[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 24, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-12617]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: May 24, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

41 CFR Part 101-6

 

Fire Protection Engineering

AGENCY: Public Buildings Service (PBS), GSA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The General Services Administration is proposing a regulation 
to further define the term equivalent level of safety. The Federal Fire 
Safety Act of 1992 amended the Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 
to require sprinklers or an equivalent level of safety, in certain 
types of Federal Employee office buildings, Federal employee housing 
units, and Federally assisted housing units. This regulation 
establishes certain criteria which alternative approaches must satisfy 
to be judged equivalent. These criteria have been selected to provide 
the level of life safety prescribed in the Act.

DATES: To assure consideration, comments must be received at the 
address, as provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on June 20, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to the following address: General Services 
Administration, Safety and Environmental Management Division (PMS), 
Federal Fire Safety Act Comments, 18th & F Streets, NW., Washington, DC 
20405.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald G. Bathurst, (202) 501-1271.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Requirements of the Act

    The Fire Administration Authorization Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-
522) was signed into law by the President on October 26, 1992. Section 
106, Fire Safety Systems in Federally Assisted Buildings, of Title I--
United States Fire Administration, is commonly referred to as the 
Federal Fire Safety Act of 1992. This section amends the Fire 
Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.) to require 
sprinklers or an equivalent level of safety, in certain types of 
Federal Employee office buildings, Federal employee housing units, and 
Federally assisted housing units. The Act's applicability and 
requirements are very complex. They are summarized as follows:
    In Federal employee office buildings with more than 25 Federal 
employees that are newly constructed, purchased, renovated, or leased 
(with the Government occupying 35,000 sq. ft. or more and some portion 
on or above the sixth floor):

     Buildings with 6 or more stories must have sprinklers 
(or an equivalent level of safety) throughout.
     All other buildings must have sprinklers (or an 
equivalent level of safety) in hazardous areas.

    In Federal employee housing:

     New or rebuilt multifamily housing must have sprinklers 
(or an equivalent level of safety) throughout, and hard wired smoke 
detectors.
     All other housing requires hard wired smoke detectors 
on tenant change or no later than October 26, 1995.

    In Federally assisted housing:

     New multifamily housing, 4 or more stories above ground 
level, must have sprinklers and hard wired smoke detectors.
     New multifamily housing in New York City, 4 or more 
stories above ground level, must have sprinklers (or an equivalent 
level of safety) and hard wired smoke detectors.
     Rebuilt multifamily property, 4 or more stories above 
ground level, must comply with the chapter on existing apartment 
buildings in National Fire Protection Association Standard 101, Life 
Safety Code.
     All other housing must have hard wired or battery 
operated smoke detectors.

    The requirements of the Act apply to all Federal agencies and all 
Federally owned and leased buildings in the United States, except those 
of the Postal Service and those under the control of the Resolution 
Trust Corporation.
    In addition, there are a number of definitions associated with the 
Act. The major definitions are summarized below:

     Federal Employee Office Building means any building, 
owned or leased by the Federal Government, that can be expected to 
house at least 25 Federal employees in the course of their 
employment.
     Renovated means the repairing or reconstructing of 50 
percent or more of the current value of a Federal employee office 
building, not including the land on which the Federal employee 
office building is located.
     Rebuilding means the repairing or reconstructing of 
portions of a multifamily property where the cost of the alterations 
is 70 percent or more of the replacement cost of the completed 
multifamily property, not including the land on which the Federal 
employee office building is located.
     Multifamily property means a residential building 
consisting of more than 2 residential units under one roof housing 
Federal employees or their dependents or a residential building 
consisting of more than 4 residential units under one roof housing 
other persons.
     Housing assistance means assistance provided by the 
Federal Government to be used in connection with the provision of 
housing, that is provided in the form of a grant, contract, loan, 
loan guarantee, cooperative agreement, interest subsidy, insurance, 
or direct appropriation; and does not include assistance provided by 
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs; the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency; the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under the 
single family mortgage insurance programs under the National Housing 
Act or the homeownership assistance program under section 235 of 
such Act; the National Homeownserhsip Trust; the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation under the affordable housing program under 
section 40 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act; or the Resolution 
Trust Corporation under the affordable housing program under section 
21A(c) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act.
     Hazardous areas means those areas in a building 
referred to as hazardous areas in National Fire Protection 
Association Standard 101, known as the Life Safety Code, 
or any successor standard thereto.
     Smoke detectors means single or multiple station, self-
contained alarm devices designed to respond to the presence of 
visible or invisible particles of combustion, installed in 
accordance with the National Fire Protection Association Standard 74 
or any successor standard thereto.
     Automatic sprinkler system means an electronically 
supervised, integrated system of piping to which sprinklers are 
attached in a systematic pattern, and which, when activated by heat 
from a fire:
    (a) will protect human lives by discharging water over the fire 
area, in accordance with National Fire Protection Association 
Standard 13, 13D, or 13R, whichever is appropriate for the type of 
building and occupancy being protected, or any successor standard 
thereto; and
    (b) includes an alarm signaling system with appropriate warning 
signals (to the extent such alarm systems and warning signals are 
required by Federal, State, or local laws or regulations) installed 
in accordance with the National Fire Protection Association Standard 
72, or any successor standard thereto.

