[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 210 (Tuesday, November 1, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27020]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 1, 1994]


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

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

41 CFR Part 101-6

[FPMR Amendment A-52]
RIN 3090-AE93

 

Fire Protection (Firesafety) Engineering

AGENCY: Public Buildings Service (PBS), GSA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a further definition of the term 
equivalent level of safety. The Federal Fire Safety Act of 1992 amended 
the Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 to require sprinklers or an 
equivalent level of safety, in certain types of Federal employee office 
buildings, Federal employee housing units, and federally assisted 
housing units. This rule identifies certain performance criteria which 
an alternative approach must satisfy in order to be judged equivalent. 
The criteria have been selected to provide the level of life safety 
prescribed in the Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 26, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Director, Safety and Environmental Management Division (PMS), General 
Services Administration, 18th & F Streets NW., Washington, DC 20405, 
(202) 501-1464.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1. General Requirements of the Act

    The Fire Administration Authorization Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-
522) was signed into law by the President on October 26, 1992. Section 
106, Fire Safety Systems in Federally Assisted Buildings, of Title I--
United States Fire Administration, is commonly referred to as the 
Federal Fire Safety Act of 1992. This section amends the Fire 
Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.) to require 
sprinklers or an equivalent level of safety, in certain types of 
Federal employee office buildings, Federal employee housing units, and 
federally assisted housing units. The Act's applicability and 
requirements are very complex.
    They are summarized as follows:
    In Federal employee office buildings with more than 25 Federal 
employees that are newly constructed, purchased, renovated, or leased 
(with the Government occupying 35,000 sq. ft. or more and some portion 
on or above the sixth floor):
     Buildings with 6 or more stories must have sprinklers (or 
an equivalent level of safety) throughout.
     All other buildings must have sprinklers (or an equivalent 
level of safety) in hazardous areas, as defined in National Fire 
Protection Association Standard 101, Life Safety Code.
    In Federal employee housing:
     New or rebuilt multifamily housing must have sprinklers 
(or an equivalent level of safety) throughout, and hard wired smoke 
detectors.
     All other housing requires hard wired smoke detectors on 
tenant change or no later than October 26, 1995.
    In federally assisted housing:
     New multifamily housing, 4 or more stories above ground 
level, must have sprinklers and hard wired smoke detectors.
     New multifamily housing in New York City, 4 or more 
stories above ground level, must have sprinklers (or an equivalent 
level of safety) and hard wired smoke detectors.
     Rebuilt multifamily property, 4 or more stories above 
ground level, must comply with the chapter on existing apartment 
buildings in National Fire Protection Association Standard 101, Life 
Safety Code.
     All other housing must have hard wired or battery operated 
smoke detectors.
    The requirements of the Act apply to all Federal agencies and all 
federally owned and leased buildings in the United States, except those 
under the control of the Resolution Trust Corporation.
    In addition, there are a number of definitions associated with the 
Act. The major definitions are summarized below:
     Federal Employee Office Building means any building, owned 
or leased by the Federal Government, that can be expected to house at 
least 25 Federal employees in the course of their employment.
     Renovated means the repairing or reconstructing of 50 
percent or more of the current value of a Federal employee office 
building, not including the land on which the Federal employee office 
building is located.
     Multifamily property means a residential building 
consisting of more than 2 residential units under one roof housing 
Federal employees or their dependents or a residential building 
consisting of more than 4 residential units under one roof housing 
other persons.
     Rebuilding means the repairing or reconstructing of 
portions of a multifamily property where the cost of the alterations is 
70 percent or more of the replacement cost of the completed multifamily 
property, not including the land on which the Federal employee office 
building is located.
     Housing assistance means assistance provided by the 
Federal Government for housing, in the form of a grant, contract, loan, 
loan guarantee, cooperative agreement, interest subsidy, insurance, or 
direct appropriation; but does not include assistance provided by the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs; the Federal Emergency Management Agency; 
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under the single family 
mortgage insurance programs under the National Housing Act or the 
homeownership assistance program under section 235 of such Act; the 
National Homeownership Trust; the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 
under the affordable housing program under section 40 of the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Act; or the Resolution Trust Corporation under the 
affordable housing program under section 21A(c) of the Federal Home 
Loan Bank Act.
     Hazardous areas means those areas in a building referred 
to as hazardous areas in National Fire Protection Association Standard 
101, Life Safety Code, or any successor standard.
     Smoke detectors means single or multiple station, self-
contained alarm devices designed to respond to the presence of visible 
or invisible particles of combustion, installed in accordance with the 
National Fire Protection Association Standard 74 or any successor 
standard.
     Automatic sprinkler system means an electronically 
supervised, integrated system of piping to which sprinklers are 
attached in a systematic pattern, and which, when activated by heat 
from a fire:
    (a) will protect human lives by discharging water over the fire 
area, in accordance with National Fire Protection Association Standard 
13, 13D, or 13R, whichever is appropriate for the type of building and 
occupancy being protected, or any successor standard thereto; and
    (b) includes an alarm signaling system with appropriate warning 
signals (to the extent such alarm systems and warning signals are 
required by Federal, State, or local laws or regulations) installed in 
accordance with the National Fire Protection Association Standard 72, 
or any successor standard.
    A critical issue regarding implementation of the Act involves the 
definition and determination of an equivalent level of safety. The Act 
defines the term as an alternative design or system (which may include 
automatic sprinkler systems), based upon fire protection engineering 
analysis, which achieves a level of safety equal to or greater than 
that provided by automatic sprinkler systems.
    The General Services Administration is required to issue 
regulations to further define the term equivalent level of safety. The 
Act specifies that, to the extent practicable, these regulations be 
based upon nationally recognized codes. In addition to describing the 
physical characteristics of an automatic sprinkler system, the Act sets 
a performance objective for the system. According to the definition, 
automatic sprinkler systems installed in compliance with the Act must 
protect human lives. This regulation, further defining the term 
equivalent level of safety, uses this performance objective to 
establish a quantifiable measure of the level of safety provided by 
sprinklers. In addition, a framework is presented for evaluating 
alternatives against the performance objective.
    The Act did not address property protection or fire fighting. 
Thorough prefire planning, required by the Act, will allow firefighters 
to determine whether or not to enter a burning building solely to fight 
a fire. Therefore, the regulation does not directly address these 
issues either.

