Technical Committee on Heliports

M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: May 4, 2010 TO: Principal and Alternate Members of the Technical Committee on Heliports FROM: Jonathan Levin, Associate Fire Protection Engineer/NFPA Staff Liaison SUBJECT: AGENDA PACKAGE – NFPA 418 F2010 ROC Meeting ________________________________________________________________________ Enclosed is the agenda for the Report on Comments (ROC) meeting for NFPA 418,

Standard for Heliports. It is imperative that you review the comments in advance, and if

you have alternate suggestions for text changes, please come prepared with the words and

respective substantiation. In addition, should you have any specific discussion items please

send me a copy for distribution to the committee at least seven days prior to the meeting,

along with any respective substantiation or diagrams you wish to discuss.

Feel free to contact Carol Sances for administrative questions at (617) 984-7951, or me for

technical questions at (617) 984-7245. You can also reach me via e-mail at

JLevin@nfpa.org. I look forward to working with everyone via Windows Live and

teleconference.

1

Table of Contents

Meeting Agenda

3

Committee Address List

4

Committee Distribution

6

F2010 ROP Meeting Minutes

7

F2010 Key Dates

9

Staff Liaison Notice

10

Fall 2010 ROP

17

Public Comments

36

2

Technical Committee on Heliports

ROC Meeting May 20, 2010

8:00 am – 5:00 pm Windows Live Meeting

AGENDA

Thursday, May 20, 2010

1. Call to Order – 8:00 AM 2. Introductions and Attendance 3. Proposed Agenda 4. Committee Member Status and Update of Membership Roster 5. Approval of F2010 ROP Meeting Minutes 6. Chairman Comments 7. NFPA Staff Liaison Presentation and Review of Key Dates in F2010 Cycle 8. Generate Comments 9. Adjourn Meeting – 5:00 PM

3

5/3/2010

Helicopter FacilitiesHHH-AAAName Representation Class Office

Distribution by %

Company

Lawrence J. Buehler US Federal Aviation Administration E Principal

Michael H. Kaisler Baltimore City Fire Department E Principal

Guy Heneault Transport Canada E Voting Alternate

3Voting Number Percent 23%

Donald J. Slater, Jr. FM Global FM I Principal

1Voting Number Percent 8%

Joseph A. Behnke Tyco Fire Suppression & BuildingProducts

TYCO M Principal

William E. Davis Heliport Systems Incorporated M Principal

2Voting Number Percent 15%

Raymond A. Syms Raymond A. Syms & Associates SE Chair

Michael E. Aaron The RJA Group, Inc. RJA SE Principal

Lee Ambers Vertical Aeronautics International SE Principal

Steve C. Dryden Poole Fire Protection, Inc. SE Principal

4Voting Number Percent 31%

Rex J. Alexander Omniflight Helicopters Inc. U Principal

Mark S. Rosenberger Los Alamos National Security, LLC U Principal

Dudley G. Smith Dudley Smith Consulting AAMS U Principal

3Voting Number Percent 23%

13Total Voting Number

6

NFPA 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269-9101 USA Phone: (617) 770-3000 Fax: (617) 984-0700 www.nfpa. org

Meeting Title: 418 ROP Meeting July 7-8, 2009 Meeting Date: Tuesday, July 7 – Wednesday, July 8, 2009 Meeting Location: Holiday Inn Golden Gateway Hotel, San Francisco Code or Standards: Standard for Heliports (418) Minutes Taken By: Michael Aaron Attendees: Members Steve Dryden (Poole Engineering - Committee Chair) Timothy Hawthorne (NFPA Staff Liaison) Michael Aaron (RJA - Secretary) Ray Syms (Raymond A. Syms & Associates) Don Slater (FM Global) Bernard Valois (Transport Canada Civil Aviation) Joe Bernanke (Ansul - Tyco) Alternates None. Non-Members / Guests / Presenters None. Committee Agenda:

1. Introductions Introductions were made of those in attendance.

2. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting Minutes of the June 3, 2005 ROC meeting were approved.

3. Comments on General Procedures Committee Actions List (all except “Accept” require a Committee Statement)

• Accept • Reject • Accept in Principle • Accept in Part • Accept in Principle in Part

Hold is not available for an ROP item, but is an option for ROC comments. Held comments become proposals for next cycle.

7

4. Action on public and committee proposals NFPA 418

Public and committee comments were considered, discussed and acted on. Results are in the ROC. Concerning 418 Log-1 the Chair asked Ray Syms to contact Lee Ambers (absent member) to discuss this proposal with him. At Steve Dryden’s request M. Aaron briefly assumed the role Chair to allow Steve Dryden to speak as a member on the topic of egress to a public way, and a few other topics. The Chair appointed a task group to monitor and coordinate with NFPA 407 fueling requirements. Chair of 407 is a fire fighter at O’Hare. The 407 comment closing date is Nov 27. Bernard Valois and Ray Syms were selected to serve on this task group. The Chair appointed a task group on Performance Criteria. Coordinate with 403. Bernard Valois, Ray Syms and Joe Behnke were selected to serve on this task group.

5. Old Business None.

6. New Business None.

7. Next Meeting The 2010 cycle schedule for NFPA 418 is: Proposal Closing 5/29/09 ROP Meeting by 8/29/09 TC Ballots Due 10/23/09 ROP Published by 12/28/09 Comment Closing 3/5/10 ROC Meeting by 5/7/10 TC Ballots Due 6/4/10 ROC Published by 8/27/10 NITMAM Closing 10/22/10 Standard Council Issuance for Consent Documents 12/4/10 Appeal Closing 12/29/10 Association Meeting 6/4-9/11 Appeal Closing 6/29/11 Council Issuance 7/29/11 An ROC meeting will be held only if there are enough comments to justify it. In view of the schedule, a meeting needs to be after March 5, and before May 7. Dates of April 5 - 8, 2010 were suggested. Meeting location will likely be somewhere in the northeast U.S. Meeting Adjourned.

8

NFPA 418 Revision Cycle

Fall 2010

Final Date for ROC Meeting May 7, 2010*

Ballots Mailed to TC before May 21, 2010*

ROC Published August 27, 2010

Intent to Make a Motion Closing (NITMAM) October 22, 2010

Issuance of Consent Document (No NITMAMs) December 14, 2010

NFPA Annual Meeting Boston, MA June 2011

Issuance of Document with NITMAM August 11, 2011

* Dates have been extended as approved by the Standards Council Secretary.

9

Note from the Staff Liaison

Dear Committee Members:

We are very pleased that you will be participating in the processing of the 2011 Edition

of NFPA 418. Development of the Standard would not be possible without the

participation of volunteers like you.

Materials You Will Need to Have for the Committee Meeting

2006 Edition of NFPA 418

Agenda with all attachments

Committee Officers' Guide (Chairs)

Roberts’ Rules of Order (Chairs – abbreviated version may be found in the Committee

Officer’s Guide)

"Nice to Have" Materials

NFPA Annual Directory

NFPA Manual of Style

Prepared Committee Comments (If applicable)

Preparation

Prepared actions and statements will clarify your position and provide the committee with

a starting point. Prepared actions and statements really help expedite the progress of the

meeting.

Getting Things Done

Comments

Only one posting of comments will be made; it will be arranged in section/order and will

be pre-numbered. This will be posted to the NFPA e-committee website. If you have

trouble accessing the website please contact Joanne Goyette at jgoyette@nfpa.org.

Please bring the comments to the committee meeting.

10

The processing schedule to be followed by the committee is outlined in the schedule in

this package. As the schedule is very tight, no extensions of the deadline for receipt of

completed ballots or extensions of the period to change vote will be possible.

It is therefore suggested that those of you who must consult with others regarding your

ballot do so based on the material passed out at the meeting, and your meeting notes. Do

not wait for receipt of the ballot materials from NFPA.

Regulations and Operating Procedures

All actions at and following the committee meetings will be governed in accordance with

the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. The latest Regulations (as of this

printing) appear on pages 10-28 of the 2010 NFPA Directory.

All committee actions will be in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing

Committee Projects. The style of NFPA 418 will comply with the Manual of Style for

NFPA Technical Committee Documents. Failure to comply with these rules could result

in challenges to the standards-making process. A successful challenge on procedural

grounds could prevent or delay publication of NFPA 418. Consequently, committee's

must follow the regulations and procedures.

Processing Comments

Comments Requiring Committee Actions

All comments must be acted upon. If a comment does not comply with Section 4.4.3 of

the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects (an incomplete comment), the

committee may reject the comment. However, any of the standard actions may be taken.

Please make sure that the committee's action and the committee's statement result in a

complete action that can be readily understood.

Committee Actions

The following are the actions permitted by the Regulations Governing Committee

Projects for disposition of comments. Please note that comments can be held for further

study.

11

Accept - The committee accepts the comment exactly as written. Only editorial

changes such as paragraph and section numbering, and corrections to spelling,

capitalization, and hyphenation may be made.

If a comment is accepted without a change of any kind, except for editorial changes, the

committee can simply indicate acceptance. The committee should add a committee

statement explaining the action if, for example the committee does not agree with all of

the substantiation or supporting data or has a number of different reasons for acceptance

than those stated in the substantiation or supporting data. The absence of such a statement

could mislead the reader by giving the impression that the committee agreed with all of

the substantiation for the comment.

Reject - The comment is rejected by the committee. If the principle or intent of the

comment is acceptable in whole or in part, the coment should not be rejected, it should be

accepted in principle or accepted in principle in part. A complete reason for rejection of

the comment must be supplied in the committee statement.

Accept in Principle - Accept the comment with a change in wording. The

committee action must indicate specifically what action was taken to revise the proposed

wording, and where the wording being revised is located (i.e., in the proposed wording or

in the document). If the details are in the action on another comment, the committee

action may simply indicate "Accept in Principle" but reference should then be made in

the committee statement to the specific comment detailing the action.