    A critical issue regarding implementation of the Act involves the 
definition and determination of an equivalent level of safety. The Act 
defines the term as an alternative design or system (which may include 
automatic sprinkler systems), based upon fire protection engineering 
analysis, which achieves a level of safety equal to or greater than 
that provided by automatic sprinkler systems. The definition of an 
automatic sprinkler system is unique to the Act. In addition to 
describing the physical characteristics of an automatic sprinkler 
system, the definition sets a performance objective for the system. 
Automatic sprinkler systems installed in compliance with the Act must 
protect human lives. Sprinkler systems are generally not designed with 
this specific objective in mind.
    The General Services Administration must issue regulations to 
further define the term equivalent level of safety. The Act specifies 
that, to the extent practicable, these regulations be based upon 
nationally recognized codes. This document provides the further 
definition required by the Act. A general level of safety provided by 
sprinklers is established, and a framework for evaluating alternative 
methodologies for achieving this level is presented.

II. Objectives of the Legislation

    Despite the widespread availability of affordable means of 
preventing fire losses, the United States continues to have one of the 
highest per capita fire death rates in the industrialized world. Fire 
is the fourth largest accidental killer in the United States, claiming 
at least 5,500 lives annually and injuring an additional 30,000 
individuals. The fire vulnerability of office buildings and residential 
housing units can be reduced through strong fire safety measures. It is 
essential for the protection of life and property that effective 
technology be employed in detecting, containing and suppressing fires. 
When properly installed and maintained, automatic sprinklers and smoke 
detectors provide effective safeguards against loss of life and 
property from fire. According to the National Fire Protection 
Association, there is no record of a multiple death fire (involving the 
loss of three of more people) in a building with a fully operational 
sprinkler system. The Federal Government, in addition to increasing the 
protection provided its own employees and individuals living in 
federally subsidized housing, can set an example in the area of fire 
safety and, by its own actions, encourage the private sector to use 
technology that has been proven to save lives.
    The Federal Fire Safety Act of 1992 was created to serve as a model 
for local jurisdictions where the Congress believed not enough was 
being done to promote and provide for the fire safety of citizens. The 
evidence for the Congressional concern is clear. According to National 
Fire Protection Association data, there are about 30,000 fire 
departments in the country, yet according to the National Fire 
Sprinkler Association, only 7 states and 34 local jurisdictions have 
sprinkler requirements that affect existing buildings. These ordinances 
have exclusions, applying to only specific occupancies. Most of them 
exclude residential occupancies, the occupancy where most fire deaths 
occur. The Federal government chose to lead by example without imposing 
requirements on the states and local communities.
    Throughout hearings on the Act, many groups testified that 
sprinklers were not the only system component necessary for fire safety 
in buildings. In addition, Congress did not want the legislation to 
inhibit the development of new technology. They recognized the need to 
have legislation that proactively addressed protection of life from 
fire. Therefore, the law does not simply mandate the installation of 
sprinklers. Congress specified certain life safety objectives to be 
achieved by the sprinkler systems. In addition, an equivalency clause 
was provided to allow for the use of alternatives which satisfied the 
identified life safety objectives.

