Standard for Tests of Fire Resistive Grease Duct Enclosure Assemblies and installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and the listing requirements. Committee Statement: The revision to 4.3.1 retains consistency with other codes addressing this issue.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-11 Log #45 Final Action: Accept(4.4.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Glen Edgar, Selkirk LLCRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.4.3 Where the duct is listed for zero clearance to combustibles or otherwise protected with a material or product listed for the purpose of reducing clearance to zero, the duct shall be permitted to exceed the contact limits of 4.4.1 without additional corrosion protection.Substantiation: Proposed clarification for factory-built systems. Present text lacks clarity and implies that a separate material or product is applied to provide the necessary additional protection. Proposed additional words provide clarity of listed factory-built grease duct option - whereby the duct incorporates its own, inherent protection for safely permitting zero clearance to combustibles.

96-4

Report on Proposals A2007— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 96Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C.Explanation of Negative: MEACHAM, R.: While we agree with the intent of the substantiation statement, we believe affirmation of the committee action may not clarify the requirement. Our concern is how proposed 4.4.3 may be interpreted. Referencing Listed ducts, grease ducts constructed to the prescriptive requirements of this standard as well as materials and products Listed for reducing clearances in the same paragraph, implies compatibility of any listed product or material with any listed grease duct. The cumulative effect of committee actions to logs 15, 35 and 46 could lead one to understand that any material or product listed for the purpose of reducing clearance to zero may be compatible and suitable for installation with any Listed grease duct. Adding a separate paragraph for grease ducts Listed for zero clearance would be consistent with the proponent’s substantiation statement and agree with the intent of the committee action . We could support leaving 4.4.3 unchanged and adding a new paragraph 4.4.4 as follows: 4.4.4 Where the duct is listed for zero clearance to combustibles the duct shall be permitted to exceed the contact limits of 4.4.1 without additional corrosion protection. Comment on Affirmative: RAY, S.: I would support leaving 4.4.3 unchanged and adding a new paragraph 4.4.4 as follows: 4.4.4 Where the duct is listed for zero clearance to combustibles the duct shall be permitted to exceed the contact limits of 4.4.1 without additional corrosion protection. My concern is how the proposed 4.4.3 may be interpreted. Referencing Listed ducts, grease ducts constructed to the prescriptive requirements of NFPA 96 as well as material and products listed for reducing clearances implies compatibility of any listed product or material with any listed grease duct.

_______________________________________________________________96-12 Log #10 Final Action: Accept(5.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Bernard P. Besal, Besal Services, Inc. / Rep. International Kitchen Exhaust Cleaning AssociationRecommendation: Add 5.2.1 to read as follows: 5.2.1 Wall mounted exhaust hood assemblies shall be tight fitting against the back wall as to not permit passage of grease vapor behind the hood, or between the back wall and the hood assembly. Substantiation: Gaps between the hood and back wall allow entry of grease vapor. Deposition of grease in these areas is a fire safety concern due to bypass of fire detection and extinguishing equipment.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-13 Log #16 Final Action: Accept(5.4.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: William Klingenmaier, Tyco Suppression Systems / Rep. Fire Protection Manufacturer’s Association (FEMA)Recommendation: Add 5.4.1 to read as follows: 5.4.1 Listed hood assemblies shall be tested in accordance with UL710 or equivalent.Substantiation: UL710 or its equivalent should be referenced for listing hoods, as this is the UL test standard for hood approvals.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-14 Log #55 Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.5) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Phil Ackland, Phillip Ackland Holdings Ltd.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: Listed Ultra-violet Hoods shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the terms of their listing and the manufacturer’s instructions. (See proposed 11.?? Inspection and Maintenance of Listed Hoods Containing Mechanical, Water Spray or Ultra-violet Devices.) Substantiation: Ultra-violet technology is proven to remove large volumes of both odor and grease from the environment in a controllable manner. This evolving technology will allow for a number of options to the kitchen designer and AHJ. This is a listed and tested process that has been established in Europe for a number of years. AHJ throughout North America are allowing the installation of this tested technology.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise proposal by eliminating the language in the parentheses as follows: Listed Ultra-violet Hoods shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the terms of their listing and the manufacturer’s instructions. Committee Statement: Editorial change, committee agrees with the submitter.

Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-15 Log #54 Final Action: Accept(5.6) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Phil Ackland, Phillip Ackland Holdings Ltd.Recommendation: (Create a new subheading at 5.6?) Listed Ventilated Ceiling technology shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the terms of their listing and the manufacturer’s instructions. Substantiation: By putting the ventilation technology in the ceiling it removes a serious source of fire (the hood and all the areas within the hood and filters that can collect grease). This is listed and tested product that has been found acceptable for use in commercial kitchen ventilation. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C.Explanation of Negative: MEACHAM, R.: Based on the substantiation statement and supporting material, we disagree with the committee action. We believe a Listed hood and filters that may collect and drain grease are not a serious source of fire. UL710 and UL 1046 address the fire performance of hoods and filters. UL 710 and 1046 contain requirements such that the hood and its filters are not a “serious source of fire.” Therefore, bypassing the hood as a serious source of fire, should not be considered sufficient substantiation for recognizing vented ceiling technology in the standard. _______________________________________________________________96-16 Log #34 Final Action: Accept in Principle(6.1.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Philip O. Morton, Gaylord Industries Inc.Recommendation: Add 6.1.3.1 to read as follows: Mesh filters may be used as a secondary filter when incorporated down stream of a Listed grease filter, listed baffles, or other listed grease removal devices tested in accordance with UL 1046 or Listed subassembly of a hood tested in accordance to UL 710.Substantiation: The exhaust hood industry has developed high grease extraction efficiency multi stage filters to more effectively capture grease at the hood, which typically include a mesh filter down stream of the primary Listed filter. These filters have passed either UL 1046 or have been tested as a subassembly tested to UL 710. They are predominantly used by hood manufacturers that produce hoods with UV technology (ultra violet light). These devices, which have passed the required testing and are listed, are being rejected by local officials because of the language in 6.1.3 (Mesh filters shall not be used).Typical concerns people have with mesh filters: 1. Mesh filters disintegrate in a fire allowing the fire to get to the grease in the duct.Response: By having the mesh filter installed after the primary grease extractor the hood is still provide with a flame barrier which is the primary intent of the testing in UL 1046 and UL 710 for grease removal devices. These devices have passed these tests and are currently listed. 2. Mesh filters collect too much grease and increase the risk of fire. Response: There are fire suppression systems nozzles in the plenum that discharge extinguishing agent onto the mesh filter. Conversely if the grease is not collected in the Grease removal device it will collect in the duct, fan and roof. The duct work may be long, and possibly horizontal, which lessons the ability of the extinguishing agent to extinguish the fire. There is no fire suppression agent at the fan and most certainly not on the roof. Also there are no detection devices after the hood duct collar. This opens the door up for a fire that may flash through the hood and ignite the duct work after the fire suppression systems detectors. The test for unlimited duct suppression in UL 300 does not deal with all of the possible scenarios. Mesh filters when used as a secondary device, after the primary grease filter/fire barrier devices, do not represent an increased risk of fire and can contribute to a reduced risk of fire for the following reasons: 1. The typical baffle filters used in today’s hoods have very low grease extraction efficiency, by some test data as low as 30%. The remaining grease ends up in the hood plenum, exhaust duct, fan and roof. Grease removal devices that use a mesh filter as a secondary filtration device can achieve a grease extraction efficiency of 80% and higher. Hoods with a primary grease removal device, a secondary mesh filter and UV, have shown grease extraction rates of 95% and up. Better grease extraction by the grease removal device reduces the fire risks. It is better to manage the grease within the hood than to simply dump it in the duct, fan, on the roof, and into the air. 2. Grease in the duct and fan is difficult and costly to remove and worst of all it is often invisible to the operator. This grease is typically only removed by duct cleaning companies once a month, a quarter, etc. as dictated by the schedule in NFPA-96 Table 11.3. This grease is a source of fuel for a fire that escapes the control methods in place. 3. High efficiency grease removal devices, are removed daily to be cleaned, or at intervals as dictated by the cooking load. Therefore the majority of the grease in the system is removed at much higher frequency, once a day or even