II. Objectives of the Legislation

    Despite the widespread availability of affordable means of 
preventing fire losses, the United States continues to have one of the 
highest per capita fire death rates in the industrialized world. Fire 
is the fourth largest accidental killer in the United States, claiming 
at least 4,500 lives annually and injuring an additional 30,000 
individuals. The fire vulnerability of office buildings and residential 
housing units can be reduced through strong fire safety measures. It is 
essential for the protection of life and property that effective 
technology be employed in detecting, containing and suppressing fires. 
When properly installed and maintained, automatic sprinklers and smoke 
detectors provide effective safeguards against loss of life and 
property from fire. According to the National Fire Protection 
Association (NFPA), there is no record of a multiple death fire 
(involving the loss of three or more people) in a completely 
sprinklered building where the system was properly operating, except in 
an explosion or flash fire or where industrial fire brigade members or 
employees were killed during fire suppression operations. The Federal 
Government, in addition to increasing the protection provided its own 
employees and individuals living in federally subsidized housing, can 
set an example in the area of fire safety and, by its own actions, 
encourage the private sector to use technology that has been proven to 
save lives.
    The Federal Fire Safety Act of 1992 was created to serve as a model 
for local jurisdictions where the Congress believed not enough was 
being done to promote and provide for the fire safety of citizens. The 
evidence for the congressional concern is clear. According to National 
Fire Protection Association data, there are about 30,000 fire 
departments in the country, yet, according to the National Fire 
Sprinkler Association, only 7 states and 34 local jurisdictions have 
sprinkler requirements that affect existing buildings. These ordinances 
have exclusions, applying to only specific occupancies. Most of them 
exclude residential occupancies, the occupancy where most fire deaths 
occur. The Federal Government chose to lead by example without imposing 
requirements on the states and local communities.
    Congress recognized the need to have legislation that proactively 
addressed protection of life from fire. Throughout hearings on the Act, 
many groups testified that sprinklers were not the only system 
component necessary for firesafety in buildings. In addition, Congress 
did not want the legislation to inhibit the development of new 
technology. Therefore, the law does not simply mandate the installation 
of sprinklers. The law specifies certain life safety objectives to be 
achieved by the sprinkler systems. An equivalency clause was provided 
to allow for the use of alternatives which satisfied the identified 
life safety objectives.

III. Background

    Use of automatic sprinklers may be the best, currently available 
approach to providing life safety. Sprinklers respond automatically to 
fire, limit fire size, and are also able to sound an alarm. In addition 
to enhancing life safety, sprinklers provide property protection and 
limit potential business interruption. Sprinklers can significantly 
reduce the hazards firefighters must face in combating a fire. The cost 
effectiveness of sprinklers for new construction cannot be overstated. 
Sprinkler protection can be added with minimal impact on overall 
project cost while significantly improving the level of firesafety. In 
recognition of the many benefits and relatively low cost of sprinkler 
protection, the General Services Administration has instituted a policy 
of providing sprinklers in its new construction projects.
    The issue of providing sprinkler protection in existing buildings 
is not as clear cut. Typically, the cost of providing protection is 
higher in existing buildings. It may not be possible to provide 
complete sprinkler protection due to existing physical conditions or 
competing requirements (e.g., historic preservation laws). The decision 
to provide sprinkler protection must be part of an integrated fire 
protection strategy. Existing building systems and applicable 
requirements must be considered in developing the strategy. Most model 
codes provide an equivalency concept which allows for use of 
alternative approaches or systems. This concept is provided in 
recognition of the fact that compliance with one prescribed solution 
may not be the best alternative in every case.
    These alternative systems, methods, or devices can achieve a 
reasonable level of protection and can then meet the intent of the 
specific code requirement. Alternative methods which might be 
considered include using fire-rated enclosing barriers, low flame 
spread interior finish materials, low heat release rate furnishings, 
and low ignition tendency materials. In evaluating alternatives, 
consideration needs to be given to the reliability of the proposed 
approach over the life of a structure. In addition, enforcement and 
maintenance practices will vary significantly depending on the use 
(office, residence, store, factory, etc.) of the facility.
    The Federal Fire Safety Act of 1992 requires that the General 
Services Administration, in cooperation with the United States Fire 
Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and 
the Department of Defense, issue regulations further defining the term 
equivalent level of safety. In developing the regulations, GSA held 
meetings with a working group composed of representatives from the 
agencies named in the legislation and other affected Federal agencies. 
The Department of Veterans Affairs, the Social Security Administration, 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Coast 
Guard were invited to participate because of the Act's potential impact 
on their office space or housing.
    The group met several times during 1993 and discussed several 
issues key to the development of a definition of an equivalent level of 
safety. Ultimately, the group agreed that sprinklers provide a unique 
combination of fire detection and suppression, and that no current 
system could be considered equivalent. However, other systems in 
various combinations could provide a level of safety, especially life 
safety, equivalent to that provided by complete sprinkler protection. 
The group determined that reaction time is the significant difference 
between the two occupancy groups (office and residential) addressed by 
the Act. Reaction time is especially important in analyzing equivalency 
in housing. An occupant's ability to react to a fire and evacuate from 
the area exposed to fire effects can be influenced by a number of 
factors including physical ability, mental status, age, available 
warning systems, and training.
    The question of whether or not the regulation should have a height 
threshold, specifically should it not apply to high rise buildings, was 
the most difficult for the group to deal with and a consensus was never 
reached. The group was divided between two opposing points of view. One 
portion of the group believed that the firesafety problems inherent in 
high rise buildings could only be addressed through complete sprinkler 
protection, and the Act was intended to require sprinklers in high rise 
buildings. Therefore, the regulation should place a maximum height 
limit on the applicability of the equivalent level of safety provision. 
The opposing view held that no height threshold was necessary. In high 
rise buildings, fire fighting and egress will be more difficult. 
However, appropriate combinations of automatic detection, fire and 
smoke containment, egress facilities, and suppression could produce 
effective fire protection strategies in these buildings. An analysis, 
required as part of the equivalent level of safety regulation, could 
adequately address the firesafety problems associated with high rise 
buildings and lead to development of appropriate solutions.
    Model codes support the use of equivalency concepts especially in 
existing buildings. The congressional intent for an equivalency option 
was reinforced by the passage of an amendment to the original 
legislation providing an equivalency option in federally assisted 
housing in New York City (Public Law 103-195). The legislation gives 
the General Services Administration the responsibility to develop the 
regulation defining an equivalent level of safety. GSA believes that 
the law is clear requiring high rise (6 or more stories) Federal 
employee office buildings to have sprinklers, or an equivalent level of 
safety. The regulation should not have specific thresholds.