III. Development of an Equivalent Level of Safety Concept

A. General Issues

    The General Services Administration, in cooperation with the United 
States Fire Administration, the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, and the Department of Defense, is required to issue 
regulations further defining the term equivalent level of safety. In 
developing the regulations, GSA has held meetings with a working group 
composed of representatives from the agencies named in the legislation 
and other affected Federal agencies. The Department of Veterans 
Affairs, the Social Security Administration, the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, and the U.S. Coast Guard were invited to 
participate because the Act's potential impact on their office space or 
housing.
    Use of automatic sprinklers may be the best approach to providing 
life safety. Sprinklers respond automatically to fire, limit fire size, 
and are also able to sound the alert. In addition to enhancing life 
safety, sprinklers provide property protection and limit potential 
business interruption. Sprinklers can significantly reduce the hazard 
which firefighters must face in combating a fire. The cost 
effectiveness of sprinklers for new construction cannot be overstated. 
Sprinkler protection can be added with minimal impact on overall 
project cost while significantly improving the level of fire safety. In 
recognition of the many benefits and relatively low cost of sprinkler 
protection, the General Services Administration has instituted a policy 
of providing sprinklers in new construction.
    The issue of providing sprinkler protection in existing buildings 
is not as clear cut. Typically, the cost of providing protection is 
higher in existing buildings. It may not be possible to provide 
complete sprinkler protection due to existing physical conditions or 
competing requirements (e.g., historic preservation laws). The decision 
to provide sprinkler protection must be part of an integrated fire 
protection strategy. Existing building systems and applicable 
requirements must be considered in developing the strategy. Most model 
codes provide an equivalency concept which allows for use of 
alternative approaches or systems. This concept is provided in 
recognition of the fact that compliance with one prescribed solution 
may not be the best alternative in every case.
    These alternative systems, methods, or devices achieve a reasonable 
level of protection and meet the intent of the specific code 
requirement. Alternative methods for limiting fire effects which might 
be considered include using fire-rated enclosing barriers, low flame 
spread interior finish materials, low heat release rate furnishings, 
and low ignition propensity materials. In evaluating alternatives, 
consideration needs to be given to the reliability of the proposed 
approach the life of a structure. Enforcement and maintenance practices 
will vary significantly depending on the use (office, residence, store, 
factory, etc.).

B. Working Group Discussions

    On July 14, 1993, the working group met with representatives from 
both the public and private sectors. The interests of trade 
associations, State Fire Marshals, fire chiefs, consulting engineering 
firms, building owners, academia, and research were presented at the 
meeting. Based on this meeting, the working group identified a number 
of issues important for consideration in developing the regulations.
    From these issues, the working group identified four central 
concerns. Should the regulation address equivalency to sprinklers or to 
the level of safety provided by sprinklers? The group agreed that 
sprinklers provide a unique combination of fire detection and 
suppression, and that no current system could be considered equivalent. 
However, sprinklers provide a level of safety, especially life safety, 
which can be provided through the use of other systems in various 
combinations. Such other system combinations may include sprinklers. 
Should the regulation describe a method of analysis to determine 
equivalency or the result needed to be equivalent? GSA had originally 
drafted a proposed analysis method. This raised more questions than it 
answered. The group agreed that the regulation should address the 
endpoint, or a performance objective which must be satisfied to be 
equivalent. Are there significant differences between office and 
housing occupancies which need to be considered? Reaction time is the 
significant difference between these two occupancy groups. Reaction 
time must be emphasized in any analysis of equivalency in housing. An 
occupant's ability to react to a fire and evacuate from the area 
exposed to fire effects can be influenced by a number of factors 
including physical ability, mental status, age, and training. Should 
the regulation have a height threshold, specifically should it not 
apply to high rise buildings? This question was the most difficult for 
the group to deal with and a consensus was never reached. The group was 
divided between two opposing points of view. One portion of the group 
believed that the fire safety problems inherent in high rise buildings 
could only be addressed through complete sprinkler protection. The Act 
was intended to require sprinklers in high rise buildings. Therefore, 
the regulation should place a maximum height limit on the applicability 
of the equivalent level of safety provision. The opposing view held 
that no height threshold was necessary. Any analysis, required as part 
of the equivalent level of safety regulation, should address the fire 
safety issues associated with protection of high rise buildings. In 
high rise buildings, automatic detection and suppression are vital 
components of a fire protection strategy. Fire protection strategies 
developed for high rise buildings under the provision would include 
some level of sprinkler protection.
    The legislation gives the General Services Administration the 
responsibility to develop the regulation defining an equivalent level 
of safety. GSA believes that the law is clear requiring high rise (6 or 
more stories) Federal Employee Office Buildings to have sprinklers, or 
an equivalent level of safety. The Congressional intent for an 
equivalency option was recently reinforced by the passage of an 
amendment to the original legislation providing an equivalency option 
in Federally assisted housing in New York City. Finally, the model 
codes support the use of equivalency concepts especially in existing 
buildings. For these reasons, GSA believes the regulation should not 
have specific thresholds. Comments on this subject are requested; any 
comments should include supporting rationale.