Accept in Part - If part of a comment is accepted without change and the remainder

is rejected, the comment should be "Accepted in Part." The committee action must

indicate what part was accepted and what part was rejected and the committee statement

must indicate its reasons for rejecting that portion.

Accept in Principle in Part - This is a combination of "Accept in Principle" and

"Accept in Part" as shown above.

12

Hold – Comments can be held and processed as a proposal during the next revision

cycle provided that one of the following conditions is met:

(a) The comment introduces a concept that has not had public review by being

included in a related proposal as published in the Report on Proposals.

(b) The comment would change the text proposed by the TC to the point that the TC

would have to restudy the text of the Report on Proposals or other affected parts

of the Document.

(c) The comment would propose something that could not be properly handled within

the time frame for processing the report.

Committee Statements

Any comment that is "Accepted in Principle", "Accepted in Part", "Accepted in Principle

in Part" or "Rejected" must include a committee statement, preferably technical in nature

that provides the reasons for the action.

References to the requirements of other documents as a reason for rejection should be to

the specific sections of the document including the requirements. If there is more than

one such section, the reference should include a least one, identified as an example.

It is a violation of the regulations for a committee to reject a comment simply because it

accepted a different comment on the same subject. Reference in the committee statement

to another committee action is inappropriate unless the referenced comment contains all

of the applicable technical justification for the action.

If the rejection or change was for the same reason that another comment was rejected or

changed, the committee statement may refer to that comment giving the same reason for

rejection or change. Please verify that cross references to other comments are correct.

The committee statement should not refer to another committee statement which, in turn,

refers to some other committee statement. There may be a situation where the committee

will want to refer to two, three, or more committee statements if they are all appropriate.

13

When the committee develops a committee action for a comment that is accepted in

principle, the rationale must indicate why the wording submitted was not accepted. This

reason should be technical in nature, unless the committee has simply rewritten the

submitter's text, in which case the committee can state that the proposed wording should

meet the submitter's intent.

The committee statement on a comment that is accepted in part should indicate

specifically why that part of the comment was not accepted.

Easy Procedures for Handling a Motion

NFPA Committee Meetings are conducted in accordance with Roberts' Rules of Order.

In order for a comment to be discussed, a motion must be made. A simplified procedure

for discussion of motions is as follows:

Member

• Member Addresses the Chair

• Receives Recognition from the Chair

• Introduces the Motion

• (Another Member) Seconds the Motion.

Chair (Presiding Officer)

• States the Motion

• Calls for Discussion

• Takes the vote

• Announces the Result of the Vote

It is imperative that you review the comments before the meeting and develop proposed

actions and statements. These prepared actions and statements will clarify your position

and provide the committee with a starting point. Prepared actions and statements really

help expedite the progress of the meeting.

14

Balloting Dos and Don'ts

Either fax or mail your ballot - Please do not do both. Don't return the entire package; just

return the appropriate ballot page(s) and explanation of votes.

Alternate Members

At the end of each code cycle, the Standards Council reviews records of all members

regarding their participation in the standards-making process. Therefore, it is important

for alternate members to remember that return of ballots is expected, even though they

know that their principal member will be attending meetings and returning their ballots.

General Procedures for Meetings

• Use of tape recorders or other means capable of producing verbatim transcriptions

of any NFPA Committee Meeting is not permitted.

• Attendance at all NFPA Committee Meetings is open.

• All guests must sign in and identify their affiliation.

• Participation in NFPA Committee Meetings is generally limited to committee

members and NFPA staff. Participation by guests is limited to individuals, who

have previously requested of the chair time to address the committee on a

particular item, or individuals who wish to speak regarding public proposals or

comments that they submitted.

• The chairman reserves the right to limit the amount of time available for any

presentation.

• No interviews will be allowed in the meeting room at any time, including breaks.

• All attendees are reminded that formal votes of committee members will be

secured by letter ballot. Voting at this meeting is used to establish a sense of

agreement, but only the results of the formal letter ballot will determine the

official position of the committee on any comment.

• Note to Special Experts: Particular attention is called to Section 3.3(e) of the

NFPA Guide for the Conduct of Participants in the NFPA Codes and Standards

Development Process in the NFPA Directory that directs committee members to

declare their interest representation if it is other than their official designation as

shown on the committee roster, such as when a special expert is retained and

15

represents another interest category on a particular subject. If such a situation

exists on a specific issue or issues, the committee member shall declare those

interests to the committee, and refrain from voting on any proposal, comment, or

other matter relating to those issues.

• Smoking is not permitted at NFPA Committee Meetings.

16

Report onProposals

2010 Fall Revision Cycle

NOTE: The proposed NFPA documents addressed in this Report on

Proposals (ROP) and in a follow-up Report on Comments (ROC) will only be

presented for action at the NFPA June 2011 Association Technical Meeting

to be held June 12–15, 2011, at Boston Convention and Exhibition Center

in Boston, MA, when proper Amending Motions have been submitted to

the NFPA by the deadline of October 22, 2010. Documents that receive

no motions will not be presented at the meeting and instead will be

forwarded directly to the Standards Council for action on issuance. For more

information on the rules and for up-to-date information on schedules and

deadlines for processing NFPA documents, check the NFPA website (www.

nfpa.org) or contact NFPA Standards Administration.

ISSN 1079-5332 Copyright © 2009 All Rights Reserved

NFPA and National Fire Protection Association are registered trademarks of the National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA 02169.

National Fire Protection Association®1 BATTERYMARCH PARK, QUINCY, MA 02169-7471

A compilation of NFPA® TechnicalCommittee Reports on Proposals for public review and comment

Public Comment Deadline: March 5, 2010

17

Information on NFPA Codes and Standards Development

I. Applicable Regulations. The primary rules governing the processing of NFPA documents (codes, standards, recommended practices, and guides) are the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects (Regs). Other applicable rules include NFPA Bylaws, NFPA Technical Meeting Convention Rules, NFPA Guide for the Conduct of Participants in the NFPA Standards Development Process, and the NFPA Regulations Governing Petitions to the Board of Directors from Decisions of the Standards Council. Most of these rules and regulations are contained in the NFPA Directory. For copies of the Directory, contact Codes and Standards Administration at NFPA Headquarters; all these documents are also available on the NFPA website at “www.nfpa.org.”

The following is general information on the NFPA process. All participants, however, should refer to the actual rules and regulations for a full understanding of this process and for the criteria that govern participation.

II. Technical Committee Report. The Technical Committee Report is defined as “the Report of the Technical Committee and Technical Correlating Committee (if any) on a document. A Technical Committee Report consists of the Report on Proposals (ROP), as modified by the Report on Comments (ROC), published by the Association.”

III. Step 1: Report on Proposals (ROP). The ROP is defined as “a report to the Association on the actions taken by Technical Committees and/or Technical Correlating Committees, accompanied by a ballot statement and one or more proposals on text for a new document or to amend an existing document.” Any objection to an action in the ROP must be raised through the filing of an appropriate Comment for consideration in the ROC or the objection will be considered resolved.

IV. Step 2: Report on Comments (ROC). The ROC is defined as “a report to the Association on the actions taken by Technical Committees and/or Technical Correlating Committees accompanied by a ballot statement and one or more comments resulting from public review of the Report on Proposals (ROP).” The ROP and the ROC together constitute the Technical Committee Report. Any outstanding objection following the ROC must be raised through an appropriate Amending Motion at the Association Technical Meeting or the objection will be considered resolved.

V. Step 3a: Action at Association Technical Meeting. Following the publication of the ROC, there is a period during which those wishing to make proper Amending Motions on the Technical Committee Reports must signal their intention by submitting a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion. Documents that receive notice of proper Amending Motions (Certified Amending Motions) will be presented for action at the annual June Association Technical Meeting. At the meeting, the NFPA membership can consider and act on these Certified Amending Motions as well as Follow-up Amending Motions, that is, motions that become necessary as a result of a previous successful Amending Motion. (See 4.6.2 through 4.6.9 of Regs for a summary of the available Amending Motions and who may make them.) Any outstanding objection following action at an Association Technical Meeting (and any further Technical Committee consideration following successful Amending Motions, see Regs at 4.7) must be raised through an appeal to the Standards Council or it will be considered to be resolved.

VI. Step 3b: Documents Forwarded Directly to the Council. Where no Notice of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAM) is received and certified in accordance with the Technical Meeting Convention Rules, the document is forwarded directly to the Standards Council for action on issuance. Objections are deemed to be resolved for these documents.

VII. Step 4a: Council Appeals. Anyone can appeal to the Standards Council concerning procedural or substantive matters related to the development, content, or issuance of any document of the Association or on matters within the purview of the authority of the Council, as established by the Bylaws and as determined by the Board of Directors. Such appeals must be in written form and filed with the Secretary of the Standards Council (see 1.6 of Regs). Time constraints for filing an appeal must be in accordance with 1.6.2 of the Regs. Objections are deemed to be resolved if not pursued at this level.

VIII. Step 4b: Document Issuance. The Standards Council is the issuer of all documents (see Article 8 of Bylaws). The Council acts on the issuance of a document presented for action at an Association Technical Meeting within 75 days from the date of the recommendation from the Association Technical Meeting, unless this period is extended by the Council (see 4.8 of Regs). For documents forwarded directly to the Standards Council, the Council acts on the issuance of the document at its next scheduled meeting, or at such other meeting as the Council may determine (see 4.5.6 and 4.8 of Regs).