IV. Summary of Proposed Rule

    In order to evaluate whether or not a life safety equivalency has 
been achieved, the building systems must be defined, reasonable worst 
case scenarios developed, maximum probable loss estimated, time 
required for the space to become hazardous calculated, and time 
required for egress determined. A number of factors are critical in 
developing a life safety equivalency analysis. Rate of fire growth is 
controlled by the type and location of combustible items, the layout of 
the space, the materials used in construction of the rooms, openings 
and ventilation, and suppression capability. Detection time, occupant 
notification, occupant reaction time, occupant mobility, and means of 
egress are important considerations in evaluating egress time.
    The proposed regulation established a general measure of building 
firesafety performance. Building environmental conditions were 
specified to ensure the life safety of building occupants outside the 
room of fire origin. The specified environmental conditions would be 
applicable whether or not the evaluation is conducted for the entire 
building or for just the hazardous areas. In the latter case, the room 
of origin would be the hazardous area while any room could be a room of 
origin in the entire building scenario.
    Sprinklers would provide the level of life safety prescribed in the 
Act by controlling the spread of fire and its effects beyond the room 
of origin. In order to provide an equivalent level of safety, 
alternative methods must allow sufficient time for occupants to reach 
areas of safety by limiting the spread of the fire and its effects. A 
typical room fire will not pose a hazard to the rest of the building 
until flashover. A functioning sprinkler system should activate prior 
to the onset of flashover. Smoldering fires can have significant life 
safety impact beyond the room of origin. However, a typical sprinkler 
system would not activate in response to a smoldering fire. Therefore, 
the sprinkler system would have little or no impact on life safety in 
the smoldering fire.
    Flashover is a phenomenon that occurs in many building fires. In 
the initial (preflashover) stages, fire development is controlled by 
the amount, type, and location of combustible materials in the area and 
the speed with which it spreads. As the fire develops, however, the hot 
smoke and fire gases accumulate at the ceiling, heating all of the 
unignited materials in the room. The hot ceiling gases radiate energy 
onto the burning fuel causing it to burn faster. As the fire grows, the 
available air cannot support the combustion of all of the fuel that is 
produced. The unburned fuel collects in the smoke layer; the smoke 
normally blackens at this time. When this combination of events reaches 
a temperature of about 550 to 600  deg.C (1000 to 1100  deg.F), the 
radiant heat from the hot gas layer will quickly ignite all of the 
exposed combustible material. Frequently any combustible gases 
accumulated in the smoke layer will find air and burn out at this time. 
When this rapid ignition of combustible material or gases occurs, the 
fire often violently erupts from the room of origin spreading flame, 
hot fuel laden gases, and toxic smoke into adjacent spaces. This 
transition is called flashover, and a fire that has undergone this 
transition is called a flashed over fire.
    The proposed regulation established three endpoint criteria 
designed to achieve the level of life safety prescribed in the Act. To 
be equivalent, an office building or housing unit must be designed, 
constructed, and maintained to prevent flashover in the room of fire 
origin, limit fire size to no more than 1 megawatt (950 Btu/sec), or 
prevent flames from leaving the room of origin. For the purposes of 
this regulation, flashover is intended to describe a fire in which the 
upper layer temperature in a room reaches approximately 600  deg.C 
(1100  deg.F) and the heat flux at floor level exceeds 20 kW/m2 
(1.8 Btu/ft2/sec). As with the prevent flashover criteria, the 
limitation on maximum heat release rate and the requirement to keep 
flames within the room of fire origin are designed to limit the size of 
the fire.
    A 1 megawatt fire is approximately equivalent to a single burning 
easy chair or two burning 1.8 m (6 ft) tall Christmas trees. In a 3.6 m 
(12 ft) by 4.6 m (15 ft) gypsum board lined room with a 1.4 m (4 ft) 
wide open doorway, a fire growing proportionally with time will produce 
an upper gas temperature of 425 to 480  deg.C (800 to 900  deg.F) in 
300 seconds. The fire heat release rate at 300 seconds would be 
approximately 1 megawatt assuming a medium growth rate t-squared fire 
as referenced in Appendix B of the National Fire Protection Association 
Standard 72, National Fire Alarm Code. This fire is about the largest 
that can occur in such a room without a substantial likelihood of 
flames discharging out the room doorway.
    The person conducting a life safety equivalency analysis must be 
familiar with fire dynamics, building construction, hazard assessment, 
and human behavior in a crisis. The proposed regulation established 
minimum qualifications for the people expected to conduct the required 
analyzes. In addition, the regulation specified the Federal Government 
official responsible for reviewing and accepting equivalent level of 
safety analyses.
    The proposed rule did not address the life safety impact of a 
smoldering fire. Smoldering fires can represent a significant life 
safety hazard, however, typical sprinkler systems will not control this 
hazard. In addition, it did not attempt to provide guidance in 
determining acceptable levels of protection against property loss or 
business interruption.