C. Equivalent Level of Safety Analysis

    The working group identified and discussed a number of critical 
factors in developing a life safety equivalency analysis. Rate of fire 
growth is controlled by the type and location of combustible items, the 
layout of the compartment, the materials used in construction of the 
space, openings and ventilation, and suppression capability. Detection 
time, occupant notification, occupant reaction time, occupant mobility, 
and means of egress are important considerations in evaluating egress 
time. Finally, the life safety equivalency analysis must be conducted 
by a person familiar with fire dynamics, building construction, hazard 
assessment, and human behavior. As a minimum, this person should have a 
bachelor of science degree in engineering.
    In order to evaluate whether or not a life safety equivalency has 
been achieved, the building systems must be defined, reasonable worst 
case scenarios developed, maximum probable loss estimated, time 
required for the space to become hazardous calculated, and time 
required for egress determined. The proposed regulation establishes a 
general measure of building fire safety performance. Building 
environmental conditions are specified to ensure the life safety of 
building occupants outside the room of fire origin. The specified 
environmental conditions should be applicable whether or not the 
evaluation is conducted for the entire building or for just the 
hazardous areas. In the latter case, the room of origin would be the 
hazardous area while any room could be a room of origin in the entire 
building scenario.
    A functioning sprinkler system should activate prior to the onset 
of flashover. Flashover is a phenomena that occurs in many building 
fires. In the initial (preflashover) stages, fire development is 
controlled by the amount, type, and location of combustible materials 
in the area and the speed with which it spreads. As the fire develops, 
however, the hot smoke and fire gases accumulate at the ceiling, 
heating all of the un-ignited materials in the room. The hot ceiling 
gases radiate energy onto the burning fuel causing it to burn faster. 
As the fire grows, the available air cannot support the combustion of 
all of the fuel that is produced. The unburned fuel collects in the 
smoke layer; the smoke normally blackens at this time. When this 
combination of events reaches a temperature of about 550 to 600  deg.C 
(1000 to 1100  deg.F), the radiant heat from the hot gas layer will 
quickly ignite all of the exposed combustible material. Frequently any 
combustible gases accumulated in the smoke layer will find air and burn 
out at this time. When this rapid ignition of combustible material or 
gases occurs, the fire often violently erupts from the room of origin 
spouting flame, hot fuel laden gases, and toxic smoke into adjacent 
spaces. This transition is called flashover, and a fire that has 
undergone this transition is called a flashed over fire.
    Sprinklers would provide the level of life safety prescribed in the 
Act by controlling the spread of fire and its effects beyond the room 
of origin. Alternative methods which provide equivalent levels of life 
safety must prevent the spread of the fire and its affects beyond the 
room of fire origin. A typical room fire will not pose a hazard to the 
rest of the building until flashover. Smoldering fires can have 
significant life safety impact beyond the room of origin. However, a 
typical sprinkler system would not activate in response to a smoldering 
fire. Therefore, the sprinkler system would have little or no impact on 
life safety in the smoldering fire.
    To achieve the level of safety prescribed in the Act, the office 
building or housing unit must be designed, constructed, and maintained 
to prevent flashover in the room of fire origin, limit fire size to no 
more than 1 megawatt (50 Btu/sec), or prevent flames from leaving the 
room of origin. For the purposes of this regulation, flashover is 
intended to describe a fire in which the upper layer temperature in a 
room reaches approximately 600  deg.C (1100  deg.F) and the heat flux 
at floor level exceeds 20 kW/m2 (1.8 Btu/ft2/sec). As with 
the prevent flashover criteria, the limitation on maximum heat release 
rate and the requirement to keep flames within the room of fire origin 
are designed to limit the size of the fire. A 1 megawatt fire is 
approximately equivalent to a single burning easy chair or two burning 
1.8m (6 ft) tall Christmas trees. In a 3.6m (12 ft) by 4.6m (15 ft) 
gypsum board lined room with a 1.4m (4 ft) wide open doorway, a fire 
growing proportionally with time will produce an upper gas temperature 
of 425 to 480  deg.C (800 to 900  deg.F) in 300 seconds. The fire heat 
release rate at 300 seconds would be approximately 1 megawatt assuming 
a medium growth rate t-squared fire as referenced in Appendix B of the 
National Fire Protection Association Standard 72, National Fire Alarm 
Code. This fire is about the largest that can occur in such a room 
without a substantial likelihood of flames discharging out the room 
doorway.
    For the reasons mentioned previously, the life safety impact of a 
smoldering fire is not addressed in this regulation. In addition, this 
regulation does not attempt to provide guidance in determining 
acceptable levels of protection against property loss or business 
interruption. Finally, this regulation does not attempt to address the 
issue of firefighter safety. Thorough prefire planning, required by the 
Act, will allow firefighters to determine whether or not to enter a 
burning building; building occupants do not have a similar choice.