96-5

Report on Proposals A2007— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 96once a week as an example, as compared to a monthly cleaning by a duct cleaning company. Reducing the amount of grease in the system significantly reduces the risk of fire. 4. In the event that the system is neglected we are still better off with the fuel collected in the grease removal device rather than the duct work, fan and roof. The fire suppression system can act directly on the grease collected in the grease removal device. 5. These hoods are required to have a fire suppression system in the plenum area over the grease removal device. We are already anticipating the probability of fire in this location and have a counter measure in place. 6. I also submit that filters more efficient at collecting grease are already accepted by this standard in Chapter 9, Auxiliary Equipment under 9.3 other equipment and Chapter 13, Recirculating Systems. These systems have secondary and tertiary filters that collect more grease than a mesh filter ever hoped to collect. The data will show that the mesh filters will have a cut off at 5 microns. The filters used in a typical recirculating hood have cutoffs at 1 micron and.3 microns. Reference ASHRAE RP 745 for the amount and type of particulate coming off of a cooking surface. The typical filter being used today has a cutoff of 20+ microns. This means that the use of a mesh filter as a secondary filter is an improvement but that there is still room to improve and there are devices that are in the market place that collect as much or more grease than the mesh filter. These devices should be excluded in the code if we are going to be consistent and are concern is collecting too much grease. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Move the following language into the Annex of 5.5:Mesh filters may be used as secondary filters when incorporated in a listed ultra-violet hood assembly. Committee Statement: This language is more appropriate as an annex item as it explains the design of a UV hood system.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C.Explanation of Negative: CAPALBO, L.: I disagree with the Committee’s action to accept in principle and put the comment in the annex. As a member of the UL 1046 Committee on grease filters, we are actively involved in trying to upgrade the standard to deal with secondary filtration devices. It is the feeling of many on the Committee that any secondary filter must pass the same test criteria as the primary filter. In short it must act as a fire barrier, it must not trap and hold grease or be capable of sustaining combustion. The purpose of a mesh filter in a UV system is to remove the larger grease particles so that the UV can do its job. This means the UV design wants the mesh filter to trap and hold grease, putting a fuel source in the air stream and depending on design, in the path of a fire. Until UL 1046 is amended to deal with mesh filters or any kind of filter in this unique application the mentioning of this exception in the annex will detract from the overall fire safety of the hood system._______________________________________________________________96-17 Log #17 Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.1.4.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: William Klingenmaier, Tyco Suppression Systems / Rep. Fire Protection Manufacturer’s Association (FEMA)Recommendation: Add 7.1.4.1 to read as follows: 7.1.4.1 Exhaust ducts used in downdraft appliance ventilation systems with the stated requirements. However, in most cases, the very nature of this type of exhaust system requires that a dip be formed in the ductwork.Substantiation: Chapter 15 allows downdraft appliance ventilation systems with the stated requirements. However, in most cases, the very nature of this type of exhaust system requires that a dip be formed in the ductwork.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise proposal as follows: 7.1.4.1 Exhaust ducts used in downdraft appliance ventilation systems shall be allowed to include an upturn in the duct provided the trapped area contains a low point drain to an approved grease reservoir not exceeding 1 gal. in capacity and the entire length of the duct is easily accessible for cleaning. Committee Statement: The revision provides more complete requirement to address the concerns of grease collection and accessibility for cleaning.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-18 Log #CP2 Final Action: Accept(7.1.6) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances, Recommendation: Add a new 7.1.6 as follows: The provisions of 7.4 shall apply to existing ducts. Renumber the rest of the section accordingly.Substantiation: Existing ducts require sufficient access for safe maintenance of the system.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Negative: 4 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C.Explanation of Negative: BOUCHARD, D.: As the need for selective retroactivity related to openings

in ducts is not warranted and potentially creates an undesireable precedent. DEMERS, D.: There is insufficient data to place the burden of retroactive requirements on the regulated community. It is likely impossible to comply with this requirement for ducts enclosed in existing construction without significant demolition and reconstruction. LEICHT, R.: There is still a question as to the appropriateness of retroactively reguiring modifications to existing installations. A user is subject to a criterion established through a consensus system to comply to a Standard with an acceptable degree of protection in existence at the time of the installation. To indiscriminately require an installation, previously deemed acceptable, to meet a standard that has been revised for all new installation, would be at the least, unfair, especially to the users of the Standard. It may also prove to be costly and of debatable added benefit. In chapter 1 of NFPA 96, as well as most installation standards, the retroactivity paragraph specifically prohibits this action. That is, the provisions of the Standard does not apply to existing installation. Also, in the case of inimical risk, Chapter 1 provides AHJ’s with the necessary authority to apply remedies that provide a reasonable degree of safeguard. RAY, S.: To indiscriminately require an installation, previously deemed acceptable, to meet a standard that has been revised for all new installation, would be unfair. It may also prove to be costly and of debatable added benefit. Chapter 1 of NFPA 96, as well as most installation standards, the retroactivity paragraph specifically prohibits this action._______________________________________________________________96-19 Log #9 Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.4.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Bernard P. Besal, Besal Services, Inc. / Rep. International Kitchen Exhaust Cleaning AssociationRecommendation: Add a new 7.4.1.3. Openings on horizontal grease duct systems shall be provided with safe access and a work platform when not readily accessible from a 10 in. stepladder. Renumber old 7.4.1.3 and 7.4.1.4 to 7.4.1.4 and 7.4.1.5.Substantiation: Allows for serviceability consistent with 7.8.2.2 and A.7.8.2.2(1) and (2).Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise proposal as follows: Openings on horizontal grease duct systems shall be provided with safe access and a work platform when not easily accessible from a 10 ft stepladder. Renumber old 7.4.1.3 and 7.4.1.4 to 7.4.1.4 and 7.4.1.5.Committee Statement: Editorial revisions.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C.Explanation of Negative: ROTUNDO, R.: As the AHJ, I don’t want responsibility to determine what is safe for processes that are not defined. Does a man need equipment up there, is he just directing a nozzle down the duct work, or trying to work a brush on a long handle? Safety is the responsibility of the person doing the work. The AHJ will make sure the cleanout is accessible. _______________________________________________________________96-20 Log #46 Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.5.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Glen Edgar, Selkirk LLCRecommendation: Add text to read as follows: Exception: Factory-built grease ducts listed in accordance with UL1978.Substantiation: Listed factory-built grease duct complying with UL1978 are exempted from the referenced material requirements because UL1978 includes certain material requirements as well as structural and thermal test requirements that satisfactorily evaluate their performance.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Change to a new 7.5.1.1 as follows: Factory-built grease ducts listed in accordance with UL1978 shall be permitted to use materials in accordance with their listing.Committee Statement: Changed to positive code language in accordance with NFPA Manual of Style.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-21 Log #8 Final Action: Reject(7.5.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: John J. Laudun, Louisiana State Fire Marshal’s OfficeRecommendation: Revise 7.5.3 to allow the penetration of a grease exhaust duct with a non-listed device at the termination of the exhaust duct where occurring at least 18 in. above the roof deck.

96-6

Report on Proposals A2007— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 96

96-7

Report on Proposals A2007— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 96Substantiation: The Louisiana State Fire Marshal’s office would like to put a detail before the Committee for an opinion/ruling. An acceptable method for terminating a grease exhaust duct at rooftop. To alleviate the difficulty of welding the termination flange to the exhaust duct. (This craft has to use electric welders on the roof, which loses power as the distance increases from the electric power pole.) NFPA 96.7.5.3 requires all penetrations to grease exhaust ducts to be accomplished with listed devices. We are of the opinion that this detail met the intent of this requirement, yet we realize it does not meet the letter of the requirement. As can be seen in the detail, the screw occurs within 1/2 in. of the termination edge of the exhaust duct, and is occurring 18 in. above the roof deck. We feel that this is an acceptable condition.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: It is within the capacity of the AHJ to accept this installation under the provisions of 1.5. It is not necessary to provide information on this alternative installation in the standard.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-22 Log #49 Final Action: Reject(7.5.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Shaun Ray, Metal-Fab, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 7.5.4 Devices that require penetration of the ductwork, such as access doors, pipe and conduit penetration fittings and fasteners, shall be listed in accordance with UL1978.Substantiation: Added text clarifies that access doors required to facilitate cleaning and inspection of grease ducts are compliant with test methods prescribed by UL1978 (UL1978 Section 19 Fire and Leakage Test of Grease Duct Access Doors and Fittings). Enforcement of the added text would aid in preventing substandard access doors that contain no gasket or other means to prevent grease leakage into insulation that is in direct contact with the duct and access doors.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: It is not the intent of the committee to require listed access panels on systems.This proposal would require just that.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-23 Log #47 Final Action: Accept(7.5.5) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Glen Edgar, Selkirk LLCRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 7.5.5 Welded Duct Connections.Substantiation: Provide necessary clarification that the specifications in this section apply to welded, non-listed ducts only. Listed factory-built grease ducts incorporate field assembled joint methods (duct connections) other than welds. The integrity of the joint design has been evaluated by the listing agency in accordance with the UL1978 standard and therefore merits exemption from the methods described elsewhere in this section. This clarification is intended to eliminate occasional confusion over this issue among AHJ’s.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-24 Log #48 Final Action: Reject(7.5.6 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Glen Edgar, Selkirk LLCRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 7.5.6 Duct Connections - Factory-Built Grease Ducts. Connections between sections of listed factory-built grease ducts shall be in accordance with the terms of the listing and the manufacturer’s instructions. Substantiation: This proposal is intended to accompany proposed revision to 7.5.5. It provides necessary clarification and acknowledges that listed factory-built grease ducts may incorporate field assembled joint methods other than referenced in Section 7.5.5. The integrity of the joint design has been evaluated by the listing agency in accordance with the UL1978. This clarification is intended to eliminate occasional confusion over the issue of joint connection for listed grease ducts systems among AHJ’s.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Section 7.1.7 addresses the installation of listed grease ducts.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C.

_______________________________________________________________96-25 Log #50 Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.7.3.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Shaun Ray, Metal-Fab, Inc.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: 7.7.3.1 Measures shall be taken to prevent physical damage to any covering or enclosure material. Where exposed and subject to physical damage, factory-built or field-applied grease duct enclosures shall be protected with steel (minimum 0.018 in. thick) or equivalent. Substantiation: 2003 International Mechanical Code specifically requires that exposed enclosure systems be protected where subject to physical damage. (Section 506.3.10, Exception 1). The added text is based on the IMC 2003 and includes further clarification on means of protection. The reference to 0.018 in. steel is based on the minimum requirements set forth by UL 1978 test standard.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise and place this requirement as a new 4.3.1.1 as follows: 4.3.1.1 Where subject to physical damage, field-applied grease duct enclosures shall be protected with steel (minimum 0.018 in. thick) or equivalent protection.