V. Discussion of Comments

    GSA published the proposed rule in the Federal Register (Vol. 59, 
No. 99, pp. 26768-26772) for public comment on May 24, 1994. On June 
30, 1994, a notice of extension of the public comment period was 
published in the Federal Register (Vol. 59, No. 125, pg. 33724). The 
public had until July 25, 1994, to comment on the proposed rule.
    In response to the proposed rule and subsequent extension, a total 
of 46 items of correspondence were received. Of these, 14 were from 
state fire marshals, 10 were from professional or trade associations, 7 
were from Federal Government entities, 3 were from private fire 
protection engineering consultants, 1 was from academia, and 11 were 
from private citizens. The comments ranged from general support or 
opposition to the concept of an equivalent level of safety to very 
specific comments related to technical details of the regulation. A 
summary of the comments, and our responses to them, follow.

A. Intent of Legislation

    Comment: Several commenters indicated that defining an equivalent 
level of safety would provide a means to avoid the intent of the Act.
    Response: As indicated in House Report 102-509, Part 1, the purpose 
of the Federal Fire Safety Act of 1992 was to set an example for State 
and local governments by mandating firesafety requirements for new or 
renovated Federal office space and certain categories of federally 
assisted housing. By prohibiting Federal funding for these buildings, 
the Act promotes the use of automatic sprinklers, or an equivalent 
level of safety. The Act defines the term equivalent level of safety as 
an alternative design or system (which may include sprinkler systems), 
based upon fire protection engineering analysis, which achieves a level 
of safety equal to or greater than that provided by automatic sprinkler 
systems. The Congress had a number of expectations concerning the 
definition. The alternative would provide flexibility in instances 
where fire protection engineering analyses demonstrated that other 
means would yield the same level of life safety as that provided in a 
fully sprinklered building. In many situations, there would be no 
effective equivalent level of safety in comparison to the life safety 
protection afforded by a building conforming with the requirements of 
current building design criteria for a fully sprinklered building. In 
addition, several factors were to be considered in further defining 
equivalent level of safety: the provisions of nationally recognized 
model codes and the firesafety guidelines followed by the General 
Services Administration for sprinklered buildings; analyses of 
potential fire loss exposures and adverse conditions related to the 
firesafety of a building, and analyses of safety alternatives for a 
building; and current technical research, including the study ``on the 
use, in combination, of fire detection, fire suppression systems, and 
compartmentation,'' of the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology. The intent of the Act is very clear in requiring an 
equivalent level of safety option for all situations.
    Comment: A number of commenters wanted sprinklers to be the only 
option.
    Response: It should not be taken lightly that this legislation 
originated in the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and 
that one intent of the Act (as specifically articulated in the report 
language) was to encourage the development and use of new technology. 
The Congress recognized that the intent of the Act could not be met by 
specifying only one type of currently available fire technology. The 
concept of equivalent level of safety has and will continue to promote 
the development of new firesafety technologies. Providing for an 
equivalent level of safety is in keeping with equivalent clauses 
contained in the model building and fire codes. For example, section 1-
5.1 of National Fire Protection Association Standard No. 101, 
Life Safety Code, states

    Nothing in this Code is intended to prevent the use of systems, 
methods, or devices of equivalent or superior quality, strength, 
fire resistance, effectiveness, durability, and safety as 
alternatives to those prescribed by this Code, provided technical 
documentation is submitted to the authority having jurisdiction to 
demonstrate equivalency, and the system, method, or device is 
approved for the intended purpose.

    The regulation provides a means for demonstrating equivalency based 
on a technical evaluation.
    Comment: A few Federal agencies indicated that defining an 
equivalent level of safety could jeopardize their automatic sprinkler 
system installation programs.
    Response: The public law sets a standard. This regulation provides 
a means to achieve the standard while maintaining a degree of 
flexibility. Use of this equivalent level of safety option is not 
mandatory. As outlined in this regulation, there are numerous reasons 
for installing automatic sprinkler systems in buildings. These reasons 
cover issues well beyond the very limited scope of this regulation. 
Full compliance with the sprinkler requirements contained in the 
Federal Fire Safety Act will be the easiest solution, especially when 
Federal agencies lack the fire protection engineering expertise to 
evaluate an equivalency.