IX. Petitions to the Board of Directors. The Standards Council has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the codes and standards development process and the issuance of documents. However, where extraordinary circumstances requiring the intervention of the Board of Directors exist, the Board of Directors may take any action necessary to fulfill its obligations to preserve the integrity of the codes and standards development process and to protect the interests of the Association. The rules for petitioning the Board of Directors can be found in the Regulations Governing Petitions to the Board of Directors from Decisions of the Standards Council and in 1.7 of the Regs.

X. For More Information. The program for the Association Technical Meeting (as well as the NFPA website as information becomes available) should be consulted for the date on which each report scheduled for consideration at the meeting will be presented. For copies of the ROP and ROC as well as more information on NFPA rules and for up-to-date information on schedules and deadlines for processing NFPA documents, check the NFPA website (www.nfpa.org) or contact NFPA Codes & Standards Administration at 617-984-7246.

18

2010 Fall Revision Cycle ROP Contents

by NFPA Numerical Designation

Note: Documents appear in numerical order.

NFPA No. Type Action Title Page No.

2 N Hydrogen Technologies Code ....................................................................................................................... 2-1 3 N Standard on the Commissioning and Integrated Testing of Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems ........... 3-1 12 P Standard on Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing Systems .................................................................................. 12-1 16 P Standard for the Installation of Foam-Water Sprinkler and Foam-Water Spray Systems............................ 16-1 18A P Standard on Water Additives for Fire Control and Vapor Mitigation ..................................................... .18A-1 31 P Standard for the Installation of Oil-Burning Equipment ............................................................................. 31-1 32 P Standard for Drycleaning Plants ................................................................................................................. 32-1 35 P Standard for the Manufacture of Organic Coatings ..................................................................................... 35-1 51A P Standard for Acetylene Cylinder Charging Plants ................................................................................... 51A-1 79 P Electrical Standard for Industrial Machinery .............................................................................................. 79-1 85 P Boiler and Combustion Systems Hazards Code .......................................................................................... 85-1 102 P Standard for Grandstands, Folding and Telescopic Seating, Tents, and Membrane Structures ................. 102-1 251 W Standard Methods of Tests of Fire Resistance of Building Construction and Materials ............................ 251-1 253 P Standard Method of Test for Critical Radiant Flux of Floor Covering Systems

Using a Radiant Heat Energy Source ........................................................................................................ 253-1 262 P Standard Method of Test for Flame Travel and Smoke of Wires and Cables

for Use in Air-Handling Spaces ................................................................................................................ 262-1 265 P Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Room Fire Growth Contribution of

Textile Coverings on Full Height Panels and Walls .................................................................................. 265-1 (To be Retitled as Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Room Fire Growth Contribution of Textile or Expanded Vinyl Wall Coverings on Full Height Panels and Walls)

285 P Standard Fire Test Method for Evaluation of Fire Propagation Characteristics of

Exterior Non-Load-Bearing Wall Assemblies Containing Combustible Components .............................. 285-1 286 P Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Contribution of Wall and

Ceiling Interior Finish to Room Fire Growth ............................................................................................ 286-1 418 P Standard for Heliports ............................................................................................................................... 418-1 730 P Guide for Premises Security ..................................................................................................................... 730-1 731 P Standard for the Installation of Electronic Premises Security Systems ..................................................... 731-1 901 R Standard Classifications for Incident Reporting and Fire Protection Data ................................................ 901-1 921 P Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations ............................................................................................. 921-1 1192 P Standard on Recreational Vehicles ......................................................................................................... 1192-1 1194 P Standard for Recreational Vehicle Parks and Campgrounds ................................................................... 1194-1

19

1405 P Guide for Land-Based Fire Fighters Who Respond to Marine Vessel Fires ............................................ 1405-1 (To be Retitled as Guide for Land-Based Fire Departments that Respond to Marine Vessel Fires)

1906 C Standard for Wildland Fire Apparatus .................................................................................................... 1906-1 1912 P Standard for Fire Apparatus Refurbishing .............................................................................................. 1912-1 1977 C Standard on Protective Clothing and Equipment for Wildland Fire Fighting .......................................... 1977-1

1984 N Standard on Respirators for Wildland Fire-Fighting Operations ............................................................. 1984-1 2001 P Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems ............................................................................ 2001-1

TYPES OF ACTION

P Partial Revision C Complete Revision N New Document R Reconfirmation W Withdrawal

20

2010 Fall Revision Cycle ROP Committees Reporting

Type Action Page No. Automatic Sprinkler Systems Foam-Water Sprinklers

16 Standard for the Installation of Foam-Water Sprinkler and Foam-Water Spray Systems P 16-1 Boiler Combustion System Hazards 85 Boiler and Combustion Systems Hazards Code P 85-1 Commissioning Fire Protection Systems 3 Standard on Commissioning and Integrated Testing of Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems N 3-1 Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment Respiratory Protection Equipment 1984 Standard on Respirators for Wildland Fire-Fighting Operations N 1984-1 Wildland Fire Fighting Protective Clothing and Equipment 1977 Standard on Protective Clothing and Equipment for Wildland Fire Fighting C 1977-1 Fire Department Apparatus 1906 Standard for Wildland Fire Apparatus C 1906-1 1912 Standard for Fire Apparatus Refurbishing P 1912-1 Fire Investigations 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations P 921-1 Fire Reporting 901 Standard Classifications for Incident Reporting and Fire Protection Data R 901-1 Fire Service Training 1405 Guide for Land-Based Fire Fighters Who Respond to Marine Vessel Fires P 1405-1 Fire Tests 251 Standard Methods of Tests of Fire Resistance of Building Construction and Materials W 251-1 253 Standard Method of Test for Critical Radiant Flux of Floor Covering Systems

Using a Radiant Heat Energy Source P 253-1

262 Standard Method of Test for Flame Travel and Smoke of Wires and Cables for Use in Air-Handling Spaces

P 262-1

265 Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Room Fire Growth Contribution of Textile Coverings on Full Height Panels and Walls

P 265-1

285 Standard Fire Test Method for Evaluation of Fire Propagation Characteristics of Exterior Non-Load-Bearing Wall Assemblies Containing Combustible Components

P 285-1

286 Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Contribution of Wall and Ceiling Interior Finish to Room Fire Growth

P 286-1

Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Systems 12 Standard on Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing Systems P 12-1 2001 Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems P 2001-1 Helicopter Facilities 418 Standard for Heliports P 418-1 Hydrogen Technology 2 Hydrogen Technologies Code N 2-1 Industrial and Medical Gases 51A Standard for Acetylene Cylinder Charging Plants P 51A-1 Liquid Fuel Burning Equipment 31 Standard for the Installation of Oil-Burning Equipment P 31-1 Manufacture of Organic Coatings 35 Standard for the Manufacture of Organic Coatings P 35-1 National Electrical Code Electrical Equipment of Industrial Machinery

79 Electrical Standard for Industrial Machinery P 79-1

21

Premises Security 730 Guide for Premises Security P 730-1 731 Standard for the Installation of Electronic Premises Security Systems P 731-1 Recreational Vehicles 1192 Standard on Recreational Vehicles P 1192-1 1194 Standard for Recreational Vehicle Parks and Campgrounds P 1194-1 Safety to Life Assembly Occupancies and Membrane Structures

102 Standard for Grandstands, Folding and Telescopic Seating, Tents, and Membrane Structures P 102-1 Textile and Garment Care Processes 32 Standard for Drycleaning Plants P 32-1 Water Additives for Fire Control and Vapor Mitigation 18A Standard on Water Additives for Fire Control and Vapor Mitigation P 18A-1

22

COMMITTEE MEMBER CLASSIFICATIONS1,2,3,4

The following classifications apply to Committee members and represent their principal interest in the activity of the Committee. 1. M Manufacturer: A representative of a maker or marketer of a product, assembly, or system, or portion thereof,

that is affected by the standard. 2. U User: A representative of an entity that is subject to the provisions of the standard or that voluntarily uses the

standard. 3. IM Installer/Maintainer: A representative of an entity that is in the business of installing or maintaining a product,

assembly, or system affected by the standard. 4. L Labor: A labor representative or employee concerned with safety in the workplace. 5. RT Applied Research/Testing Laboratory: A representative of an independent testing laboratory or independent

applied research organization that promulgates and/or enforces standards. 6. E Enforcing Authority: A representative of an agency or an organization that promulgates and/or enforces

standards. 7. I Insurance: A representative of an insurance company, broker, agent, bureau, or inspection agency. 8. C Consumer: A person who is or represents the ultimate purchaser of a product, system, or service affected by the

standard, but who is not included in (2). 9. SE Special Expert: A person not representing (1) through (8) and who has special expertise in the scope of the

standard or portion thereof. NOTE 1: “Standard” connotes code, standard, recommended practice, or guide. NOTE 2: A representative includes an employee. NOTE 3: While these classifications will be used by the Standards Council to achieve a balance for Technical Committees, the Standards Council may determine that new classifications of member or unique interests need representation in order to foster the best possible Committee deliberations on any project. In this connection, the Standards Council may make such appointments as it deems appropriate in the public interest, such as the classification of “Utilities” in the National Electrical Code Committee. NOTE 4: Representatives of subsidiaries of any group are generally considered to have the same classification as the parent organization.

23

FORM FOR COMMENT ON NFPA REPORT ON PROPOSALS 2010 FALL REVISION CYCLE

FINAL DATE FOR RECEIPT OF COMMENTS: 5:00 pm EDST, March 5, 2010

For further information on the standards-making process, please contact the Codes and Standards Administration at 617-984-7249 or visit www.nfpa.org/codes.

For technical assistance, please call NFPA at 1-800-344-3555.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Log #:

Date Rec’d:

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

Date 8/1/200X Name John B. Smith Tel. No. 253-555-1234

Company Email

Street Address 9 Seattle St. City Tacoma State WA Zip 98402

***If you wish to receive a hard copy, a street address MUST be provided. Deliveries cannot be made to PO boxes.

Please indicate organization represented (if any) Fire Marshals Assn. of North America

1. (a) NFPA Document Title National Fire Alarm Code NFPA No. & Year NFPA 72, 200X ed.