Committee Statement: The committee agrees with the submitter, however, this requirement is more appropriately placed in 4.3.1 and the language has been slightly modified. Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C.Explanation of Negative: ROTUNDO, R.: There are a number of ways to protect piping and duct work. This code change is unnecessarily restrictive._______________________________________________________________96-26 Log #11 Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.7.4.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Bernard P. Besal, Besal Services, Inc. / Rep. International Kitchen Exhaust Cleaning AssociationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Openings on other listed materials or products shall be clearly identified and labeled according to the terms of the listing, in accordance with 7.1.6 , and the manufacturer’s instructions and shall be acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.Substantiation: Field applied duct enclosures and Listed reduced clearance materials are being applied over the access panels on the ductwork without being identified as such. Provides consistency with 7.1.6.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Do not change current 7.7.4.3. Add a new 7.7.4.3.1The markings specified in 7.7.4.3 shall be visible on the exterior of the enclosure and shall state the following:ACCESS PANEL - DO NOT OBSTRUCTCommittee Statement: This revision addresses the submitter’s intent but revises the language to more specifically state the requirements.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-27 Log #66 Final Action: Accept(8.1.1.3 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Phil Ackland, Phillip Ackland Holdings Ltd.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: Upblast fans shall have a drain directed to a readily accessible and visible grease receptacle not to exceed 3.8 L (1 gal). Substantiation: Upblast fans should have the same requirement as is found at 8.1.3.6 for Utility fans.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-28 Log #7 Final Action: Reject(8.1.5.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Molly Rice, Captive-Aire Systems, Inc.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: Upblast fans shall be supplied with an access opening a minimum of 76 mm by 127 mm (3 in. by 5 in.) on the curvature of the outer fan housing to allow for cleaning and inspection of the fan blades. Should the fan be equipped with a hinged base that allows equivalent access to the fan blades, an access door will not be required.

96-8

Report on Proposals A2007— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 96Substantiation: Including access doors in our fans is a redundant form of access to the blades of the fan. Because our fans are equipped with a hinged base, they may be rotated to allow for access through the bottom side of the fan, so its blades may be cleaned and inspected with through this opening. Therefore, it is not necessary for the inclusion of an access door for the very same purpose. Additionally, there is concern that access doors allow for air to leak out of the curved conduit, thus causing problems with fan balance and laminar air flow.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Hinged access does not necessarily permit adequate access to the entire fan for cleaning. Some designs still require an access panel. See Committee Action on Committee Proposal 96-30 (CP #3).Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-29 Log #65 Final Action: Accept(8.1.5.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Phil Ackland, Phillip Ackland Holdings Ltd.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Upblast fans shall be supplied with an access opening a minimum of 76 mm by 127 mm (3 in. by 5 in.) , or circular diameter of 101 mm (4 in.), on the curvature of the outer fan housing to allow for cleaning and inspection of the fan blades.Substantiation: Access panels for this purpose can also be satisfied with a circular panel.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-30 Log #CP3 Final Action: Accept(8.1.5.3.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances, Recommendation: Add a new 8.1.5.3.1 as follows: On existing upblast fans, where sufficient access is not presently available to allow for the removal of grease contamination, an approved hinge mechanism or access panel shall be installed.Substantiation: This proposal provides requirements for access to existing fans for the removal of contamination.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C.Explanation of Negative: ROTUNDO, R.: I cannot support any code change, where an existing installation that was approved by the AHJ needs to be retroactively corrected. A can of worms, we should not open. Requiring that the equipment be upgraded when permitted work is done on the system is the way to go._______________________________________________________________96-31 Log #18 Final Action: Accept in Principle(9.3.1.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: William Klingenmaier, Tyco Suppression Systems / Rep. Fire Protection Manufacturer’s Association (FEMA)Recommendation: Add 9.3.1.1 to read as follows: 9.3.1.1 Fume incinerators, thermal recovery units, air pollution control devices, or other devices installed in ducts or hoods shall comply with the following: (1) The clearance requirements of Section 4.2. (2) Hood construction requirements in Section 5.1. (3) Exhaust ducts complying with Chapter 7.Substantiation: This type of equipment is installed either as an “in-duct” or “end-duct” device, that very likely is also part of a fire containment passageway in a cooking grease exhaust system. Consequently, there needs to be minimum criteria regarding their construction, as well as clearance to combustibles. And in addition, because they can be installed either as an “in-duct” or “end-duct” device, it then becomes a portion of the duct that must meet the applicable exhaust duct requirements.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Accept the proposal and further revise (3) as follows: Exhaust duct construction complying with Chapter 7Committee Statement: The committee agrees with the submitter. The new language for (3) further focuses the requirements on duct construction rather than all requirements for ducts.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C.

_______________________________________________________________96-32 Log #4 Final Action: Reject(9.3.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Aaron Maag, Wadsworth O’Neal EngineersRecommendation: Add new text to read: 9.3.2 Downgrading other parts of the exhaust system due to the installation of these approved devices, whether listed or not, shall only be allowed downstream of a fire damper installed as specified in section 13.2.8 on systems that meet all of the other requirements of Chapter 13 and where the air is of suitable quality to be recirculated. This downstream ductwork shall be sheetmetal ductwork designed per the requirements of NFPA 90A.Substantiation: The intent Chapter 9 is not clear in relation to its reference in Chapter 13 especially 9.3.2. Air that is cleaned and recirculated, or capable of being recirculated; at some point changes from exhaust air to supply air. That change typically occurs at the point in the system where the air is conditioned either chemically, physically, and/or thermally. In the case of a recirculated air system this point should be after the air is “cleaned” and brought through the fire damper which is required for protection of the recirculated air supply duct. The grease duct should extend only to the point in the system where the air still contains grease vapors and where there is the ability to safely isolate the portion of the system with grease vapor from the portion of the system without grease vapors which occurs at the required fire damper (per NFPA 96 13.2.8). After this point in the system the duct is not operating as a grease duct and should not be required to be installed as one. The treatment of this supply ductwork (ductwork downstream of the air cleaning device where the air is capable of being recirculated) as grease ductwork does not seem to be justified since it does not contain grease vapor (less than 5 mg/cubic meter) and does not meet the definition of a grease duct. It is also not clear how to install an air supply distribution system that is in compliance with the requirements of NFPA 96 Chapter 7 without ignoring portions of that chapter since we are not allowed to downgrade the “exhaust” ductwork. If the air in a duct is acceptable to recirculate, then the duct should not be treated as a hazard especially when all of the precautions of Chapter 13 have been put in place.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Statement on Proposal 96-33 (Log #33).Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-33 Log #33 Final Action: Reject(9.3.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Francis J. Kohout, McDonald’s CorporationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 9.3.2 Downgrading other parts of the exhaust system due to the installation of these approved devices, whether listed or not, shall not be allowed unless all of the following requirements are met: 9.3.2.1 The approved device shall be labeled for use with the cooking equipment it serves and comply with the following: 9.3.2.1.1 Any effluent particles released from the device shall be noncombustible, as determined by ASTM E-136-04. 9.3.2.1.2 The concentration of any effluent’s vapor, mists, or gases shall have a concentration not exceeding 25 percent of the lower flammable limit (LFL). 9.3.2.1.3 Shall never allow more than a 50 micron (0.002 in.) deep layer of grease buildup on any portion of the duct. 9.3.2.2 The approved device shall have interlocks on all removable components to ensure the device cannot operate unless all its components are properly proved installed, and properly functioning. 9.3.2.3 The approved device shall have interlock(s) with all the cooking equipment it serves such that the cooking equipment will not operate unless the device is also operating as intended. 9.3.2.4 All components of the device shall be operated, cleaned, maintained, or replaced in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. 9.3.2.5 The approved device shall have a two-hour fire-actuated damper at its outlet. The actuation device shall have a maximum temperature rating corresponding to the rating of the downgraded exhaust system, or in compliance with NFPA 90A and NFPA 90B. 9.3.2.6 The duct system down-flow of the device shall: 9.3.2.6.1 Be constructed to the duct construction standards stated on the device’s labeling. 9.3.2.6.2 Include adequate duct-wrapped insulation to maintain a 0.56°C (1.0°F) exhaust air temperature-drop throughout the length of the duct run to the exhaust’s discharge location, as calculated using ASHRAE 2005 Fundamentals Chapter 26. 9.3.2.6.3 Shall be sized to maintain a minimum exhaust air velocity of 457.2 meter/min (1,500 ft/minute). Substantiation: Members of the Commercial Kitchen Ventilation community are pursuing devices that remove the grease and combustibles from the exhaust air, with the goal of creating safer and less expensive commercial cooking exhaust systems. Currently, there are no standards for removing grease and combustibles to create a safe air stream, safe enough so the ductwork can be standard SMACNA HVAC construction (Type II exhaust duct). My intent with this proposal is to create that standard of safety. 9.3.2.1.1 and 9.2.3.1.2 These sections are copied from NFPA 91, “Standard for Exhaust Systems for Air Conveying of Vapors, Gases, Mists, and Noncombustible Particulate Solids.