B. Scope of the Regulation

    Comment: A number of comments reflected confusion concerning the 
scope of the regulation.
    Response: This regulation is intended solely to define an 
equivalent level of safety appropriate for judging compliance with the 
requirements of the Federal Fire Safety Act of 1992. It does not 
necessarily apply to the evaluation of equivalency to other building 
and fire code requirements. In order to address this issue, the scope 
of the regulation has been refined and clarified.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed concerned over the decision 
to exclude firefighter safety from the regulation especially when 
rescue of building occupants is required.
    Response: The concept presented in the proposed regulation was not 
intended to totally exclude consideration of firefighter safety. The 
need for the fire department to conduct rescue operations must be 
considered in an equivalent level of safety analysis. If rescue 
operations are expected, then the firefighters conducting them must be 
protected. Firefighter safety is not considered from the standpoint of 
them entering a building solely to fight a fire and limit property 
loss.
    Comment: A few commenters questioned the impact of the proposed 
rule on local codes.
    Response: Legally, buildings built on Federal property are exempt 
from local building codes. In the case of buildings developed on 
private land to be leased by the Federal Government, the applicable 
local codes govern. Public Law 100-678 requires, among other things, 
that Federal agencies comply ``to the maximum extent feasible'' with 
``one of the nationally recognized model building codes and with other 
applicable nationally recognized codes'' when constructing or altering 
Federal buildings. This law also directs agencies to comply with State 
and local zoning laws to submit plans for buildings being altered or 
constructed to State or local officials for review prior to 
construction, and to permit local officials to inspect Federal 
buildings while under construction or alteration. However, the law 
places limitations on the obligations of Federal agencies; for example, 
agencies can limit the time local officials have for plans review to 30 
days, are not required to follow the recommendations of local 
officials, and are not allowed to pay any fees or fines to local 
governments. The impact of the Federal Fire Safety Act will primarily 
be an additional requirement with which Federal buildings, both owned 
and leased, will have to comply. However, firesafety protection 
measures required in order to comply with local codes or other 
requirements can and should be considered in assessing the existence of 
an equivalent level of safety.
    Comment: Some commenters questioned the applicability of existing 
equivalency clauses in currently available consensus standards and 
their relationship to the proposed rule.
    Response: Equivalency as described in national standards requires 
approval by an authority having jurisdiction. No specific performance 
measures are provided for making the judgment as to the level of 
equivalency, leading to non-uniform application and acceptance. The 
rule provides a performance definition, as required by the law. It is 
possible the philosophy outlined in the proposed rule could form the 
basis for further development and adoption of performance-based 
equivalency measures in the national consensus codes.