(b) Section/Paragraph 4.4.1.1

2. Comment on Proposal No. (from ROP): 72-7

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).]

Delete exception.

5. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Comment: (Note: State the problem that would 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.)

A properly installed and maintained system should be free of ground faults. The occurrence of one or more ground faults should be required to cause a ‘trouble’ signal because it indicates a condition that could contribute to future malfunction of the system. Ground fault protection has been widely available on these systems for years and its cost is negligible. Requiring it on all systems will promote better installations, maintenance and reliability.

6. Copyright Assignment

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

Mail to: Secretary, Standards Council · National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park · Quincy, MA 02169-7471 OR

Fax to: (617) 770-3500 OR Email to: proposals_comments@nfpa.org 11/2/2009

24

FORM FOR COMMENT ON NFPA REPORT ON PROPOSALS 2010 FALL REVISION CYCLE

FINAL DATE FOR RECEIPT OF COMMENTS: 5:00 pm EDST, March 5, 2010

For further information on the standards-making process, please contact the Codes and Standards Administration at 617-984-7249 or visit www.nfpa.org/codes.

For technical assistance, please call NFPA at 1-800-344-3555.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Log #:

Date Rec’d:

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

Date Name Tel. No.

Company Email

Street Address City State Zip

***If you wish to receive a hard copy, a street address MUST be provided. Deliveries cannot be made to PO boxes.

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 would 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 the 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

Mail to: Secretary, Standards Council · National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park · Quincy, MA 02169-7471 OR

Fax to: (617) 770-3500 OR Email to: proposals_comments@nfpa.org 11/2/2009

25

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, Report goes forward. Lacking two-thirds approval, Report returns to Committee.

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

Step 4 Association Technical Meeting

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

▼ NFPA membership meets each June at the Association Technical Meeting 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.

26

The Association Technical 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 Association Technical Meeting that takes place at the NFPA Annual Meeting.

The Association Technical Meeting 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 an Association Technical Meeting. The following presents some of the main features of how a Report is handled.

The Filing of a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion. Before making an allowable motion at an Association Technical Meeting, 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 Association Technical Meeting.

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

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 NFPA Conference & Expo, takes place in June of each year. A second Fall membership meeting was discontinued in 2004, so the NFPA Technical Committee Report Session now runs once each year at the Annual Meeting in June.

Who Can Make Amending Motions. NFPA rules also define those authorized to make amending motions. 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, the NFPA Regs should be consulted.

27

Action on Motions at the Association Technical Meeting. In order to actually make a Certified Amending Motion at the Association Technical Meeting, 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 Association Technical Meeting 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.

28

418-1

Report on Proposals F2010 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 418

Report of the Committee on

Helicopter Facilities

Steve C. Dryden, ChairPoole Fire Protection, Inc., KS [SE]

Michael E. Aaron, The RJA Group, Inc., IL [SE]Lee Ambers, Vertical Aeronautics International, CA [SE]Joseph A. Behnke, Tyco Fire Suppression & Building Products, WI [M]William E. Davis, Heliport Systems Incorporated, NJ [M]Donald J. Slater, Jr., FM Global, CA [I]Raymond A. Syms, Raymond A. Syms & Associates, NJ [SE]Bernard Valois, Transport Canada Civil Aviation, Canada [E]

Alternates

Nathaniel J. Addleman, Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc., TX [SE] (Alt. to Michael E. Aaron)Guy Heneault, Transport Canada, Canada [E] (Alt. to Bernard Valois) Dawn Mancuso, Association of Air Medical Services (AAMS), VA [U] (Voting Alt. to AAMS Rep.) Jack Poole, Poole Fire Protection, Inc., KS [SE] (Alt. to Steve C. Dryden)

Staff Liaison: Timothy A. Hawthorne

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the fire protection criteria for the design and construction of elevated and ground level heliports, helistops, and helipads; fire protection requirements for heliports, helistops, and helipads; and requirements for rescue and fire-fighting operations at heliports, helistops, and helipads.

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 Helicopter Facilities is presented for adoption.

This Report was prepared by the Technical Committee on Helicopter Facilities and proposes for adoption, amendments to NFPA 418, Standard for Heliports, 2006 edition. NFPA 418-2006 is published in Volume 9 of the 2009 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.

This Report has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Helicopter Facilities, which consists of 9 voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.

_______________________________________________________________ 418-1 Log #CP1 Final Action: Accept (Entire Document) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Helicopter Facilities, Recommendation: Review entire document to: 1) Update any extracted material by preparing separate proposals to do so, and 2) review and update references to other organizations documents, by preparing proposal(s) as required. Substantiation: To conform to the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 _______________________________________________________________ 418-2 Log #CP7 Final Action: Accept (1.3) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Helicopter Facilities, Recommendation: Add new section as follows: 1.3 New Technology. 1.3.1 Nothing in this standard shall be intended to restrict new technologies or alternate arrangements, provided the level of safety prescribed by this standard is not lowered. 1.3.2 Materials or devices not specifically designated by this standard shall be utilized in complete accord with all conditions, requirements, and limitations of their listings. Substantiation: This will permit new technologies or alternate arrangements where the components, systems, or methods are listed and installed in accordance with their listings. it will bring consistency with other NFPA Standards and Codes, which have this clause. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 _______________________________________________________________ 418-3 Log #11 Final Action: Accept (2.3.1) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Steve C. Dryden, Poole Fire Protection, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: “...FAA A/C 150/5390-2B, Heliport Design Advisory Circular, January 20, 1994 September, 30 2004. Substantiation: The newer, more current reference would be referenced by those using NFPA 418. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 _______________________________________________________________ 418-4 Log #1 Final Action: Reject (Chapter 3 and Chapter X (New)) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald Shinnamon, Sr., City of Holly Hill Public Safety Recommendation: Add new text as follows: Standard for Heliports 2006 Edition Chapter 1 Administration 1.1 Scope 1.1.4 Temporary landing sites and ground level emergency evacuation facilities are outside the scope of this standard. Chapter 3 Definitions 3.3.3 Emergency Evacuation Helicopter Landing Facility (EHLF). A designated and clear area at rooftop or ground level on the roof of a high-rise building, as defined in NFPA 5000, intended exclusively for use during emergency/rescue operations by helicopters. It is not designed, or intended for routine helicopter operations and does not require the written approval of the Federal Aviation Administration. Chapter X Emergency Helicopter Landing Facilities (EHLF) X.1 Construction. X.1.1 Touchdown Liftoff Area (TLOF). A load bearing area, centered within the Final Approach/Takeoff Area (FATO), upon which the helicopter lands or takes off. (1) Shall be square, rectangular or circular in configuration and centered within the EHOF. (2) Shall provide two opposing dimensions, a minimum of 40 feet each. (3) Shall be designed to accept a 13,500-pound GW helicopter plus an impact load of 1.5 times GW (___lbs/square foot). (4) Shall provide two pedestrian access points at least 90 degrees apart with a minimum of 60 feet TLOF perimeter separation. (5) Surface drainage shall flow away from pedestrian access points. (6) No portion of the TLOF shall have a surface slope in excess of 1.5 percent (drainage purposes). X.1.2 Final Approach/Takeoff Area (FATO). A defined area over which the final phase of the approach of the helicopter to a hover or landing is completed and from which the takeoff is initiated.

29

418-2

Report on Proposals F2010 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 418 equipment, due to ladder limitations, may only extend to a maximum of eighty feet. Further, some catastrophes can preclude surface vehicles from accessing an impacted area or structure, leaving victims trapped until support arrives by air. Also, firefighters frequently need to gain access to the roof of a structure in order to generate interior smoke relief. Helicopters may allow the occasional evacuation of victims during emergencies where ground evacuation is not possible. Helicopters may also safely insert and extract fire fighting personnel and equipment onto a structure to fight the fire from above. There are other operational reasons to consider the construction of EHLFs on high rise buildings. For example, in many previous disasters, during which helicopters were used for support, it was necessary for pilots to operate from makeshift rooftop landing zones. This scenario often resulted in a risky situation for victims, pilots, and emergency personnel alike. Planned emergency landing areas could have resulted in safer and more effective air-support operations. As a result, a number of cities, including Los Angeles, San Diego, and Pasadena have determined that prudent city planning requires the incorporation of EHLFs during the design phase of all new high-rise buildings. Their experience has proven that, on occasion, there is a clear and present need to have the capability to provide safe, immediate, and effective helicopter support during high-rise emergencies. However, few buildings have such landing areas and few city planners and architects consider this option during a building’s design stage. They generally fear that rooftop heliports would encourage occupants who are above the fire floor to go “up” rather than “down” when trying to evacuate the building, particularly if they know that an EHLF exists. It is important to note, however, that during the catastrophic attacks on New York’s World Trade Center, it was impossible to go “down” past the fire floor. Had the buildings not collapsed so quickly, rooftop evacuations may have been possible. Unfortunately, in New York, as the result of a political decision, the fire exits to the roof were locked and ultimately would have prevented police helicopters, hovering above the buildings, from affecting any rooftop rescues. Why Have EHLF Standards? The HAI Board of Directors agreed with the recommendations of the HAI Heliport Committee to develop standards for governments recommending the incorporation of EHLFs in local high-rise building codes. The Board of Directors believes that EHLFs allow for safer operating environments by providing pre-planned landing sites for helicopters that are assisting ground personnel during high-rise emergencies. Even though the EHLF would incorporate basic rooftop heliport design considerations into high-rise building codes, the facility would NOT qualify as a heliport. It would, however, allow for a pre-planned safe facility if needed during times of emergency. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Emergency operations are outside the scope of this document. The Committee feels that having occupants climb a building to the roof top emergency evacuation for evacuation poses a life safety risk that would require a revision to fundamental life safety codes. Emergency operations will typically be governed by the emergency response agency. Emergency response plans should incorporate plans for roof top evacuation. The proposed language is exceeding the intent of NFPA 418 which is intended to provide fire suppression for roof top heliports. Based on the submitter’s substantiation, the committee is seeking comments from emergency preparation and helicopter emergency operation’s organizations regarding more appropriate safeguards for emergency evacuation from high rise buildings using helicopters. Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 _______________________________________________________________ 418-5 Log #CP5 Final Action: Accept (3.3.2 Critical Area) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Helicopter Facilities, Recommendation: Delete the following text: 3.3.2 Critical Area. See 3.3.1.1. Substantiation: Delete the reference to Section 3.3.1.1 it is redundant and not needed. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9