96-9

Report on Proposals A2007— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 96 9.3.2.1.3 This section references 50 microns as “clean” as per NFPA A.11.4.2. For reference, a human hair is about 100 microns in diameter. 9.3.2.2 through 9.3.2.5 These sections are identical requirements for NFPA 96, Chapter 13, Recirculating Systems. Also referenced are NFPA 90A, “Standard for the Installation of Air-Conditioning and Ventilating Systems”, and NFPA 90B, “Standard for the Installation of Warm Air Heating and Air-Conditioning Systems”. 9.3.2.6.2 ASHRAE Research Project 1033-RP quantifies that grease vapor deposits when the duct surface is colder than the exhaust air stream. ASHRAE Fundamentals 2005, Chapter 26 describes the method for determining the temperature drop of air passing through a length of duct. 9.3.2.6.3 ASHRAE Research Project 1033-RP quantifies that grease vapor deposition is lowest when the duct velocity is at 1,500 fpm. This was the maximum velocity measured. Lower velocities produced greater deposition.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The committee is concerned with the maintenance of these systems including such components as the fire dampers and grease buildup (50 microns). This proposal relies heavily on system interlocks that are as yet unproven in relation to commercial cooking systems. Validation of the duct velocity is necessary as it contradicts previous research accepted by the standard. The committee recognizes that this is emerging technology and a task group has been appointed to provide further information and guidance.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-34 Log #19 Final Action: Accept in Principle(9.3.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: William Klingenmaier, Tyco Suppression Systems / Rep. Fire Protection Manufacturer’s Association (FEMA)Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 9.3.3 Any equipment, listed or otherwise, that provides secondary filtration or air pollution control and that is installed in the path of travel of exhaust products shall be provided with an approved automatic fire-extinguishing system, installed in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations, for the protection of the component sections of the equipment and shall include protection of the ductwork downstream of the equipment, whether or not the equipment is provided with a damper.Substantiation: It is important that the protection utilized in a secondary filtration or air pollution control unit be approved for kitchen use. However, as there is no protection specifically listed for this type of equipment, as due to the variation in size and filter media configurations, it is important that direction be given by the manufacturer.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Change “manufacturers recommendations” to “fire extinguishing system manufacturers instructions”.Committee Statement: Provides clarity regarding whose instructions are needed.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-35 Log #20 Final Action: Reject(9.3.3.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: William Klingenmaier, Tyco Suppression Systems / Rep. Fire Protection Manufacturer’s Association (FEMA)Recommendation: Add 9.3.3.1 to read as follows: 9.3.3.1 Approved automatic fire-extinguishing systems intended for use with secondary filtration or air pollution control equipment shall be compatible and operated simultaneously with the hood and duct system, or the common ductwork system, if applicable.Substantiation: The entire duct work is a single hazard area and must include some form of simultaneous system operation. It is also important that the protection utilized in a secondary filtration or air pollution control unit will not adversely affect the protection in the rest of the duct work and associated hood(s).Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The committee does not agree that simultaneous operation is necessary. There are conditions (distance) in a secondary filtering system where a delayed operation is preferred.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C.Explanation of Negative: KLINGENMAIER, W.: I have voted affirmative on all committee actions except for Proposal # 96-35 (Log # 20) (rejected by committee action). I am voting negative on the committee action to reject this proposal. The original proposal is still needed as stated below. “9.3.3.1 Approved automatic fire-extinguishing systems intended for use with secondary filtration or air pollution control equipment shall be compatible and operated simultaneously with the hood and duct system, or the common ductwork system, if applicable.”Committee Substantiation for negative vote: NFPA 17A 5.6.2.1, requires that,

“Common exhasut ducts shall be protected by one of the following methods: (1) Simultaneous operation of all independent hood, duct, and appliance protection sytems, (2) Simultaneous operation of any hood, duct, and appliance protection system and the system(s) protecting the entire common exhaust duct.” The entire exhaust duct is required to be protected, whether it is a single duct or a branch duct and common ductwork combination. Secondary filtration and/or pollution control equipment installed within a grease exhaust ductwork is part of the ductwork. In many cases this equipment can be installed as an “induct” application, where there is additional ductwork continuing from the secondary filtration or air pollution control equipment. When an “in-duct” application is utilized, the system protecting the secondary filtration or air pollution control equipment is generally also the system that protects the remainder of the ductwork. Without simultaneous operation of both duct systems, the entire ductwork will not be protected in accordance with NFPA 17A. NFPA 96 10.3.1 currently requires that, “Fixed pipe extinguishing systems in a single hazard area (see Section 3.3 for the definition of Single Hazard Area) shall be arranged for simultaneous automatic operation upon actuation of any one of the systems.” Section 3.3.41 defines Single Hazard Area as, “Where two or more hazards can be simultaneously involved in fire by reason of their proximity, as determined by the authority having jurisdiction.” It is likely that a fully involved ductwork fire will also involve the secondary filtration or air pollution control equipment, as well as the remainder of the ductwork in an “in duct” design._______________________________________________________________96-36 Log #21 Final Action: Accept in Principle(9.3.3.2 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: William Klingenmaier, Tyco Suppression Systems / Rep. Fire Protection Manufacturer’s Association (FEMA)Recommendation: Add 9.3.3.2 to read as follows: 9.3.3.2 Filter media, used in secondary filtration or air pollution control units, not complying with 6.2.3 shall have fire protection, adequate for the filter media being used.Substantiation: Secondary filtration/odor control and/or pollution control devices can have a variety of filter media (e.g., various configurations of baffle filters, bag filters, electrostatic precipitators, hepa filters, charcoal filters, etc.), with varying sizes and depths of filter. Standard UL 300 hood filter protection may not be adequate for proper protection of some of these filter media.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise proposal as follows: 9.3.3.1 Filter media, used in secondary filtration or air pollution control units, not complying with 6.2.3 shall have fire protection, adequate for the filter media being used in accordance with the fire extinguishing system manufacturers instructions. Committee Statement: Provides more precise direction on the installation of the system.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-37 Log #5 Final Action: Reject(10.2.2.2 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Eddie Phillips, Southern Regional Fire Code Development CommitteeRecommendation: Add a new section to read: 10.2.2.2 A portable fire extinguisher and an appropriate placard complying with the provisions of 10.2.2 shall be installed near each means of manual activation for the fire extinguishing system.Substantiation: It is very common to find in both a new and existing situations for portable fire extinguishers to be mounted very remote from manual activation means. Persons first reaching the portable extinguisher would be instructed to activate the fire suppression system first, the delay was the person goes to the system means of manual activation. The proposal would also be of guidance to architect and others on the design of kitchens.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: NFPA 10 adequately provides requirements for the placement of the fire extinguishers.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-38 Log #38 Final Action: Reject(10.2.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment DistributorsRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Automatic pre-engineered fire-extinguishing systems shall comply with UL 300 or other equivalent standards and shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the listing.Substantiation: The UL 300 standard only applies to pre-engineered systems and not to engineered systems such as carbon dioxide systems designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 12. Some AHJs interpret the current section to require all extinguishing systems comply with UL 300 even engineered systems.

96-10

Report on Proposals A2007— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 96Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Other equivalent standards already cover anything other than pre-engineered systems.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-39 Log #22 Final Action: Accept in Principle(10.2.5) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: William Klingenmaier, Tyco Suppression Systems / Rep. Fire Protection Manufacturer’s Association (FEMA)Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 10.2.5 UL197 may not be the standard anymore. (UL 710B?)Substantiation: If UL 710B is the correct standard for testing recirculating hoods, this reference requires changing.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Change 197 to 710B.Committee Statement: UL 710B is the appropriate standard.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-40 Log #39 Final Action: Accept(10.2.7.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment DistributorsRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Changes or modifications to the hazard after installation of the fire-extinguishing systems shall result in reevaluation of the system design by a properly trained , and qualified , and certified person(s). or company Substantiation: Section 11.2.1 requires that individuals who perform maintenance be certified therefore; individuals that evaluate the system design should also be certified. Fire extinguishing system manufacturers certify individuals not companies.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-41 Log #24 Final Action: Accept(10.3.1.1 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: William Klingenmaier, Tyco Suppression Systems / Rep. Fire Protection Manufacturer’s Association (FEMA)Recommendation: Add 10.3.1.1 to read as follows: 10.3.1.1 Hoods installed end to end, back to back, or both, or sharing a common ductwork, and having a grease producing appliance(s) located under one or more of the hoods, are considered a single hazard area requiring simultaneous automatic fire protection in all hoods and ducts.Substantiation: This has been an issue for a very long time. If grease producing cooking equipment is located under a hood that is end to end, or back to back to another, and the other does not include grease producing equipment, do both hoods require protection. Because they are considered a single hazard area, and there is no way to guarantee that grease from appliances under one hood is not exhausted into another, both require protection.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-42 Log #23 Final Action: Accept in Principle(10.3.1.2 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: William Klingenmaier, Tyco Suppression Systems / Rep. Fire Protection Manufacturer’s Association (FEMA)Recommendation: Add 10.3.1.2 to read as follows: 10.3.1.2 Hoods installed end to end, back to back, or both that do not share a common exhaust and are separated by a wall(s) or other means to ensure that grease laden vapors exhausted under one hood cannot propagate to the other hoods or exhaust systems, need not comply with 10.3.1.1.Substantiation: If grease cannot migrate or be exhausted from an appliance to more than one hood because of adequate separation, the hoods are considered separate hazard areas and not in need of simultaneous protection.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add to the end of the sentence: “unless required by the authority having jurisdiction.”Committee Statement: Added language provides the AHJ with the necessary enforcement.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C.