C. Technical Issues

    Comment: Several commenters recommended the establishment of a 
threshold height limit above which only total sprinkler protection 
would be acceptable. However, other commenters indicated that the 
height issue could be addressed in the required engineering analysis.
    Respose: The objective was not to rewrite the law. The Act requires 
that the General Services Administration further define the term 
equivalent level of safety. By specifying a maximum height threshold, 
the equivalency option specifically intended by Congress would be 
eliminated without their consent. The intent of Congress to provide an 
equivalency option without height limitations is further evidenced by 
the addition of an equivalency option after the bill had been passed 
(Public Law 103-195).
    Comment: A number of comments were received concerning whether or 
not meeting one or all of the selected equivalency criteria was 
sufficient. These commenters recommended replacing the word or in the 
phrase ``prevent flashover in the room of origin, limit fire size to no 
more than 1 megawatt (950 Btu/sec), or prevent flames from leaving the 
room of origin'' with the word and.
    Response: The word or was chosen specifically in preference to and. 
The intent of this statement was that the condition or conditions 
producing the most hazardous exposure to building occupants be selected 
for measuring equivalency. For example, it could be concluded that an 
acceptable level of safety had been achieved if flames did not extend 
beyond the room of origin. If flashover or the 1 MW fire represented a 
more severe hazard to building occupants, this conclusion would not be 
valid.
    Comment: Many commenters raised issues associated with the 
definition of the room of origin, specifically raising concerns related 
to establishing an appropriate size. Is it appropriate to use a closet 
as the room of origin? What would the room of origin be in an area with 
open plan space?
    Response: The concept of room of origin was deliberately left open 
to encourage comments. Based on comments received, the definition of 
room of origin is being refined to include a maximum area limitation of 
200 m2 (2000 ft.2). Fires involving areas greater than 200 
m2 pose substantial difficulties for firefighters and threaten 
occupants, especially those located on upper levels of high-rise 
structures. Exit paths are easily jeopardized by fires involving 200 or 
more square meters of floor area. In order to provide equivalent life 
safety, especially in high-rise structures, no fire area should be 
permitted to exceed 200 m2. Fire separations or other protective 
measures should be provided to limit potential fire areas.
    Comment: A few commenters questioned the use of flashover as an 
endpoint criteria.
    Response: Flashover was selected as an endpoint for two reasons. 
First, the potential for flashover can have a significant impact on 
required notification time. Prior to flashover, a fire represents a 
hazard primarily to occupants in the room of origin. The energy 
released by the fire is insufficient to ``drive'' significant 
quantities of products of combustion beyond the room of origin. Any 
smoke that leaves is low temperature and contains minimal amounts of 
toxic gases. Based on a series of fire tests in mobile homes, 
researchers at the National Bureau of Standards (now the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology) concluded ``Limiting conditions 
adverse to life safety are likely to be reached in the living room at 
the end of the mobile home remote from the bedroom where the fire 
started at approximately the same time that flashover occurs in the 
bedroom. Limiting levels of carbon monoxide and oxygen are less likely 
to be reached in the living room if flashover does not occur in the 
bedroom.''(Budnick, E.K., Klein, D.P., and O'Laughlin, R.J., ``Mobile 
Home Bedroom Fire Studies: The Role of Interior Finish,'' NBSIR 78-
1531, National Bureau of Standards Center for Fire Research, September 
1978.) Occupants in the room of origin should be able to detect a fire 
and leave prior to flashover. If flashover is expected, the use of 
sophisticated fire alarm systems will be required to provide sufficient 
egress time for building occupants outside the room of origin.
    A second reason for flashover as an endpoint is its use as a 
firesafety performance objective in the national consensus standards. 
Two of the three sprinkler installation standards referenced in the 
Federal Fire Safety Act use flashover as an objective. These two 
standards (NFPA 13D and 13R) indicate that a sprinkler system 
``installed in accordance with this standard is expected to prevent 
flashover (total involvement) in the room of fire origin, where 
sprinklered, and to improve the chance for occupants to escape or be 
evacuated.'' The third standard (NFPA 13) simply states that its 
objective is ``to provide a reasonable degree of protection for life 
and property from fire.'' Currently, compliance with the specifications 
contained in the standard is the only way to judge whether or not the 
proposed performance objective has been achieved. Several large loss 
fires have indicated that complying with the requirements in the 
standard may not always adequately protect the specific hazard and 
ensure attainment of the firesafety objective. In recognition of this, 
the NFPA has recently formed a group, composed of members of the 
sprinkler installation standard committee, to develop a fully 
performance oriented sprinkler installation standard. In addition, the 
NFPA has established a project, under the Committee on Hazard and Risk 
of Contents and Furnishings, to develop a document on prevention of 
flashover titled Guide on Methods for Decreasing the Probability of 
Flashover.
    Comment: A number of commenters questioned the definition of 
reasonable worst case scenario and several provided recommendations for 
improving the definition.
    Response: The reasonable worst case scenario definition was not 
intended to be an all inclusive listing of things to be considered in 
conducting an equivalency analysis. Based on comments received, the 
definition is being expanded to identify additional items which should 
be considered in establishing reasonable worst case scenarios. Specific 
issues to be considered as part of a worst case scenario are types of 
fuel (paper, plastics, chemicals), form and arrangement of fuel 
(furniture, shredded newspaper, stacked chairs), availability of 
suppression systems (sprinkler system, fire department), capability of 
suppression systems (proper sprinkler system design, fire department 
manning, fire department response time) and capability of occupants 
(awake, asleep, intoxicated, physically or mentally impaired).
    Comment: A few commenters suggested identifying recommended 
alternatives to complete sprinkler protection such as specific 
compartmentation or detection system requirements.
    Response: The Act specifies one method, complete sprinkler 
protection, of achieving a prescribed level of life safety. The 
equivalent level of safety option is the exception to the general rule 
of complete sprinkler protection. If a list of alternatives was 
provided, sprinkler protection would become one of several options 
instead of the intended primary choice. In applying the equivalent 
level of safety provision, each building must be evaluated on its own 
merits and an individualized fire protection strategy developed. Each 
application of the equivalent level of safety option will involve a 
different set of circumstances. A list of recommended alternatives 
would not provide the necessary flexibility or allow for scientific and 
technological advancements.
    Comment: A few comments expressed concern that the regulation 
attempts to force the use of computer based fire models which the 
commenters suggested were in the infancy stages of development and 
produced inconsistent results.
    Response: The law is explicit that equivalency be based on a fire 
protection engineering analysis. The proposed rule suggests several 
tools that can be chosen based on the specific situation, including 
fire models. The decision of which tools to use is left to the engineer 
and agency to decide, based on the needs of each case. The use of 
engineering calculation methods is encouraged, models are but one way 
of efficiently applying first principles.
    From a public policy perspective, the use of engineering 
applications must be encouraged to better prepare the engineering 
community for global competition. A Conference on Firesafety Design in 
the 21st Century, held in May 1991, at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 
graphically illustrated how far the United States had lagged behind 
other countries in developing performance-based building codes and 
applying analytical measurement techniques. Computer based models are 
readily accepted for use in a variety of countries, including Japan, 
United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia. These countries have 
embraced these design concepts and are capable of building and 
operating better performing and most cost-effective facilities. 
Recognizing this face, the National Fire Protection Association has 
established a task force on its Board of Directors to expedite its 
activities in the development and dissemination of computational 
methods.
    These computational methods are no longer research and development 
activities. A variety of validation tests on many different models have 
been reported and indicate very good correlation with full scale fire 
tests and experience. Calculation procedures, including computer 
models, have been used in fire reconstruction with excellent results in 
determining the course of events. New information is being developed 
almost daily, supporting the use of calculation methods and models to 
develop sound engineering solutions to fire protection problems.
    Finally, the various tools suggested in the proposed rule have a 
wide variety of support. The Fire Safety Evaluation System, for 
example, is codified in the manual Alternative Approaches to Life 
Safety (NFPA 101M), which is developed and accepted through the 
national consensus standards process. Numerous calculation methods have 
been accepted and compiled in the Handbook of Fire Protection 
Engineering, the source document for engineering methods for the fire 
protection engineering profession. The use of calculation methods and 
computer models is commonplace in other engineering disciplines. If 
fire protection engineering is to be accepted as an engineering 
discipline, it must accept, understand, and use these analytical tools.