(Sequence 418-6 not used)

(1) Shall be at the same level as the TLOF and extend a distance of 45 feet in all directions from the center of the EHLF. (2) Shall be unobstructed and without penetration of obstacles such as parapets, window washing equipment, penthouses, handrails, antennas, vents, etc. (3) May be an imaginary surface outside the TLOF and extend beyond the structures edge. X.1.3 Safety Area. A clear, unobstructed area surrounding the FATO and extending outwardly from the edge of the FATO. (1) A clear, unobstructed area, a minimum of 12 feet wide, shall be provided on all sides, outside and adjacent to the FATO. (2) Assembly zone(s) shall be outside the safety area and away from the approach/departure path(s). X.1.4 Safety Nets. (1) Where there is a vertical separation greater than 30 inches between the main roof and the surface of an EHLF, a horizontal safety net extending outwardly a minimum of 5 feet from the edge of the TLOF, without penetrating any EHLF surfaces, shall be required at any and all locations within the EHLF. (2) A safety net is to be designed to bear a minimum load of 25 pounds per square foot, with openings only for stairs and ramps. X.1.5 Markings. Painted numbers and symbols on the TLOF to communicate GW, radio frequency and area limits. (1) A red or orange, segmented or solid perimeter line, 12 inches in width, shall indelibly mark the outer edges of the weight bearing area (TLOF). (2) A 12-inch wide red or orange circular marking, 30 feet in diameter, shall be centered within the TLOF. (3) The background within the circle shall be a contrasting color. (4) A number “12” (indicating 12,000 pounds GW), with each numeral ten feet in length, shall be centered within the TLOF. (5) Rooftop access paths, EHLF access paths, and assembly zone(s) shall be clearly marked with surface paint and instructional signage. X.1.6 Building Design and Access. (1) A minimum of two rooftop access stairs, with no less than 150 degrees separation, shall connect to the top floor of the structure, with at least one providing access to the structure’s emergency staircase. (2) Penthouse and stairwell rooftop access doors shall remain unlocked at all times so not to restrict access to the EHLF. Doors may be equipped with “panic bar” hardware and/or alarmed. (3) A wind cone assembly with an orange windsock shall be located within the line of sight from the EHLF and outside the approach/departure path(s). (4) Ambient rooftop lighting on the permitted structure shall be shielded to avoid the field of illumination impacting the pilot’s vision. Substantiation: Introduction. The September 11, 2001 attack on America prompted renewed debate on how to deal with urban disasters. High on the priority list in that debate were emergencies in high-rise structures. High-rise emergencies can be the result of fire, natural disasters, crime, medical emergency and terrorism. Because helicopters have always played a vital role in assisting emergency response personnel during high-rise incidents, a study group of the Helicopter Association International (HAI) has determined that incorporating an Emergency Helicopter Landing Facility, or EHLF, atop high-rise buildings which exceed a predetermined height, could facilitate the safe and orderly utilization of helicopters, and would save both lives and property. This was not the first time that the incorporation of EHLFs on high-rise buildings has been studied. In 1993, the FAA completed a study, “Rooftop Emergency Heliports,” which was intended to be used by planners and engineers who are responsible for city, urban, aviation, and emergency response planning, and for those who participate in disaster relief. However, after September 11th, the EHLF concept was readdressed because of the increased probability of high-rise fires and other emergencies as a result of terrorism. The FAA project began with an in-depth analysis of high-rise fires in which helicopters were used. Project members examined fires at the Andraus Building in Sao Paulo, Brazil, the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas, the Dupont Plaza Hotel in San Juan, and high-rise fires in Los Angeles and Philadelphia. Following this effort, they studied building codes that were applicable to the construction of heliports on roofs of high-rise buildings. After appraising this information, the FAA’s “Heliport Design” Advisory Circular (AC 150/5390-2) was reviewed to ascertain if it fully addressed the requirements of emergency rooftop heliports. As a result, the following was incorporated into the AC: “To facilitate fire fighting or emergency evacuation operations, local building codes may require structures over a specified height to provide a clear area on the roof capable of accommodating a helicopter. Since the cleared area is not intended to function as a heliport, there is no requirement to submit an FAA Form 7480-1. As in the case of medical emergency sites, proponents of emergency evacuation facilities should advise the local ATC of the facility. The landing surface should be developed to the local fire department requirements based on the size and weight of the helicopter(s) expected to engage in fire or rescue operations.” Why Have an Emergency Landing Facility on High-Rise Buildings? There are a number of reasons. The first is that helicopters are excellent tools for assisting authorities during high-rise emergencies. For example, fire

30

418-3

Report on Proposals F2010 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 418 _______________________________________________________________ 418-12 Log #3 Final Action: Accept in Principle (4.4.1) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: James Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Revise to read: 4.4.1 The heliport shall have at least one two access point for fire-fighting/rescue personnel, and, where practical, the a second access point shall be available and located remotely from the first. Substantiation: Where practical does not comply with the manual of style. The minimum number should be two and if two cannot be accomplished due to a specific circumstance than the equivalency provisions of most codes permit the ahj to approve other protection. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: 4.4.1* The heliport shall have at least two access points for firefighting/rescue personnel. The access points shall be located at least 90 degrees from each other as measured from the center of the landing pad (TLOF). A.4.4.1 add a figure here to demonstrate the remoteness of access points using the 90 degree method addressed. (Staff will develop this for the ballot). Committee Statement: Change provides better guidance to the user to better explain remoteness of the access points. Annex material will provide a visual representation of this process. Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 _______________________________________________________________ 418-13 Log #4 Final Action: Accept in Principle (4.5) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: James Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Revise to read: 4.5 Landing Pad Pitch. The heliport landing pad pitch shall comply with 5.3. The heliport shall be pitched or sloped so that drainage flows away from access points and passenger holding areas. Substantiation: Correlated the pitch provisions between the two sections. Currently the two sections are inconsistent and there is no need for two sets of requirements for the same thing. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Change title of Section 4.5 4.5 Fuel Spill Control. The heliport shall be pitched or sloped so that drainage flows away from access points and passenger holding areas. Committee Statement: This will eliminate having two sections titled the same with different requirements, while maintaining the intent of the sections. According to Section 5.1, chapter 4 also applies to rooftop landing pads. Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 _______________________________________________________________ 418-14 Log #6 Final Action: Accept in Principle (4.5) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bernard Valois, Transport Canada Civil Aviation Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.5 Landing pad Pitch drainage. The heliport shall be pitched or sloped designed so that drainage flows away from access points and passenger holding areas. Substantiation: Grading is not the only method to meet the safety requirement. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: 4.5 Landing pad drainage. The landing pad shall be designed so that fuel spills are directed away from access/egress points and passenger holding areas. Committee Statement: Changed wording provides further clarification that the ground based helicopter landing pad needs to be designed to prevent fuel spillage from hindering operations and endangering passengers. Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 _______________________________________________________________ 418-15 Log #12 Final Action: Accept in Principle (4.7.4 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Steve C. Dryden, Poole Fire Protection, Inc. Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 4.7.4 Fueling equipment shall be located at least 50 ft (15.2 m) from the edge of the final approach and takeoff (FATO) area as defined in FAA A/C 150/5390-2B, Heliport Design Advisory Circular. Substantiation: Adequate space should be provided between the FATO and fueling equipment. This space would remove obstacles from flight operations. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: 4.3 Tank and Equipment Locations. 4.3.1 Storage, handling, and use of flammable and combustible liquids shall be in accordance with NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code. 4.3.2 Oxygen and other medical gases shall be stored and used in accordance with Section 9.4 of NFPA 99, Standard for Health Care Facilities.