_______________________________________________________________96-43 Log #2 Final Action: Accept in Principle(10.5.1.1 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Robert Fash, Las Vegas Fire & RescueRecommendation: Add new section as follows: 10.5.1.1 A manual actuation device shall be located a minimum of 10 feet (3.05 m) and a maximum of 20 feet (6.1 m) from the protected kitchen appliance(s) within the path of egress.10.5.1.2 The manual actuation shall require a maximum force of 40 pounds (178 N) and a maximum movement of 14 inches (356 mm) to actuate the fire suppression system. Substantiation: Previous editions of the Uniform Fire Code, 1997 and 2000 Editions, outlined requirements for the location and maximum force required to manually activate a hood suppression system. This proposal will supplement Section 50.4.7.1. Without this requirement, manual activation devices may be places to far for kitchen employees to quickly react to a fire event involving kitchen appliance. This new proposal will also limit the maximum force required to manually activate a pull cable, for example. Staff Note: This proposal was submitted to the NFPA 1, Uniform Fire Code, as a proposal on extracted text from another NFPA code or standard. Since the text affected by the proposal is extracted from another NFPA document, it is being redirected to the appropriate responsible Technical Committee as a public comment.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise proposal as follows: 10.5.1.1 A manual actuation device shall be located a minimum of 10 feet (3.05 m) when possible, and a maximum of 20 feet (6.1 m) from the protected kitchen appliance(s) within the path of egress.10.5.1.2 Manual actuation using a cable operated pull station shall not require more than 40 pounds (178 N) of force, with a pull movement not to exceed 14 inches (356 mm) to actuate the fire suppression system. Committee Statement: Correlates with NFPA 17A and UL standards.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-44 Log #1 Final Action: Reject(10.6.1 & 10.6.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: David Stringfield, University of MinnesotaRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 10.6 System Annunciation. 10.6.1 Upon activation...activated. 10.6.2 Where...system. Substantiation: It is not within the scope of NFPA 96 to require the extinguishing system to be connected to the protected premises F/A system. This is 1, 101, and 5000 material. The section was renumbered, hopefully, for NFPA’s Manual of Style.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The committee feels that the redundancy in this requirement as it relates to other codes is beneficial.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-45 Log #25 Final Action: Accept(10.8.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: William Klingenmaier, Tyco Suppression Systems / Rep. Fire Protection Manufacturer’s Association (FEMA)Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 10.8.2 A single listed detection device listed with the extinguishing system, shall be permitted for more than one appliance when installed in accordance with the terms of the listing.Substantiation: The current requirement could be construed as being able to utilize listed detection devices that may not necessarily be listed with the system, as long as they are used within the terms of their listing.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-46 Log #40 Final Action: Reject(10.10.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment DistributorsRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Class B gas type portables Halogenated type portable fire extinguishers shall not be permitted in kitchen cooking areas.Substantiation: Carbon dioxide fire extinguishers are used in many kitchens as a supplemental fire extinguisher to knock down flare-ups. The current wording does allow carbon dioxide units in the kitchen area. Halogenated agent extinguishers should not be permitted or used in kitchens.

96-11

Report on Proposals A2007— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 96Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: These extinguishers could be incorrectly used on a cooking equipment fire. This requirement should not be limited to halogenated agent extinguishers.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-47 Log #41 Final Action: Reject(11.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment DistributorsRecommendation: Move Section 11.2 to Chapter 10 and number 10.10. Renumber subsequent sections of Chapter 10.Substantiation: Moving Section 11.2 to Chapter 10 places all of the basic fire extinguishing system requirements in the Fire Extinguishing Equipment Chapter.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: All maintenance requirements are to be retained in Chapter 11.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-48 Log #42 Final Action: Accept(11.2.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment DistributorsRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Maintenance of fire-extinguishing systems and listed exhaust hoods containing a constant or fire-activated water system that is listed to extinguish a fire in the grease removal devices, hood exhaust plenums, and exhaust ducts shall be made by properly trained, qualified, and certified person(s) or company acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction at least every 6 months.Substantiation: Individuals are certified not companies.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-49 Log #56 Final Action: Reject(11.2.1) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Phil Ackland, Phillip Ackland Holdings Ltd.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Maintenance of the fire-extinguishing systems and listed exhaust hoods containing a constant or fire activated water system that is listed to extinguish a fire in the grease removal devices, hood exhaust plenums, and exhaust ducts shall be maintained by properly trained, qualified, and certified person(s) or company acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction at least every 6 months.Substantiation: There is no such thing as a listed exhaust hood that is a fire extinguisher. Listed hoods containing constant or fire-activated water systems do need to be maintained but they are not listed fire extinguishers. The present standard is misleading. See Ackland proposal for a new 11 sub section “11.?? Inspection and Maintenance of Listed Hoods Containing Mechanical, Water Spray or Ultra Violet Devices”.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: There are currently listings for the performance of these systems in this manner. Therefore the language should be retained.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-50 Log #43 Final Action: Accept in Principle(11.2.2 & 11.2.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment DistributorsRecommendation: Delete Section 11.2.2 and 11.2.3 and add the following as Section 11.2.2. 11.2.2 The specific inspection and maintenance requirements of the applicable extinguishing system standard shall be followed. Substantiation: Maintenance and inspections requirements vary per the type of system installed and are specified in the applicable standards e.g. NFPA 12, NFPA 13, NFPA 17, and NFPA 17A.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Do not delete 11.2.2. Revise 11.2.3 as follows: 11.2.3 The specific inspection and maintenance requirements of the extinguishing system standards as well as the applicable listed installation and maintenance manuals and service bulletins shall be followed.

Committee Statement: Paragraph 11.2.2 has information that needs to be retained and it is necessary to have listed maintenance manuals and bulletins for the work.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-51 Log #62 Final Action: Reject(11.2.5) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Phil Ackland, Phillip Ackland Holdings Ltd.Recommendation: Add new text: The contractor that is servicing the fire extinguisher system is charged with changing the links of fire dampers.Substantiation: There is presently no consistent obligation of a specific trade for changing the links (as required by NFPA 96) of the fire dampers with in a hood or in the supply air system. The vast majority of these links are not being changed in a timely manner. The ones in the exhaust air stream are often found to be heavily encrusted with grease.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: It is the responsibility of the owner of the system to ensure that the system is maintained. This proposal would push this responsibility onto a service contractor.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C.Explanation of Negative: REISMAN, M.: Ultimately the restaurant may be responsible for servicing fusible links but without knowledge or a directive no persons or company performs the task. We then leave fire damper door links to be “hopefully” changed out by someone who will remember rather than be given specific direction._______________________________________________________________96-52 Log #57 Final Action: Accept(11.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Phil Ackland, Phillip Ackland Holdings Ltd.Recommendation: In Chapter 11 Procedures for the Use and Maintenance of Equipment create a subcategory for inspection of listed hoods and new technology.New numbering 11.3? Inspection and Maintenance of Listed Hoods Containing Mechanical, Water Spray or Ultra Violet Devices Place the following under the new heading 11.3.?? Listed hoods containing mechanical or fire actuated dampers, internal washing components or other mechanically operated devices shall be inspected and tested by properly trained and qualified persons, every 6 months or at frequencies recommended by the manufacturer in accordance to their listing.Substantiation: There are a number of devices that are installed in hoods to either clean Ultra Violet or water wash or operated in case of a fire (fire damper). These mechanical, wash and technological devices need to be maintained so they will operate as designed.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Committee Statement: Place this as 11.4 and renumber the rest of the chapter.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 24 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C.Explanation of Negative: HOPSON, G.: I feel that this proposal should be rejected in that it is not within the scope of section 11.3. MORTON, P.: Water wash and UV type hoods are not required by any code. They are purchased to either enhance grease extraction and/or reduce maintenance. They do not create any more of a fire hazard when not maintained than a typical baffle filter hood. These hoods are subjected to inspection, and cleaning if necessary, as per Table 11.3 Schedule of Inspection for Grease Buildup the same as a baffle filter hood. Therefore why should an owner/operator be penalized for purchasing a hood with superior grease extraction or cleaning._______________________________________________________________96-53 Log #CP5 Final Action: Accept(11.3 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances, Recommendation: Delete “and fire actuated dampers” from 11.2.2 and “(including fusible links on fire damper assemblies)” from 11.2.4 Create a new 11.3: Inspection of Fire Dampers 11.3.1 Actuation components for fire dampers shall be inspected for proper operation in accordance with the manufacturers listed procedures. 11.3.2 Fusible links on fire damper assemblies shall be replaced at least semi-annually or more frequently as necessary. Replacement shall be made by a certified person acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction. 11.3.3* The year of manufacture and the date of installation of the fusible links shall be documented. The tag shall be signed or initialed by the installer. A.11.3.3 (copy the language of A.11.2.4) Renumber the rest of the chapter accordingly.Substantiation: The requirements for fire dampers should not be in the section addressing the requirements for fire-extinguishing systems.