D. Qualifications and Consistency Issues

    Comment: Several comments were received regarding the 
qualifications of the personnel conducting the equivalent level of 
safety analyses.
    Response: The required years of experience factor has been 
increased from two to four. This modification brings the three 
qualification options into closer agreement. The education requirement 
has been modified to reflect technical differences between 
undergraduate and graduate engineering programs. In addition, it has 
been revised to allow for engineers trained outside the United States.
    Comment: A number of commenters inquired as to who should or could 
review equivalent level of safety analyses.
    Response: As stated in the proposed rule, the head of the agency 
making facility improvements or providing Federal assistance is 
ultimately responsible for determining the acceptability of an 
equivalent level of safety analysis. In developing this determination, 
an independent review of the analysis by Government fire protection 
engineering professionals will be required. However, a few fire 
protection engineering professionals, employed by Federal Government 
agencies, indicated they did not have the expertise to conduct the 
required reviews. This concern was not shared by other fire protection 
engineers, including those working for private consulting firms. 
Comments from these engineers indicated they could conduct and review 
the analyses as appropriate. It may be necessary for Government 
agencies who lack in-house professional expertise to contract with 
private firms or other Government agencies (General Services 
Administration Central Office for example) for services to review 
equivalent level of safety analyses.
    Several commenters expressed a desire to have specific Federal 
Government agency, the General Services Administration, responsible for 
the review of all equivalent level of safety analyses. Discussion of 
the issues associated with this option is beyond the scope of this 
regulation. As resources permit, the General Services Administration 
will develop and distribute, from time to time, information on 
conducting and evaluating equivalent level of safety analyses. In 
addition, the GSA will maintain a library of its own successful 
analyses and will seek to establish a dialogue with other agencies 
concerning determining an equivalent level of safety. Other Federal 
agencies should consider maintaining their own libraries of equivalent 
level of safety analyses.
    A final issue associated with review of equivalent level of safety 
analyses concerns the involvement of local jurisdictions. 
Implementation of the Federal Fire Safety Act and this regulation 
cannot place a burden on local jurisdictions. Local jurisdictions 
cannot be required to review or evaluate an equivalent level of safety 
analysis. However, the equivalent level of safety analysis should be 
provided to the local jurisdiction as part of the required prefire 
planning.
    Comment: Some comments were received concerning the consistency to 
be expected from the equivalent level of safety analyses.
    Response: Any engineering analysis is dependent on a variety of 
assumptions. Individuals are likely to make different assumptions. Even 
in the interpretation of written words in a code book, different 
courses of action are recommended by different individuals. Uniformity 
of application is an issue inherent in dealing with human beings, and 
not unique to engineering analyses. An analysis based on the 
application of science-based first principles should provide consistent 
results. While the recommended corrective actions may differ, the use 
of personnel with the minimum qualifications identified in the 
regulation will ensure that the technical support for the 
recommendations is consistent with the governing principles of physics 
and chemistry.

E. Miscellaneous

    Comment: A number of commenters identified editorial corrections or 
provided updated or corrected statistical data.
    Response: These comments have been adopted to the extent the 
referenced section of the regulation remains in the final rule.

VI. Summary of Changes

    As a result of the public comments, a number of changes were made 
to the regulation. These changes are briefly outlined in this section.
    1. The scope of the regulation has been modified and expanded to 
clarify the intent of this regulation and its impact on local codes and 
standards.
    2. The qualification requirements have been modified to bring the 
three alternatives into closer alignment, clarify some issues, and 
provide opportunities for engineers educated in other countries.
    3. The room of origin has been defined to set a maximum limit on 
the potential size of an involved area.
    4. The definition of reasonable worst case scenario has been 
expanded to clarify its meaning.
    5. The equivalency criteria have been changed to better link the 
equivalency measurement to the mandated baseline level of safety 
associated with complete sprinkler protection.
    The General Services Administration (GSA) has determined that this 
rule is a significant regulatory action for the purposes of Executive 
Order 12866. The rule is written to ensure maximum benefits to Federal 
agencies. This Governmentwide management regulation will have little or 
no cost effect on society. Therefore, the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 101-6

    Civil rights, Government property management, Grant programs, 
Intergovernmental relations, Surplus Government property, Relocation 
assistance, Real property acquisition, Fire protection, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 41 CFR Part 101-6 is 
amended as follows:

PART 101-6--MISCELLANEOUS REGULATIONS

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

    Authority: Sec 205(c), 63 Stat. 390; 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 31 U.S.C. 
1344(e)(1).

Subpart 106-6.6--Fire Protection (Firesafety) Engineering

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

Subpart 101-6.6--Fire Protection (Firesafety) Engineering

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


Sec. 101-6.600  Scope of subpart.

    This subpart provides the regulations of the General Services 
Administration (GSA) under Title I of the Fire Administration 
Authorization Act of 1992 concerning definition and determination of 
equivalent level of safety. The primary objective of this regulation is 
to provide a quantifiable means of determining compliance with the 
requirements of the Act. It is not a substitute for compliance with 
building and fire code requirements typically used in construction and 
occupancy of buildings.


Sec. 101-6.601  Background.

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


Sec. 101-6.602  Application.

    The requirements of the Act and this subpart apply to all Federal 
agencies and all federallly owned and leased buildings in the United 
States, except those under the control of the Resolution Trust 
Corporation.