________________________________________________________________ 418-7 Log #CP4 Final Action: Accept (3.3.5 Helicopter Storage and Servicing Area) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Helicopter Facilities, Recommendation: Delete the following text: 3.3.5 Helicopter Storage and Servicing Area. See 3.3.1.2. Substantiation: Delete the reference to Section 3.3.5 it is redundant and not needed. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 _______________________________________________________________ 418-8 Log #CP3 Final Action: Accept (3.3.9 Practical Critical Fire Area (PCA)) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Helicopter Facilities, Recommendation: Delete text as follows: 3.3.9 Practical Critical Fire Area (PCA). See 3.3.1.3. Substantiation: Delete the reference to Section 3.3.9 it is redundant and not needed. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 _______________________________________________________________ 418-9 Log #CP2 Final Action: Reject (3.3.11 Rooftop Landing Pad) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Helicopter Facilities, Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 3.3.11 Rooftop Landing Pad. The entire load-bearing surface intended for the landing, takeoff, and parking of helicopters. [5000;2009] Substantiation: This definition is the preferred definition from the NFPA Glossary of Terms. Changing the secondary definition to the preferred definition complies with the Glossary of Terms Project. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Request reassignment of responsibility of this term to the 418 TC. Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 _______________________________________________________________ 418-10 Log #CP13 Final Action: Accept (4.1.1) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Helicopter Facilities, Recommendation: Add new section as follows 4.1.1* Listing. This chapter shall provide requirements for the correct use of foam system components. 4.1.1.1 All components shall be listed for their intended use. 4.1.1,2 Where listings for components do not exist, components shall be approved. A.4.1.1 A foam system consists of a water supply, a foam concentrate supply, proportioning equipment, a piping system, foam makers, and discharge devices designed to distribute foam effectively over the hazard. Some systems include detection devices. Substantiation: Components should be listed, however if they are not available, the components need to be approved. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 _______________________________________________________________ 418-11 Log #CP8 Final Action: Accept (4.2) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Helicopter Facilities, Recommendation: Change section 4.2 as follows: 4.2 Plans. 4.2.1 The design drawings for the construction and protection of the heliport shall be approved by the authority having jurisdiction. 4.2.2 The design of the heliport including all the aeronautical components shall be in accordance with FAA A/C 150/5390-2B, Heliport Design Advisory Circular. 4.2.3 The FATO, approach, departure, and TLOF shall be designated on the design drawings. Substantiation: Change reflects the intent of the committee that the plans need to include specific requirements for the AHJ to be able to review and approve the construction, and layout of a landing pad. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9

31

418-4

Report on Proposals F2010 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 418 new buildings present fewer challenges than existing facilities and adding heliports to current buildings. It is my understanding that the intent of the log(s) is to allow for access/egress from the pad and roof even if one path, whether it is primary or secondary is blocked by a crashed helicopter. An exemption should be considered for use of one stairway from the roof to the interior of the building. If there is a separate path to and from the helipad leading to the “public way” that uses the same stairs as the primary providing: 1. The AHJ determines that alternate path, (Including potential passage under a sufficiently elevated pad or there is sufficient distance on the roof surface) that is unlikely a helicopter crash will block both paths and uses a separate entrance into that same stairs. 2. Specific mention to that path can make use of exterior and open stairs, and allowing for suitable roof hatches leading to stairs into a floor below the pad are considered alternatives for the AHJ to consider. Additional annex materials including sketches of the important elements should be provided for clarification of committee intent. As it is currently proposed, the standard can be very harmful to the mission of having safe and efficient heliports where they need to be to accomplish their mission. _______________________________________________________________ 418-17 Log #7 Final Action: Accept in Principle (5.3.3 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bernard Valois, Transport Canada Civil Aviation Recommendation: Add text as follows: New 5.3.3 Pitch of the pad shall not be required where the pad consist of a passive fire protection grid surface designed for fuel catchment and containment. Substantiation: Helidecks with passive fire protection gridded surface are designed to channel liquids under the deck surface. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: 5.3.3 Pitch of the pad shall not be required where the pad consist of a passive fire protection grid surface designed and listed for fuel catchment and containment. Committee Statement: Permits use of passive fire protection systems where they are listed and installed in accordance with their listing requirements. See Committee Action on 418-2 (Log #CP7). Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 _______________________________________________________________ 418-18 Log #14 Final Action: Accept in Principle (5.5) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Steve C. Dryden, Poole Fire Protection, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: At least two approved means of egress from the rooftop landing pad edge to the roof shall be provided and shall be remotely located from each other separated by one half the diagonal of the landing pad. Substantiation: The means of egress should be separated by one half the diagonal of the landing pad to provide adequate space between those leaving the helipad and the operations taking place on the helipad. This space will help in maintaining the safety of those leaving the helipad. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: 5.5* Means of Egress A.5.5 Means of egress from a roof top landing pad might involve comparing requirements from several different Code requirements. Rooftop landing pads bring with them an inherent risk. The means of egress must be provided for safety to human life. Strict compliance with a code’s requirement for rated stairways off the landing pad is not the intent of this standard. The intent of this standard is to provide a minimum safeguard to provide a reasonable degree of safety to all of the occupants on the roof. The building’s egress system is dictated by the adopted building code. Once the people enter the building’s egress system, they are away from the FATO area. 5.5.1 At least two means of egress from the rooftop landing pad edge to the roof shall be provided and shall be located at least 90 degrees from each other as measured from the center of the landing pad (TLOF). 5.5.2 Two means of egress from the roof to the building’s egress system shall be provided and shall be remotely located from each other, not less than 30 ft (9.1 m) apart. 5.5.3* Means of egress from the landing pad shall not obstruct flight operations. A.5.5.3 When considering the means of egress from the landing pad and/or the roof top, obstructions to the FATO need to be avoided since they can create unsafe flight conditions which have been shown to cause aircraft accidents. Exterior, open stairways leading to the building’s egress system can be acceptable, provided the handrail does not encroach into the FATO. Committee Statement: Change wording to section dealing with remote location of egress in accordance with 418-16 (Log #13), and provided annex material to clarify the intent of egress off the landing pad and roof top. Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 6 Negative: 3

4.3.3 Aboveground flammable liquid storage tanks, compressed gas storage tanks, fuel servicing equipment, and liquefied gas storage tanks shall be laterally located at least 50 ft (15.2 m) from the edge of the final approach and takeoff (FATO) area as defined in FAA A/C 150/5390-2B, Heliport Design Advisory Circular. 4.7 Fueling System. Fueling systems shall be designed in accordance with NFPA 407, Standard for Aircraft Fuel Servicing. 4.7.1 Fueling equipment shall not hinder or obstruct access to exits or firefighting equipment. 4.7.2 Fueling equipment shall be located 25 ft (7.6 m) from hangars and fixed fire protection equipment. Committee Statement: Changes help the user understand that the FATO area of helicopter landing pads need to be kept free of obstructions. Fueling equipment, while generally covered under NFPA 407, may have more restrictive requirements for dealing with rooftop helicopter fueling operations. Two sentences were removed from Section 4.7 because they were adequately covered in NFPA 407. Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 6 Negative: 3 Explanation of Negative: AMBERS, L.: Will create problems for elevated heliports. DAVIS, W.: “Fuel servicing equipment” should not be “50 ft from the edge of the FATO” at rooftop heliports because it would be at least 75’ from the edge of the landing pad where the helicopter is actually fueled. Pilots will have to pull the hose out of the cabinet, drag it across the roof, throw it up over the safety net or drag it up a stair, then across the landing pad to the helicopter! This would be a dangerous practice. Instead, fuel dispenser cabinets are located at the edge of the landing pad, flush with the top of the pad so it cannot be struck by a helicopter. Properly designed, the landing pad drains such that spilled fuel from a crashed helicopter will not enter the fuel dispenser cabinet. Instead, I recommend we add 4.7.3 which states: Fire protection equipment and fueling equipment shall be designed not to penetrate the FATO and Safety Area obstruction clearance requirements in FAA A/C 150/5390-2B. MANCUSO, D.: This will move the fuel service too far from where the helicopter will be situated. _______________________________________________________________ 418-16 Log #13 Final Action: Reject (4.8 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________ Note: This proposal is reported as “Reject” as it did not receive the 2/3 affirmative vote. Submitter: Steve C. Dryden, Poole Fire Protection, Inc. Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 4.8 Means of Egress. At least two means of egress shall be provided that lead directly from the landing pad to a public way. The means of egress shall be separated by one half the diagonal of the landing pad. Substantiation: Specifications for means of egress should not only be addressed for “Rooftop Landing Facilities”, but for “Land-Based Facilities” as well. The means of egress should be separated by one half the diagonal of the landing pad to provide remote egress paths In the event one of the paths is blocked by an emergency. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add new text to read as follows: 4.8* Means of Egress. A.4.8. The two means of egress can also be used for access to the landing pad for firefighting and/or rescue operations. 4.8.1 At least two means of egress shall be provided from the landing pad that leads to a public way. 4.8.2 The egress points shall be located at least 90 degrees from each other as measured from the center of the landing pad (TLOF). Committee Statement: Changes to the proposal were made to clarify that two means of egress from the landing pad are required. Also incorporates the remoteness addressed under 418-12 (Log #3). Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 5 Negative: 4 Explanation of Negative: AMBERS, L.: Means of egress seems to be okay as is. If not broken, don’t fix it. DAVIS, W.: Nearly all Fire Marshals and AHJs consider Means of Egress for a rooftop heliport to be an enclosed stairway that is 10’ high above the walking surface at its entrance point. Placing two 10’ high structures leading “directly from the landing pad” to a public way is a direct violation of FAA obstruction clearance standards. A helicopter accident occurred at a rooftop hospital heliport in Porter, IN precisely for this reason! Steel fire escape stairs as an alternate are no longer permitted by code. This very issue was raised in 1995 and for that reason the Technical Committee used the language “access points”. MANCUSO, D.: The positioning of two stairwells will interfere with FAA obstruction clearances. SYMS, R.: The committee should readdress the fine details in this important and well-meaning issue. Two access/exits from the roof is a great safety feature and should be in the standard, we now need to assure we can address many of the challenges that this will pose. We also need to assure that we provide relief for existing heliport to meet this intent in a reasonable manner. New pads on