96-12

Report on Proposals A2007— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 96Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-54 Log #52 Final Action: Reject(11.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Phil Ackland, Phillip Ackland Holdings Ltd.Recommendation: In Chapter 11 Create a subcategory for inspection for fire safety of any existing exhaust system NEW Numbering 11.4?? Inspection for Fire Safety of Existing Exhaust Systems. 11.4?? Commercial kitchen exhaust systems serving grease producing appliances shall be inspected for fire safety and compliance at a frequency acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction. 11.4??* Where an outside contractor is used, properly trained, qualified and certified inspectors acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction shall conduct this inspection. (See Annex A.11. for specific inspection areas) 11.4?? A written report shall be provided to the system owner. 11.4?? Where required, certificates of inspection and reports of areas not cleaned or noncompliant issues shall be submitted to the authority having jurisdiction or insurance company.Substantiation: This inspection might be done by qualified property management personnel or fire or insurance inspectors (AHJ’s). It could also be a professional (for hire) building inspector or property assessor. But more than likely, the inspector will be a specialized exhaust inspector or exhaust cleaner. Regardless, the individual doing the inspection should have proper training to identify deficiencies unique to the commercial exhaust system. Experience has repeatedly proven that there are a large number of exhaust installations that are dangerously noncompliant. Many of these fire hazards are visible and correctable if identified by a knowledgeable trained qualified and certified person. See additional material in Ackland proposal for Annex A A.11.4??.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: This subject matter is already adequately covered in the current 11.2 and 11.3.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-55 Log #CP7 Final Action: Accept(11.4.10 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances, Recommendation: Add a new 11.4.10 as follows: When an access panel is removed, a service company label or tag with preprinted name identifying the company, the date of inspection or cleaning shall be affixed near the access panels affected. Renumber the rest of the section accordingly.Substantiation: Provides better accountability for maintaining the system.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-56 Log #60 Final Action: Accept in Principle(11.4.12.13) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Phil Ackland, Phillip Ackland Holdings Ltd.Recommendation: The following proposal would reorganize the present text of 11.4.12 and 11.4.13. 11.4.12 When an exhaust system vent cleaning service is used, a certificate showing the name of the servicing company and person, date of inspection or cleaning shall be maintained on the premises. 11.4.13 After cleaning or inspection is completed, the vent cleaning contractor exhaust cleaning company or person shall provide the owner of the system with a written report shall place or display within the kitchen area a label stating, if applicable, areas not cleaned, and serious noncompliant issues. indicating the date cleaned, the name of the servicing contractor, and areas not cleaned Substantiation: This reediting of the two sections will accomplish two goals. Presently there is redundancy in what is requested. Secondly, a trained, qualified and certified inspector or exhaust system cleaner should be able to assist in identifying to the owner of the system any fire safety issues the exhaust system may have.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Keep the revisions to 11.4.12 and revise 11.4.13 as follows: 11.4.13 After cleaning or inspection is completed, the exhaust cleaning company and person performing the work at the location shall provide the owner of the system with a written report including specifying areas inaccessible and/or not cleaned.Committee Statement: The committee agrees with the submitter, and revises 11.4.13 for clarity.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C.

_______________________________________________________________96-57 Log #58 Final Action: Accept in Principle(11.4.14) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Phil Ackland, Phillip Ackland Holdings Ltd.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 11.4.14 Where required, certificates of inspection and cleaning and reports of areas not cleaned or noncompliant issues shall be submitted to the authority having jurisdiction or insurance company .Substantiation: The insurance companies are increasingly requesting more information on the condition of the exhaust system. They want to know when there is a problem with these systems. Vigilance in reporting to the AHJ or insurance companies will create greater accountability on the part of both the system owner and those charged with maintaining the system.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Delete “or insurance company”Committee Statement: It is not necessary to include this language as insurance companies fall under the term authority having jurisdiction.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-58 Log #61 Final Action: Reject(12.1.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Phil Ackland, Phillip Ackland Holdings Ltd.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: Appliances with a combustion gas outlet or direct flame impingement occurring during normal operation of cooking appliance producing high flue gas temperatures must remain a minimum of 18 in. form the hood trough, cup drain or other area grease can collect. This protection distance of 18 in. shall be permitted to be accomplished by installation of a steel or stainless steel baffle plate between the outlet of the heat source and the grease-collecting component. Appliances shall not be allowed to be placed within 18 in. vertically under a hood grease drain opening.Substantiation: There have been a number of fires caused (in part) by grease dripping out of the hood drain spout (someone forgets to replace the grease catching cup, or it overflows). The grease drops into the combustion gas outlet of a salamander, upright broiler, deep fat fryer or other appliance, causing combustion. See existing 6.2.2.1 to 6.2.2.3 for reference to similar wording.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: There are some hoods that are already designed and listed for distances closer than 18 in.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-59 Log #26 Final Action: Accept in Principle(13.2.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: William Klingenmaier, Tyco Suppression Systems / Rep. Fire Protection Manufacturer’s Association (FEMA)Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 13.2.4 Recirculating systems shall be listed with a testing laboratory in accordance with UL 197 (UL 710B?) or equivalent.Substantiation: Similarly to standard ventilation fire protection (i.e., UL300), recirculating hoods require minimum fire testing and listing requirements. UL 197 or UL710B (if appropriate) have published minimum testing requirements accepted in industry.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Use 710B.Committee Statement: 710B is the appropriate reference.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-60 Log #27 Final Action: Accept in Principle(13.2.4.1 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: William Klingenmaier, Tyco Suppression Systems / Rep. Fire Protection Manufacturer’s Association (FEMA)Recommendation: Add 13.2.4.1 to read as follows: 13.2.4.1 The recirculating system listing shall include integral fire protection for recirculating canopy type hoods.Substantiation: Although recirculating single appliance/hood combinations incorporate integral fire protection that is part of the overall listing, many recirculating canopy type hoods do not have listed fire protection. Manufacturers of these types of hoods have been recommending using UL 300 protection. However, UL 300 does not have provision for testing or listing fire protection for this type of hood.

96-13

Report on Proposals A2007— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 96Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise the proposal as 13.2.4.1 The recirculating system listing shall include integral fire protection for recirculating hoods including canopy type.Committee Statement: Editorial revision to allow for the requirements to apply to other types of hoods.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-61 Log #28 Final Action: Accept in Principle(13.2.4.2 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: William Klingenmaier, Tyco Suppression Systems / Rep. Fire Protection Manufacturer’s Association (FEMA)Recommendation: Add 13.2.4.2 to read as follows: 13.2.4.2 The recirculating system listing shall include integral fire protection for all cooking appliances requiring protection, when UL 300 or equivalently tested protection is not intended to be used.Substantiation: A single appliance/recirculating hood combination will likely not utilize UL 300 protection on the appliance. In this case, the appliance protection will require evaluation and listing as part of the overall listing.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise the proposal as follows: 13.2.4.2 Cooking appliances that require protection, under a recirculating hood shall be protected by either the integral fire protection for the hood or standard UL 300 appliance protection. Committee Statement: The revision meets the submitter’s intent and provides additional clarity of the requirement.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C.Comment on Affirmative: MEACHAM, R.: We are recommending the following revised wording that is consistent with the committee action but, adds clarity to the paragraph. 13.2.4.2 Cooking appliances that require protection, under a recirculating hood shall be protected by either the integral fire protection for the hood or standard UL 300 appliance protection with a Listed extinguishing system that complies with UL 300. _____________________________________________________________96-62 Log #44 Final Action: Reject(13.6.6) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment DistributorsRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Fire-extinguishing systems shall be inspected in accordance with Section 11.2 Chapter 10 . Substantiation: A previous proposal submitted would move all of the fire-extinguishing system requirements from Chapter 11 to Chapter 10. This proposal incorporates that change.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The previous proposal mentioned was rejected.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-63 Log #6 Final Action: Reject(Chapter 14) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Stephen Cerro, Society InsuranceRecommendation: Wood-fired pizza ovens and meat smokers should be addressed more specifically in this section as they are common and becoming more so. In addition, self-contained auto-fryers should be addressed. I don’t know the fire history of these devices well enough, so I may not be aware of everything that should be said.Substantiation: The problem is one of lack of information on the fire history or potential issues regarding these devices.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: This proposal does not have any suggested language.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-64 Log #29 Final Action: Accept(14.3.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: William Klingenmaier, Tyco Suppression Systems / Rep. Fire Protection Manufacturer’s Association (FEMA)Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 14.3.3 All solid fuel cooking equipment, including gas or electrically operated equipment that incorporates solid fuel for cooking enhancement or smoke flavoring, served by hoods and duct systems shall be separate from all other exhaust systems.

Substantiation: Combination cooking equipment is not currently addressed in the standard. Solid fuel can be utilized in gas or electrically operated equipment, generally for smoke flavoring, but it is also a source for embers and Class A products of decomposition.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-65 Log #67 Final Action: Accept in Principle(14.7.8.1 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________The following proposal consists of Comment 96-11 on Proposal Log #12 in the 2004 May Meeting Report on Comments. This comment was held for further study during the processing of the A2004 ROC. Submitter: William Klingenmaier, Ansul Incorporated / Rep. Fire Equipment Manfacturer’s AssociationRecommendation: Add a new section to read as follows: 14.7.8.1 The 2-A rated water-type fire extinguisher shall be equipped with a nozzle that cannot produce a straight stream. Substantiation: In addition to the revised text in 14.7.8, the issue of safety needs to be addressed. Water-type extinguishers are not allowed in the kitchen according to 10.10.2 because they do not saponify upon contact with grease. However, 2-A rated water type extinguishers are allowed to be used for solid fuel cooking in appliances with fireboxes of 0.14 m 3 (5 ft 3 ) volume or less. Water-type extinguishers utilizing a solid stream discharge pattern can be a safety concern in certain types of fires. Tests have demonstrated that this type of extinguisher, mistakenly utilized on a fryer fire, could pose a serious safety hazard to the user. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Do not add a new paragraph, instead revise 14.7.8 as follows: Change “2-A rated water-type fire extinguisher” to read “2-A rated Water Spray Fire Extinguisher” and add asterisk for Annex material. Add A.14.7.8 as follows: A.14.7.8 The 2-A rated Water Spray Fire Extinguisher is equipped with a nozzle that does not produce a straight stream. Water type extinguishers are not allowed in the kitchen according to 10.10.2 because they do not saponify upon contact with grease. However, 2-A rated water type extinguishers are allowed to be used for solid fuel cooking in appliances with fireboxes of 0.14 m 3 (5 ft 3 ) volume or less. Tests have demonstrated water-type extinguishers, utilizing a solid stream discharge pattern can be a safety concern in certain types of fires such as a fryer fire. Committee Statement: Addresses submitter’s intent and further clarifies exactly what type of water extinguisher is most appropriate in this environment.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-66 Log #30 Final Action: Accept(15.1(2)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: William Klingenmaier, Tyco Suppression Systems / Rep. Fire Protection Manufacturer’s Association (FEMA)Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 15.1(2) The primary collection means designed for collecting cooking vapors and residues shall comply hood portion complying with the requirements of Chapter 5.Substantiation: Although a downdraft appliance ventilation system is designed to direct and capture grease laden vapors and exhaust gases, this change better describes the system other than calling it a hood, which is generally considered as being installed above the cooking appliance(s).Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-67 Log #31 Final Action: Accept(15.1.1 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: William Klingenmaier, Tyco Suppression Systems / Rep. Fire Protection Manufacturer’s Association (FEMA)Recommendation: Add 15.1.1 to read as follows: 15.1.1 The down draft appliance ventilation system shall be capable of capturing and containing all of the affluent discharging from the appliance(s) it is serving.Substantiation: In the event of a fire, it is necessary that grease cannot collect on surfaces above or adjacent to the cooking equipment involved in the fire. As downdraft systems do include an overhead canopy hood, fire containment will be difficult. If surfaces are allowed to become grease loaded, fire may propagate to non protected areas.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C.