Sec. 101-6.603  Definitions

    (a) Qualified fire protection engineer is defined as an individual, 
with a thorough knowledge and understanding of the principles of 
physics and chemistry governing fire growth, spread, and suppression, 
meeting one of the following criteria:
    (1) An engineer having an undergraduate or graduate degree from a 
college or university offering a course of study in fire protection or 
firesafety engineering, plus a minimum of four (4) years work 
experience in fire protection engineering,
    (2) A professional engineer (P.E. or similar designation) 
registered in Fire Protection Engineering, or
    (3) A professional engineer (P.E. or similar designation) 
registered in a related engineering discipline and holding Member grade 
status in the International Society of Fire Protection Engineers.
    (b) Flashover means fire conditions in a confined area where the 
upper gas layer temperature reaches 600  deg.C (1100  deg.F) and the 
heat flux at floor level exceeds 20 kW/m\2\ (1.8 Btu/ft\2\/sec).
    (c) Reasonable worst case fire scenario means a combination of an 
ignition source, fuel items, and a building location likely to produce 
a fire which would have a significant adverse impact on the building 
and its occupants. The development of reasonable worst case scenarios 
must include consideration of types and forms of fuels present (e.g., 
furniture, trash, paper, chemicals), potential fire ignition locations 
(e.g., bedroom, office, closet, corridor), occupant capabilities (e.g., 
awake, intoxicated, mentally or physically impaired), numbers of 
occupants, detection and suppression system adequacy and reliability, 
and fire department capabilities. A quantitative analysis of the 
probability of occurrence of each scenario and combination of events 
will be necessary.
    (d) Room of origin means an area of a building where a fire can be 
expected to start. Typically, the size of the area will be determined 
by the walls, floor, and ceiling surrounding the space. However, this 
could lead to unacceptably large areas in the case of open plan office 
space or similar arrangements. Therefore, the maximum allowable fire 
area should be limited to 200 m\2\ (2000 ft\2\) including intervening 
spaces. In the case of residential units, an entire apartment occupied 
by one tenant could be considered as the room of origin to the extent 
it did not exceed the 200 m\2\ (2000 ft\2\) limitation.


Sec. 101-6.604  Requirements.

    (a) The equivalent level of life safety evaluation is to be 
performed by a qualified fire protection engineer. The analysis should 
include a narrative discussion of the features of the building 
structure, function, operational support systems and occupant 
activities which impact fire protection and life safety. Each analysis 
should describe potential reasonable worst case fire scenarios and 
their impact on the building occupants and structure. Specific issues 
which must be addressed include rate of fire growth, type and location 
of fuel items, space layout, building construction, openings and 
ventilation, suppression capability, detection time, occupant 
notification, occupant reaction time, occupant mobility, and means of 
egress.
    (b) To be acceptable, the analysis must indicate that the existing 
and/or proposed safety systems in the building provide a period of time 
equal to or greater than the amount of time available for escape in a 
similar building complying with the Act. In conducting these analyses, 
the capability, adequacy, and reliability of all building systems 
impacting fire growth, occupant knowledge of the fire, and time 
required to reach a safety area will have to be examined. In 
particular, the impact of sprinklers on the development of hazardous 
conditions in the area of interest will have to be assessed. Three 
options are provided for establishing that an equivalent level of 
safety exists.
    (1) In the first option, the margin of safety provided by various 
alternatives is compared to that obtained for a code complying building 
with complete sprinkler protection. The margin of safety is the 
difference between the available safe egress time and the required safe 
egress time. Available safe egressd time is the time available for 
evacuation of occupants to an area of safety prior to the onset of 
untenable conditions in occupied areas or the egress pathways. The 
required safe egress time is the time required by occupants to move 
from their positions at the start of the fire to areas of safety. 
Available safe egress times would be developed based on analysis of a 
number of assumed reasonable worst case fire scenarios including 
assessment of a code complying fully sprinklered building. Additional 
analysis would be used to determine the expected required safe egress 
times for the various scenarios. If the margin of safety plus an 
appropriate safety factor is greater for an alternative than for the 
fully sprinklered building, then the alternative should provide an 
equivalent level of safety.
    (2) A second alternative is applicable for typical office and 
residential scenarios. In these situations, complete sprinkler 
protection can be expected to prevent flashover in the room of fire 
origin, limit fire size to no more than 1 megawatt (950 Btu/sec), and 
prevent flames from leaving the room of origin. The times required for 
each of these conditions to occur in the area of interest must be 
determined. The shortest of these three times would become the time 
available for escape. The difference between the minimum time available 
for escape and the time required for evacuation of building occupants 
would be the target margin of safety. Various alternative protection 
strategies would have to be evaluated to determine their impact on the 
times at which hazardous conditions developed in the spaces of interest 
and the times required for egress. If a combination of fire protection 
systems provides a margin of safety equal to or greater than the target 
margin of safety, then the combination could be judged to provide an 
equivalent level of safety.
    (3) As a third option, other technical analysis procedures, as 
approved by the responsible agency head, can be used to show 
equivalency.
    (c) Analytical and empirical tools, including fire models and 
grading schedules such as the Fire Safety Evaluation System 
(Alternative Approaches to Life Safety, NEPA 101M) should be used to 
support the life safety equivalency evaluation. If fire modeling is 
used as part of an analysis, an assessment of the predictive 
capabilities of the fire models must be included. This assessment 
should be conducted in accordance with the American Society for Testing 
and Materials Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability 
of Fire Models (ASTM E 1355).


Sec. 101-6.605  Responsibility.

    The head of the agency responsible for physical improvements in the 
facility or providing Federal assistance or a designated representative 
will determine the acceptability of each equivalent level of safety 
analysis. The determination of acceptability must include a review of 
the fire protection engineer's qualifications, the appropriateness of 
the fire scenarios for the facility, and the reasonableness of the 
assumed maximum probable loss. Agencies should maintain a record of 
each accepted equivalent level of safety analysis and provide copies to 
fire departments or other local authorities for use in developing 
prefire plans.

    Dated: September 29, 1994.
Julia M. Stasch,
Acting Administrator of General Services.
[FR Doc. 94-27020 Filed 10-31-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-23-M