32

418-5

Report on Proposals F2010 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 418 _______________________________________________________________ 418-22 Log #17 Final Action: Reject (5.5.4) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Steve C. Dryden, Poole Fire Protection, Inc. Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 5.5.4 All means of egress from the landing pad shall be in accordance with NFPA 101, Life Safety Code. Substantiation: The means of egress should not only be required to be in accordance with NFPA 101 for “Rooftop Hangers”, but for “Rooftop Landing Facilities” as well. They are both located in similar environments and should both reference the same standard. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Hangars are structures and therefore egress in accordance with Life Safety Code is correct. However, the landing pad is not covered under NFPA 101 and egressing from outside the structure into the structure is not addressed in NFPA 101. Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 8 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: SYMS, R.: I agree that when a heliport is attended and it is practical to have a fire extinguisher at a heliport it should be. A.9.1.1.1 requires an extinguisher even if the AHJ has exempted it. That then makes all heliports needing to be attended in some manner get and extinguisher on site for landings/takeoffs. In some heliports that is impossible to achieve and could be used by some heliport objectors to close otherwise safe facilities or to prevent simple facilities from being used. The committee should look at this issue again and allow for no extinguisher where it is not practical to have one in the eyes and judgment of the AHJ. _______________________________________________________________ 418-23 Log #5 Final Action: Accept in Principle (5.6.1) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: James Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Revise to read: 5.6.1 The helicopter rooftop landing pad shall have at least two remote access points for fire-fighting purposes. Substantiation: The proposed wording clarifies that the access points should be remote from each other thus ensuring that at least on will be usable in the event of an emergency. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Delete sections as follows: 5.6.1 5.6.2 5.6.3 Relocate Annex material for 5.6.3 to section 4.8 as follows: A.4.8 Where doors accessing the interior of the building are locked, an approved means should be provided for entry of emergency responders. The two means of egress can also be used for access to the landing pad for firefighting and/or rescue operations. Committee Statement: See Committee Action on 418-12 (Log #3) and 418-16 (Log #13). Section is redundant after changes that were made to section 4.8. Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 8 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: SYMS, R.: See explanation provided in 418-22 (Log #17) _______________________________________________________________ 418-24 Log #10 Final Action: Accept in Principle (5.7.1.4) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Joseph L. Scheffey, Hughes Associates, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A fixed nozzle discharge outlet system shall be either fixed stationary nozzles around the perimeter or two one or more oscillating monitor/nozzle(s). Substantiation: Rooftop helipads are subjected to varying wind conditions. A minimum of two nozzles are needed to provide adequate protection to account for varying wind conditions. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: 5.7.4.1 A fixed nozzle discharge outlet system shall be either fixed stationary nozzles around the perimeter or two or more oscillating monitor/nozzles. Committee Statement: Renumbered proposal, since 5.7.1.4 is probably the wrong section since there is no 5.7.1.1, 5.7.1.2 or 5.7.1.3. Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 6 Negative: 3 Explanation of Negative: AMBERS, L.: Needs to be effective and just not planting nozzles. DAVIS, W.: Varying winds do affect the reach of foam streams, whether from fixed nozzles or oscillating monitor/nozzles. However, fire protection can be designed so that one oscillating monitor/nozzle can provide coverage of the landing pad during a strong wind. The standard should be PERFORMANCE based, not simply by the number of nozzles if the designer can prove his design meets the standard. All fire protection calculations must be provided by a certified sprinkler contractor. MANCUSO, D.: Base this requirement on performance, not particular technology.

Explanation of Negative: AMBERS, L.: Need clarification of “means of egress”. DAVIS, W.: Separation by half the diagonal is OK, but Means of Egress implies an enclosed stairway, 10’ high, from rooftop landing pad edge to the roof! See 418-16 above. MANCUSO, D.: Same reason as in 418-16 (Log #13) above. _______________________________________________________________ 418-19 Log #15 Final Action: Accept in Principle (5.5.1) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Steve C. Dryden, Poole Fire Protection, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.5.1 For heliports occupied by 50 or more people, two Two approved means of egress from the roof shall be provided and shall be remotely located form each other, not less than 30 ft (9.1 m) apart. Substantiation: The requirement for two means of egress should not only be required for heliports occupied by 50 or more people, but for all heliports. If an incident were to occur at a heliport occupied by 49 people or less, there should be at least two means of egress for those people to evacuate. This offers a margin of safety in the occurrence that one of the means of egress is not usable. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on 418-18 (Log #14). Committee Statement: See Committee Statement on 418-18 (Log #14). Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 6 Negative: 3 Explanation of Negative: AMBERS, L.: Needs clarification and what is being accomplished. DAVIS, W.: Nearly all heliports are occupied by less than 10 people at a time. One enclosed stairway from the roof into the building will handle this number of people; actually up to 50 people as the Technical Committee determined in 1995. I agree that there should be two access/egress points from the landing pad to the roof, and people need to make their way from the far side of the landing pad to the enclosed stair from roof into the building. There are two methods available to provide that without having to install a second enclosed stair from roof into the building which will require the heliport be elevated 10’, lengthening the patient gurney ramp from 50 ft to 130 ft! Also most existing buildings do not permit a second stair to be added. MANCUSO, D.: Too difficult to do safely on most hospital heliports. _______________________________________________________________ 418-20 Log #2 Final Action: Accept in Principle (5.5.1 and 5.5.2) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.5.1 For heliports designed to be occupied by 50 or more people, two approved means of egress from the roof shall be provided and shall be remotely located from each other, not less than 30 ft (9.1 m) apart. 5.5.2 For heliports designed to be occupied by fewer than 50 people, one approved means of egress from the roof shall be provided. 5.5.3 Means of egress from the rooftop landing pad and roof shall not obstruct flight operations. Substantiation: For helicopter rooftop landing pads the number of exits or egresses should be based on the design of the occupant load rather than how many people can be on the landing pad at any one time. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on 418-18 (Log #14). Committee Statement: See Committee Statement on 418-18 (Log #14). Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 _______________________________________________________________ 418-21 Log #16 Final Action: Accept in Principle (5.5.2) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Steve C. Dryden, Poole Fire Protection, Inc. Recommendation: Delete text to read as follows: 5.5.2 For heliports occupied by fewer than 50 people, one approved means of egress from the roof should be provided. Substantiation: The requirement for two means of egress should not only be required for heliports occupied by 50 or more people, but for all heliports. If an incident were to occur at a heliport occupied by 49 people or less, there should be at least two means of egress for those people to evacuate. This offers a margin of safety in the occurrence that one of the means of egress is not usable. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on 418-18 (Log #14). Committee Statement: See Committee Statement on 418-18 (Log #14). Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9

33

418-6

Report on Proposals F2010 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 418 _______________________________________________________________ 418-28 Log #CP12 Final Action: Accept (5.7.4) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Helicopter Facilities, Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.7.4 Manual Fire Fighting Equipment 5.7.4.1 The area of application of foam discharge for hose line systems shall be the practical critical fire area for the category of the helicopter landing facility in accordance with Table 5.7.4. 5.7.4.2 The duration of foam discharge for the hose line systems shall be 2 minutes. 5.7.4.3 The supply calculation method shall be performed in accordance with NFPA 409, Chapter 6. Substantiation: Clarifies the committee’s intent of providing at least 2 minutes of foam concentrate supply for manual fire fighting operations. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 6 Negative: 3 Explanation of Negative: AMBERS, L.: Can’t compare hangars with landing pads. DAVIS, W.: NFPA 409 is for Aircraft Hangars that have nothing to do with foam on the landing pad outside the hangar! MANCUSO, D.: See comment for 418-27 (Log #CP11) above. _______________________________________________________________ 418-29 Log #8 Final Action: Accept in Principle (5.7.4.1) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bernard Valois, Transport Canada Civil Aviation Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.7.4.1 Revise text to include “Pop Up” nozzles within the perimeter suggested wording follows “A fixed discharge outlet system shall be either fixed stationary nozzles around the perimeter, one or more oscillating monitor/nozzles, or pop-up nozzles within the perimeter of the deck.” Substantiation: Pop Up nozzles are very efficient when located within the entire surface to ensure the uniform application of foam to any part of the landing area. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: 5.7.4.1 A fixed discharge outlet system shall be either fixed stationary nozzles around the perimeter, one or more oscillating monitor/nozzles, or in-deck nozzles within the perimeter of the deck. Committee Statement: Pop up nozzles are proprietary, therefore the committee changed the term to “in-deck” nozzles. Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 _______________________________________________________________ 418-30 Log #CP9 Final Action: Accept (5.7.9) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Helicopter Facilities, Recommendation: Add a new Section as follows: 5.7.9 The foam concentrate for the fixed system or manual fire fighting equipment shall be listed in accordance with UL 162 and shall be on the qualified products list for MIL-F-24385H, or equivalent. Substantiation: This provides consistency with NFPA 403 for foam concentrate quality. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 _______________________________________________________________ 418-31 Log #CP14 Final Action: Accept (5.9) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Helicopter Facilities, Recommendation: Add new text as shown: 5.9 Testing. 5.9.1 Acceptance Testing. 5.9.1.1 The fixed foam discharge outlet system shall be tested with foam to determine the coverage of the rooftop landing pad. The system shall cover 95 percent of the rooftop landing pad during the test. The access points for fire fighting and for egress shall be covered. 5.9.1.2 the hose hand-lines shall be flow tested to demonstrate the design objectives are met. 5.9.2 Inspection, Testing and Maintenance. All water-based fire protection systems shall be inspected, tested, and maintained in accordance with NFPA 25. Substantiation: No testing requirements and tolerances for systems currently exist within the standard. also, the committee wanted to clarify that all systems are required to be maintained in accordance with the appropriate maintenance standard. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9