96-14

Report on Proposals A2007— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 96_______________________________________________________________96-68 Log #32 Final Action: Reject(15.1.2 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: William Klingenmaier, Tyco Suppression Systems / Rep. Fire Protection Manufacturer’s Association (FEMA)Recommendation: Add 15.1.2 to read as follows: 15.1.2 Listing evaluation for grease discharge at a various points, 36 in. above the appliance intended for use with a downdraft ventilation system shall demonstrate a maximum grease discharge not to exceed an average of 5 mg/m3 of exhausted air sampled from the equipment at maximum amount of product that is capable of being processed over a continuous 8-hour test per EPA Test Method 202 with the system operating at its maximum listed airflow.Substantiation: In order to guarantee that grease does not collect on surfaces above the cooking appliance, there needs to be evaluation that the downdraft ventilation system will not allow grease discharge from the appliance to exceed 5 mg/m 3 . This is particularly necessary in the event of a fire on the appliance.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Previous proposals and a TIA proposal have rejected this concept.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-69 Log #CP9 Final Action: Accept(15.2.2) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances, Recommendation: Change “down draft hood to “down draft appliance ventilation system”.Substantiation: Editorial for consistency.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-70 Log #CP8 Final Action: Accept(A.7.8.2.2(1)) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances, Recommendation: Revise as follows: (1) Rooftop Terminations. All roof exhaust fans (whether through the roof or to the roof from the outside) should have ready access to all sides w ith railing for a compliant safe working environment from a flat roof surface without a ladder, or they should be provided with a safe access via built-in stairs or walkways or a portable ladder to a flat work surface on all sides of the fan. (See 7.8.2)Substantiation: It is important to reiterate the OSHA Standards once above 4 feet by placing the information in the Annex of the standard. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 5 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C.Explanation of Negative: DEMERS, D.: The requirement for railings is outside the scope of NFPA 96. KOHOUT, F.: This is not a fire hazard risk. This proposal addresses an OSHA requirement, and does not belong in NFPA 96. LEICHT, R.: Although I certainly believe that these provisions are a good idea, they do nothing to address a fire hazard. The scope of this Standard is limited to the “minimum fire safety requirements related to the design, installation, maintenance, etc. of the cooking operations”. NFPA 96 should not be doing OSHA’s or any other agency’s work. I also believe that slip resistant floors in the kitchen and clean restrooms are good ideas but we don’t add them into the Standard. Where do we draw the line? There are other NFPA Standards that considered adding proposals that would enhance employee safety but were rejected because they were not within the scope of that Standard; namely fire protection. RAY, S.: These provisions do nothing to address a fire hazard. The scope of NFPA 96 is limited to the “minimum fire safety requirements related to the design, installation, maintenance, etc., of the cooking operations” and should not cross over to OSHA’s or any other agency’s work. ROTUNDO, R.: Requiring specific safety requirements as regards platforms, ladders and rails is outside the scope of this document and no specific information is given to enable compliance. A flawed code change._______________________________________________________________96-71 Log #12 Final Action: Accept(A.7.8.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Bernard P. Besal, Besal Services, Inc. / Rep. International Kitchen Exhaust Cleaning AssociationRecommendation: Add access panel(s), and work platform to drawing A.7.8.4 and show fan in hinged position.

Substantiation: Provides consistency with A.4.2(A), (B), (C) and (D).Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C.Explanation of Negative: ROTUNDO, R.: Requiring specific safety requirements as regards platforms, ladders and rails is outside the scope of this document and no specific information is given to enable compliance. A flawed code change._______________________________________________________________96-72 Log #CP4 Final Action: Accept(A.10.2.3) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances, Recommendation: Revise A.10.2.3 as follows: A.10.2.3 UL 300 primarily addresses self-contained chemical extinguishing systems commonly referred to as pre-engineered systems. UL 300 has been identified as a baseline for testing fire extinguishing systems intended for the protection of commercial cooking related hazards. Additional equivalent testing standards can and have been written for other types of fire extinguishing systems not considered pre-engineered that demonstrate equivalent fire testing severity to the UL 300 test standard. Current examples include, but are not limited to UL 199, UL 199E, and UL 710B.Substantiation: Further clarify the application of UL 300 versus other standards.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C.Comment on Affirmative: MEACHAM, R.: We are recommending the following revised wording that is consistent with the committee action but, adds clarity to the annex statement. A.10.2.3 UL 300 primarily addresses the method of fire testing for self-contained chemical extinguishing systems commonly referred to as pre-engineered systems. UL 300 has been identified as a baseline for fire testing fire extinguishing systems intended for the protection of commercial cooking related hazards. Additional equivalent testing standards can and have been written for other types of fire extinguishing systems not considered pre-engineered that demonstrate equivalent fire testing severity to the UL 300 test standard. Current examples include, but are not limited to UL 199, UL Subject 199E, and UL 710B.

Figure A.7.8.4 Rooftop Terminations Through Combustible or Limited-Combustible WAlls

Weather-protected opening

Access panel

Access panel

Work surface

Sealed around duct at this point

Exterior wall

• 0 mm (0 in.) clearance to noncombustibles• 76 mm (3 in.) clearance to limited combustibles• 457 mm (18 in.) clearance to combustibles, unless protected

96-15

Report on Proposals A2007— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 96

_____________________________________________________________96-73 Log #CP6 Final Action: Accept(A.11.2.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances, Recommendation: Revise “1 year” to “semi-annually.Substantiation: Revision makes Annex consistent with the requirement.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C._______________________________________________________________96-74 Log #51 Final Action: Reject(A.11.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Phil Ackland, Phillip Ackland Holdings Ltd.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: A.11.4.?? This inspection service may be provided, where acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction, by the properly trained, qualified and certified exhaust cleaning contractor.Substantiation: The fact is that experienced and properly trained exhaust cleaners are in the very best position to advise the system owner on the condition and fire safety of their system. Trained and conscientious exhaust cleaners can make a difference if this knowledge and responsibility are recognized and utilized. Experience is showing that if there is a fire, and the exhaust system was being cleaned by an “outside contractor” then that contractor had an obligation to inform the system owner of any serious deficiencies, in writing. If the cleaner did not do this they are (in the majority of cases) being found liable to some degree. So the cleaner is being found liable for something that they should be recognized for doing. The above list limits what is reasonable for a trained qualified and certified cleaner to provide a system owner. There is a widening gap between exhaust cleaners who are taking their responsibility of fire prevention seriously and those who are providing little more than a “hood polish.” These food polishers are taking advantage of the gullibility of the restaurant industry, by claiming to be doing a complete job of removing all the fuel (grease) in the system and actually doing very little. Those companies that are trying to do a proper job of removing the fuel are being placed at a great disadvantage because it is much quicker and cheaper to do a hood polish rather than an honest cleaning. NFPA 96 can be a force in greatly eliminating those who would deceive the fire safety industry.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Committee Action rejected Proposal 96-54 (Log #52) which this proposal is related to.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C.

_______________________________________________________________96-75 Log #53 Final Action: Reject(A.11.4) _______________________________________________________________Submitter: Phil Ackland, Phillip Ackland Holdings Ltd.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: A.11.4.?? Serious visible noncompliant issues that an inspector shall be required to report, in writing, to the system owner are limited to the following issues: ● Lack of fan hinging or other acceptable access to top area of duct and underside of an upblast fan ● Mesh or missing filters ● Unsafe fan or work areas ● Cleaning frequency requirements ● Serious nonperformance or water wash hood mechanisms ● Leaking duct or holes (gaps) in ducts ● Type II exhaust construction over grease producing appliances ● Lack of internal access into the duct for inspection and cleaning ● Visible inadequate clearance to combustibles ● Visible non-welded duct construction ● Grease buildup on roof or exhaust termination area ● Grease buildup on the fixed pipe fire extinguishing system Note: Inspection obligations apply only to areas that would be visible in the normal course of exhaust inspection and cleaning.Substantiation: Real world field experience is showing that a large number of exhaust systems are being constructed and installed incorrectly. These improperly installed systems pose a serious fire hazard particularly where clearance to combustible and accessibility for grease removal are concerned. There is a high need for close vigilance of these commercial exhaust systems. Definitions of what should be involved in a proper fire safety inspection will assist the AHJ in determining that the systems are either compliant to the Standard, or that there is need for some remedial action. While education of designer, building and fire officials will certainly continue to improve the installation practices, there exist 10’s of thousands of installations that are serious fire hazards.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: 96-56 (Log #60) containing the verbiage “serious noncompliant issues” was rejected, making this change unnecessary.Number Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Caraway, Jr., L., De Lorenzo, M., Gibbons, Jr., C., Laudun, J., Schulz, C.