D. Summary

    As required by the Federal Fire Safety Act of 1992, this regulation 
is intended to provide a further definition of the term equivalent 
level of safety. The regulation establishes certain criteria which 
alternative approaches must satisfy to be judged equivalent. These 
criteria have been selected to provide the level of life safety 
prescribed in the legislation. The impact of the legislation 
requirements and these criteria on property protection, business 
interruption potential, and firefighter safety has not been assessed.
    The requirements of the Act and these regulations apply to all 
Federal agencies and all Federally owned and leased buildings in the 
United States, except those of the Postal Service and those under the 
control of the Resolution Trust Corporation. The Head of the agency 
responsible for physical improvements in a facility must judge the 
acceptability of any equivalency analysis. This regulation provides 
guidance in conducting an analysis and judging its acceptability.
    The General Services Administration (GSA) has determined that this 
rule is a significant regulatory action for the purposes of Executive 
Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 101-6

    Civil rights, Government property management, Grant programs, 
Intergovernmental relations, Surplus Government property, Relocation 
assistance, Real property acquisition, Fire safety, Fire protection.

    Accordingly, it is proposed to amend 41 CFR 101-6 as follows:

PART 101-6--MISCELLANEOUS REGULATIONS

    1. The authority citation for 41 CFR part 101-6 continues to read 
as follows:

    Authority: Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390; 40 U.S.C. 486(c).

Subpart 101-6.6--Fire Protection Engineering

    2. Subpart 101-6.6 is added to read as follows:

Sec.
101-6.600  Scope of subpart.
101-6.601  Background.
101-6.602  Application.
101-6.603  Definitions.
101-6.604  Requirements.
101-6.605  Responsibility.


Sec. 101-6.600  Scope of subpart.

    This subpart provides the regulations of the General Services 
Administration (GSA) under title I of the Fire Administration 
Authorization Act of 1992 concerning definition and determination of 
equivalent level of safety.


Sec. 101-6.601  Background.