_______________________________________________________________ 418-25 Log #CP10 Final Action: Accept (5.7.2) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Helicopter Facilities, Recommendation: Change current wording, and delete Table 5.7.2. 5.7.2* The foam discharge rate for the fire-extinguishing system shall be 0.10 gpm/ft2 (4.1 L/min • m2) for Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF). A.5.7.2 Currently the qualified products list for MIL-F-24385H does not contain any Fluoroprotein or Protein foam products. Substantiation: Currently the qualified products list for MIL-F-24385H does not contain any Fluoroprotein or Protein foam products. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 _______________________________________________________________ 418-26 Log #9 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part (5.7.2.1 through 5.7.2.1.2 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bernard Valois, Transport Canada Civil Aviation Recommendation: New text to read as follows: 5.7.2.1 Fire protection system activation 5.7.2.1.1 During helicopter operations, fixed fire protection systems shall be activated by trained personnel with: Remote Activation (Emergency Push Button at appropriate location) and/or by back up manually operated valves. 5.7.2.1.2 For heliports operated without full time trained personnel, fixed fire protection systems shall be activated automatically by UV/IR Detector(s) approved by the authority having jurisdiction. 5.7.2.1.2 The fire protection system shall be activated in less than 10 seconds from the recognition of flames either by trained personnel or automatically by the use of detectors. Substantiation: The document doesn’t provide standards for activation of the fix system. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in Part Add new text to read as follows: 5.8 Activation of Systems 5.8.1 The fixed discharge outlet system shall be activated manually. A.5.8.1 Training on the operation of fire protection system should be in accordance with Annex B. 5.8.2* The activation shall be by manual pull stations located at each egress point from the roof. An additional manual pull station shall be located at an approved location inside the building from which the rooftop landing pad can be viewed. A.5.8.2 It is acceptable for the rooftop landing pad to be viewed using video or other acceptable means. 5.8.3 Where buildings are provided with a fire alarm system, the activation of the system shall be monitored by the building fire alarm system in accordance with NFPA 72. Committee Statement: Suppression systems should not be activated automatically due to the risk involved to flight operations. Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 _______________________________________________________________ 418-27 Log #CP11 Final Action: Accept (5.7.3) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Helicopter Facilities, Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.7.3 Fixed Systems. 5.7.3.1* The area of application of foam discharge for the fixed discharge outlet systems shall be the entire rooftop landing pad. A.5.7.3.1 Consideration should be given to the environmental conditions of the rooftop landing pad in the design of the system including wind, exhaust fans, and other factors that affect the distribution of the foam to the rooftop landing pad. 5.7.3.2 The duration of foam discharge for the fixed discharge outlet system shall be 5 minutes. 5.7.3.2.1 The supply calculation method shall be performed in accordance with NFPA 409, Chapter 6. Substantiation: Clarifies the committee’s intent of providing at least 5 minutes of foam concentrate supply. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 6 Negative: 3 Explanation of Negative: AMBERS, L.: Conflicts with other parts of 418 and compares apples & oranges. DAVIS, W.: “Entire rooftop landing pad” conflicts with “95% of the rooftop landing pad” in 418-30. We agree with the 95% figure because it is difficult to provide 100% coverage regardless of type of nozzle and number of nozzles. MANCUSO, D.: Landing pad reqs should not be in a section on Hangars.

34

418-7

Report on Proposals F2010 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 418 Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Delete text to read as follows: 9.1.1* At least one portable fire extinguisher as specified in Table 9.1.1 Shall be provided for each takeoff and landing area, parking area, and fuel storage area. A.9.1.1 Where the portable extinguisher cannot be maintained, and safeguarded against damage, theft, or tampering, the extinguisher can be removed with the approval of the AHJ. 9.1.1.1 A portable extinguisher shall be located within 50 ft of an unattended landing pad during all take off and landing operations. Committee Statement: Committee wants a portable fire extinguisher at all landing pads during take off and landing operations. Attended facilities should have extinguishers installed at all times, while an unattended landing pad, meaning one that does not have anyone who can respond to an emergency, is not required to have a portable extinguisher installed due to the lack of security and potential vandalism. However, the extinguisher is required during take off and landing operations. Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 _______________________________________________________________ 418-37 Log #23 Final Action: Accept (9.1.2) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Steve C. Dryden, Poole Fire Protection, Inc. Recommendation: Delete text to read as follows: 9.1.2 The requirement of 9.1.1 shall not apply to unattended ground level heliports. Substantiation: The requirements of 9.1.1 should apply to ground-level heliports whether they are attended or not This way the heliport will have the proper fire extinguisher protection for use by the helicopter occupants. Committee Meeting Action: Accept See Committee Action on 418-36 (Log #22). Committee Statement: See Committee Statement on 418-36 (Log #22). Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 _______________________________________________________________ 418-38 Log #CP15 Final Action: Accept (Chapter 10) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Helicopter Facilities, Recommendation: Add new Chapter 10 as follows: Chapter 10 Emergency Operations. 10.1 An emergency response plan shall be developed for each heliport. 10.2 Annual training for the emergency response plan shall be conducted for facility personnel involved with heliport emergency operations. Annex B provides guidance on training of facility personnel. Substantiation: New section provides clarification that annual training is required for those personnel involved in heliport operations. Also requires an emergency response plan to be developed. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 _______________________________________________________________ 418-39 Log #24 Final Action: Reject (A.5.7.4.1 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Steve C. Dryden, Poole Fire Protection, Inc. Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: A.5.7.4.1 Consideration should be given to the placement of fire protection equipment and the air operations. The equipment should not be located in the FATO. Substantiation: This explanation will help those using this standard with the placement of their fire protection equipment. The equipment should not be placed in the FATO. The equipment could not only interfere with the operations taking place in the FATO, but the environment in the FATO may not be safe for people. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: This is already addressed under Section 5.7.6. Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 _______________________________________________________________ 418-40 Log #CP16 Final Action: Accept (Annex B) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Helicopter Facilities, Recommendation: Add the following Sections to Annex B: B.1.1 (5) Operation of the Fire protection Systems B.1.4.3 (5) Fire fighting Access Points and System (6) Egress System of the Heliports. Substantiation: Modifications to the standard require additional training requirements. Recent fire data indicated that fire fighter access points and egress system were not known. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9

_______________________________________________________________ 418-32 Log #18 Final Action: Accept in Principle (6.6.1) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Steve C. Dryden, Poole Fire Protection, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Helicopter storage and servicing areas shall be protected by an AFFF foam water sprinkler system designed, installed, and tested in accordance with NFPA 16, Standard for the Installation of Foam Water Sprinkler and Foam Water Spray Systems. Chapter 7 of NFPA 409, Standard on Aircraft Hangers. Substantiation: Most “Rooftop Hangers” are closely related to the hanger type listed in Chapter 7 of NFPA 409. Chapter 7 lists more acceptable means of sprinkler protection than just from an AFFF foam water sprinkler system. To avoid confusion concerning acceptable means of sprinkler protection, this requirement should be added to NFPA 418. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: 6.6.1 Helicopter storage and servicing areas shall be protected in accordance with Chapter 7 of NFPA 409, Standard on Aircraft Hangers. Committee Statement: Submitted language did not read grammatically correct. the intent of the committee is that hangars on roof tops should not be classified solely on the area. The occupancy of the building the hangar is located on top of adds to the hazard significantly and the hangar should be classified as a group 2 hangar to protect the adjacent areas as well as the hangar itself. Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 _______________________________________________________________ 418-33 Log #19 Final Action: Reject (6.6.1.1 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Steve C. Dryden, Poole Fire Protection, Inc. Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 6.6.1.1 The AFFF foam water sprinkler system shall be designed to 0.16 gmp/ft2 over the entire hanger. Substantiation: This is a requirement of NFPA 409 Section 6.2.2.13, which NFPA 418 references. To avoid confusion concerning sprinkler design density, this requirement should be added to NFPA 418. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: This is already addressed under Chapter 7 of NFPA 409. Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 _______________________________________________________________ 418-34 Log #20 Final Action: Reject (6.6.1.2 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Steve C. Dryden, Poole Fire Protection, Inc. Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 6.6.1.2 The maximum protected floor area under an individual sprinkler system shall not exceed 1394 m2 (15,000 ft2). Substantiation: This is a requirement of NFPA 409 Section 6.2.2.2, which NFPA 418 references. To avoid confusion concerning the area a single sprinkler system can protect, this requirement should be added to NFPA 418. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: This is already addressed under Chapter 7 of NFPA 409. Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 _______________________________________________________________ 418-35 Log #21 Final Action: Reject (6.6.1.3 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Steve C. Dryden, Poole Fire Protection, Inc. Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 6.6.1.3 The water supply for the foam-water sprinkler system shall have a minimum duration of 30 minutes at the rate specified in 6.6.1.1. Substantiation: This is a requirement of NFPA 409 Section 7.8.2(1), which NFPA 418 references. Most “Rooftop Hangers” are closely related to the hanger type listed in chapter 7 of NFPA 409. To avoid confusion concerning water supply for a foam-water system protecting a “Rooftop Hanger”, this requirement should be added to NFPA 418. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: This is already addressed under Chapter 7 of NFPA 409. Number Eligible to Vote: 9 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 _______________________________________________________________ 418-36 Log #22 Final Action: Accept in Principle (9.1.1) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Steve C. Dryden, Poole Fire Protection, Inc. Recommendation: Delete text to read as follows: At least one portable fire extinguisher as specified in Table 9.1.1 shall be provided for each takeoff and landing area, parking area, and fuel storage area.,unless otherwise permitted by 9.1.2. Substantiation: The requirements of 9.1.1 should apply to ground-level heliports whether they are attended or not. This way the heliport will have the proper fire extinguisher protection for use by the helicopter occupants.

35

Report on Comments – November 2010 NFPA 418_______________________________________________________________________________________________418- Log #1

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Steve C. Dryden, Poole Fire Protection, Inc.418-16

Add new text to read as follows:At least two means of egress shall be provided that lead directly from the landing pad to a public

way. The means of egress shall be separated by one half the diagonal of the landing pad.Specifications for means of egress should not only be addressed for "Rooftop Landing Facilities", but

for "Land-Based Facilities" as well. The means of egress should be separated by one half the diagonal of the landingpad to provide remote egress paths in the event one of the paths is blocked by an emergency.

1Printed on 5/3/2010

36