FORM FOR COMMENTS ON NFPA REPORT ON PROPOSALS 2007 ANNUAL REVISION CYCLE

FINAL DATE FOR RECEIPT OF COMMENTS: 5:00 pm EDST, September 1, 2006

For further information on the standards-making process, please contact the Codes and Standards Administration at 617-984-7249

For technical assistance, please call NFPA at 617-770-3000

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Log #:

Date Rec’d:

Please indicate in which format you wish to receive your ROP/ROC electronic paper download (Note: In choosing the download option, you intend to view the ROP/ROC from our website; no copy will be sent to you.)

Date Name Tel. No.

Company

Street Address City State Zip

Please indicate organization represented (if any)

1. (a) NFPA document title NFPA No. & Year

(b) Section/Paragraph

2. Comment on Proposal No. (from ROP):

3. Comment recommends (check one): new text revised text deleted text

4. Comment (include proposed new or revised wording, or identification of wording to be deleted): (Note: Proposed text should be in legislative format; i.e., use underscore to denote wording to be inserted (inserted wording) and strike-through to denote wording to be deleted (deleted wording).

5. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Comment: (Note: State the problem that will be resolved by your recommendation; give the specific reason for your comment, including copies of tests, research papers, fire experience, etc. If more than 200 words, it may be abstracted for publication.)

6. Copyright Assignment

(a) I am the author of the text or other material (such as illustrations, graphs) proposed in this comment.

(b) Some or all of the text or other material proposed in this comment was not authored by me. Its source is as follows (please identify which material and provide complete information on its source):

I hereby grant and assign to the NFPA all and full rights in copyright in this comment and understand that I acquire no rights in any publication of NFPA in which this comment in this or another similar or analogous form is used. Except to the extent that I do not have authority to make an assignment in materials that I have identified in (b) above, I hereby warrant that I am the author of this comment and that I have full power and authority to enter into this assignment.

Signature (Required)

PLEASE USE SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH COMMENT • NFPA Fax: (617) 770-3500 Mail to: Secretary, Standards Council, National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471

5/25/2006 iv

Notice of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAM) Sequence of Events Leading to Issuance of an NFPA Committee Document

Step 1 Call for Proposals

▼ Proposed new Document or new edition of an existing Document is entered into one of two yearly revision cycles, and a Call for Proposals is published.

Step 2 Report on Proposals (ROP)

▼ Committee meets to act on Proposals, to develop its own Proposals, and to prepare its Report.

▼ Committee votes by written ballot on Proposals. If two-thirds approve, Report goes forward. Lacking two-thirds approval, Report returns to Committee.

▼ Report on Proposals (ROP) is published for public review and comment.

Step 3 Report on Comments (ROC)

▼ Committee meets to act on Public Comments to develop its own Comments, and to prepare its report.

▼ Committee votes by written ballot on Comments. If two-thirds approve, Reports goes forward. Lacking two-thirds approval, Report returns to Committee.

▼ Report on Comments (ROC) is published for public review.

Step 4 Technical Report Session

▼ “Notices of intent to make a motion” are filed, are reviewed, and valid motions are certified for presentation at the Technical Report Session. (“Consent Documents” that have no certified motions bypass the Technical Report Session and proceed to the Standards Council for issuance.)

▼ NFPA membership meets each June at the Annual Meeting Technical Report Session and acts on Technical Committee Reports (ROP and ROC) for Documents with “certified amending motions.”

▼ Committee(s) vote on any amendments to Report approved at NFPA Annual Membership Meeting.

Step 5 Standards Council Issuance

▼ Notification of intent to file an appeal to the Standards Council on Association action must be filed within 20 days of the NFPA Annual Membership Meeting.

▼ Standards Council decides, based on all evidence, whether or not to issue Document or to take other action, including hearing any appeals.

The Technical Report Session of the NFPA Annual Meeting

The process of public input and review does not end with the publication of the ROP and ROC. Following the completion of the Proposal and Comment periods, there is yet a further opportunity for debate and discussion through the Technical Report Sessions that take place at the NFPA Annual Meeting.

The Technical Report Session provides an opportunity for the final Technical Committee Report (i.e., the ROP and ROC) on each proposed new or revised code or standard to be presented to the NFPA membership for the debate and consideration of motions to amend the Report. The specific rules for the types of motions that can be made and who can make them are set forth in NFPA’s rules which should always be consulted by those wishing to bring an issue before the membership at a Technical Report Session. The following presents some of the main features of how a Report is handled.

What Amending Motions are Allowed. The Technical Committee Reports contain many Proposals and Comments that the Technical Committee has rejected or revised in whole or in part. Actions of the Technical Committee published in the ROP may also eventually be rejected or revised by the Technical Committee during the development of its ROC. The motions allowed by NFPA rules provide the opportunity to propose amendments to the text of a proposed code or standard based on these published Proposals, Comments and Committee actions. Thus, the list of allowable motions include motions to accept Proposals and Comments in whole or in part as submitted or as modified by a Technical Committee action. Motions are also available to reject an accepted Comment in whole or part. In addition, Motions can be made to return an entire Technical Committee Report or a portion of the Report to the Technical Committee for further study.

The NFPA Annual Meeting, also known as the World SafetyConference and Exposition®, takes place in June of each year. A second Fall membership meeting was discontinued in 2004, so the NFPA Technical Report Session now runs once each yearat the Annual Meeting in June.

Who Can Make Amending Motions. Those authorized to make these motions is also regulated by NFPA rules. In many cases, the maker of the motion is limited by NFPA rules to the original submitter of the Proposal or Comment or his or her duly authorized representative. In other cases, such as a Motion to Reject an accepted Comment, or to Return a Technical Committee Report or a portion of a Technical Committee Report for Further Study, anyone can make these motions. For a complete explanation, NFPA rules should be consulted.

The filing of a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion. Before making an allowable motion at a Technical Report Session, the intended maker of the motion must file, in advance of the session, and within the published deadline, a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion. A Motions Committee appointed by the Standards Council then reviews all notices and certifies all amending motions that are proper. The Motions Committee can also, in consultation with the makers of the motions, clarify the intent of the motions and, in certain circumstances, combine motions that are dependent on each other together so that they can be made in one single motion. A Motions Committee report is then made available in advance of the meeting listing all certified motions. Only these Certified Amending Motions, together with certain allowable Follow-Up Motions (that is, motions that have become necessary as a result of previous successful amending motions) will be allowed at the Technical Report Session.

Consent Documents. Often there are codes and standards up for consideration by the membership that will be non-controversial and no proper Notices of Intent to Make a Motion will be filed. These “Consent Documents” will bypass the Technical Report Session and head straight to the Standards Council for issuance. The remaining Documents are then forwarded to the Technical Report Session for consideration of the NFPA membership.

Important Note: The filing of a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion is a new requirement that takes effect beginning with those Documents scheduled for the Fall 2005 revision cycle that reports to the June 2006 Annual Meeting Technical Report Session. The filing of a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion will not, therefore, be required in order to make a motion at the June 2005 Annual Meeting Technical Report Session. For updates on the transition to the new Notice requirement and related new rules effective for the Fall 2005 revision cycle and the June 2006 Annual Meeting, check the NFPA website.

Action on Motions at the Technical Report Session. In order to actually make a Certified Amending Motion at the Technical Report Session, the maker of the motion must sign in at least an hour before the session begins. In this way a final list of motions can be set in advance of the session. At the session, each proposed Document up for consideration is presented by a motion to adopt the Technical Committee Report on the Document. Following each such motion, the presiding officer in charge of the session opens the floor to motions on the Document from the final list of Certified Amending Motions followed by any permissible Follow-Up Motions. Debate and voting on each motion proceeds in accordance with NFPA rules. NFPA membership is not required in order to make or speak to a motion, but voting is limited to NFPA members who have joined at least 180 days prior to the session and have registered for the meeting. At the close of debate on each motion, voting takes place, and the motion requires a majority vote to carry. In order to amend a Technical Committee Report, successful amending motions must be confirmed by the responsible Technical Committee, which conducts a written ballot on all successful amending motions following the meeting and prior to the Document being forwarded to the Standards Council for issuance.

Standards Council Issuance

One of the primary responsibilities of the NFPA Standards Council, as the overseer of the NFPA codes and standards development process, is to act as the official issuer of all NFPA codes and standards. When it convenes to issue NFPA documents it also hears any appeals related to the Document. Appeals are an important part of assuring that all NFPA rules have been followed and that due process and fairness have been upheld throughout the codes and standards development process. The Council considers appeals both in writing and through the conduct of hearings at which all interested parties can participate. It decides appeals based on the entire record of the process as well as all submissions on the appeal. After deciding all appeals related to a Document before it, the Council, if appropriate, proceeds to issue the Document as an official NFPA code or standard. Subject only to limited review by the NFPA Board of Directors, the Decision of the Standards Council is final, and the new NFPA code or standard becomes effective twenty days after Standards Council issuance. The illustration on page 9 provides an overview of the entire process, which takes approximately two full years to complete.