    (a) The Fire Authorization Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-522) was 
signed into law by the President on October 26, 1992. Section 106, Fire 
Safety Systems in Federally Assisted Buildings, of Title I--United 
States Fire Administration, is commonly referred to as the Federal Fire 
Safety Act of 1992. This section amends the Fire Prevention and Control 
Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.) to require sprinklers or an 
equivalent level of safety, in certain types of Federal Employee office 
buildings, Federal employee housing units, and Federally assisted 
housing units.
    (b) The definition of an automatic sprinkler system is unique to 
the Act. In addition to describing the physical characteristic of an 
automatic sprinkler system, the definition sets a performance objective 
for the system. Automatic sprinkler systems installed in compliance 
with the Act must protect human lives. A functioning sprinkler system 
should activate prior to the onset of flashover. Sprinklers would 
provide the level of life safety prescribed in the Act by controlling 
the spread of fire and its effects beyond the room of origin.
    (c) This regulation establishes a general measure of building fire 
safety performance. To achieve the level of life safety proscribed in 
the Act, the structure under consideration must be designed, 
constructed, and maintained to minimize the impact of fire. Building 
environmental conditions are specified in this regulation to ensure the 
life safety of building occupants outside the room of fire origin. They 
should be applicable independent of whether or not the evaluation is 
being conducted for the entire building or for just the hazardous 
areas. In the latter case, the room of origin would be the hazardous 
area while any room could be a room of origin in the entire building 
scenario.
    (d) The equivalent level of safety regulation does not address 
property protection, business interruption potential, or firefighter 
safety. Thorough prefire planning will allow firefighters to choose 
whether or not to enter a burning building; building occupants do not 
have a similar option.


Sec. 101-6.602  Application.

    The requirements of the Act and these regulations apply to all 
Federal agencies and all Federally owned and leased buildings in the 
United States, except those of the Postal Service and those under the 
control of the Resolution Trust Corporation.


Sec. 101-6.603  Definitions.

    (a) Qualified fire protection engineer is defined as an individual 
with a knowledge and understanding of fire dynamics meeting one of the 
following criteria:
    (1) An engineer having a Bachelor of Science or Master of Science 
degree in Fire Protection Engineering from an accredited university 
engineering program, plus a minimum of two (2) years work experience in 
fire protection engineering,
    (2) A professional engineer (P.E.) registered in Fire Protection 
Engineering, or
    (3) A professional engineer (P.E.) registered in a related 
engineering discipline and holding Member grade status in the 
international Society of Fire Protection Engineers.
    (b) Flashover means fire conditions in a room where the upper gas 
layer temperature reaches 600  deg.C (1100  deg.F) and the heat flux at 
floor level exceeds 20 kWm\2\ (1.8 Btu/ft\2\/sec.).
    (c) Reasonable worst case fire scenario means a combination of an 
ignition source, fuel items, and a building location likely to produce 
a fire which would have a significant adverse impact on the building 
and its occupants.


Sec. 101-6.604  Requirements.

    (a) The equivalent level of life safety evaluation is to be 
performed by a qualified fire protection engineer. The engineer 
conducting the analysis must have a thorough understanding of the 
principles of physics and chemistry governing fire growth, spread, and 
suppression. The analysis should include a narrative discussion of the 
features of the building structure, function, operation support systems 
and occupant activities which impact fire protection and lifesafety. 
Each analysis should describe potential reasonable worst case fire 
scenarios and their impact on the building occupants and structure. 
Specific issues which must be addressed include rate of fire growth, 
type and location of fuel lines, space layout, building construction, 
openings and ventilation, suppression capability, detection time, 
occupant notification, occupant reaction time, occupant mobility, and 
means of egress.
    (b) To be acceptable, the analysis must indicate that the 
combination of features used to achieve equivalency will prevent 
flashover in the room of fire origin, limit fire size to no more than 1 
megawatt (950 Btu/sec), or prevent flames from leaving the room of 
origin. A 1 megawatt fire is approximately equivalent to a burning easy 
chair or two burning 1.8 m (6 ft) tall Christmas trees. Analytical and 
empirical tools, including fire models and grading schedules such as 
the Fire Safety Evaluation System, should be used to support the life 
safety equivalency evaluation. If fire modeling is used as part of an 
analysis, an assessment of the predicative capabilities of the fire 
models must be included. This assessment should be conducted in 
accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials Standard 
Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability of Fire Models (ASTM E 
1355).


Sec. 101-6.605  Responsibility.

    The Head of the agency responsible for physical improvements in the 
facility or providing Federal assistance or a designated representative 
will determine the acceptability of each equivalent level of safety 
analysis. The determination of acceptability must include a review of 
the fire protection engineer's qualifications, the appropriateness of 
the fire scenarios for the facility, and the reasonableness of the 
assumed maximum probable loss.

    Dated: March 30, 1994.
Kenneth R. Kimbrough,
Commissioner, Public Buildings Service.
[FR Doc. 94-12617 Filed 5-23-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-23-M