Sprinkler Age A Publication of the American Fire Sprinkler Association
AFSA staff represented the association and AFSA’s Technical Advisory Council (TAC) at the 2026 NFPA Technical Meeting in Las Vegas. In addition to the results of the 2026 NFPA Technical Meeting, a summary of the discussions during the meeting and future action plans will be discussed in this issue’s column.
NFPA 101, Life Safety Code®
CAM 101-11 – Required Sprinkler Systems in Small Board and Care Conversions
Reject Second Correlating Revision No. 15
Vote of NFPA Membership: PASSED
CAM 101-11 sought to reject SCR-15, which reinstated an exception allowing certain small board and care conversions with eight or fewer residents to remain unsprinklered where occupants could reliably relocate to a point of safety within three minutes. Based on this action, the sprinkler exception would be removed, and these facilities would be required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system.
The Technical Committee originally removed the exception by a vote of 20-0, concluding that conversions should provide the same level of safety as new facilities and that the three-minute evacuation criterion was no longer appropriate. The Correlating Committee reinstated the exception because it believed insufficient technical substantiation had been provided regarding fire-loss experience and economic impacts. A task group has been established to further evaluate those issues.
During the floor discussion, supporters also questioned relying on an evacuation test that cannot be conducted until residents occupy the facility. The membership ultimately sided with the Technical Committee and rejected the Correlating Committee action.
CAM 101-2 – Valet Trash
Reject Second Correlating Revision No. 20
Vote of NFPA Membership: FAILED
CAM 101-2 sought to remove the new sprinkler requirement associated with valet trash collection in existing apartment buildings. Since the CAM failed, the proposed NFPA 101 language requiring sprinkler protection as a condition of permitting valet trash service remains.
The discussion focused on whether the sprinkler provision is an appropriate safeguard or effectively prohibits valet trash in existing unsprinklered buildings. Industry representatives argued that fire-resistant containers, limited collection periods, and management controls provide an acceptable level of protection. They also cited the lack of reported fires attributed to valet trash operations and argued that most owners would discontinue the service rather than retrofit an existing building with sprinklers.
AFSA opposed the CAM. Bob Caputo noted that sprinkler requirements are intended to prevent and control potential fire hazards and should not depend solely on whether fires have previously occurred. Other opponents emphasized the additional combustible loading introduced into corridors and its potential impact on occupant egress and firefighter safety.
NFPA 55, Compressed Gases and Cryogenic Fluids Code
CAM 55-4 – Sprinkler Discharge Criteria for Flammable Pyrophoric Gases
Reject Second Correlating Revision No. 15
Vote of NFPA Membership: FAILED
CAM 55-4 sought to return the sprinkler design criteria for areas containing flammable or pyrophoric compressed gases and flammable cryogenic fluids from Extra Hazard Group 1 (EH1) to Ordinary Hazard Group 2 (OH2). Since the CAM failed, the EH1 criteria established by SR-24 remain, with an allowance for OH2 protection under certain conditions involving Type I or Type II construction.
Supporters argued that sprinkler protection in these areas is primarily intended to control exposure fires and cool compressed gas cylinders rather than extinguish a flammable gas fire. They maintained that OH2 provides sufficient discharge and expressed concern that excessive sprinkler discharge could extinguish a gas jet flame and allow unburned gas to accumulate.
The Technical Committee concluded that OH2 was insufficient for the broader flammable gas hazard and noted that EH1 protection has historically been required. AFSA opposed the CAM, noting that the NFPA 13 definition of Extra Hazard includes occupancies involving flammable or combustible gases. AFSA also noted that the density/area curve terminology referenced in support of the CAM is no longer applicable under NFPA 13.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Kevin Hall, M.Eng., P.E., ET, CWBSP, PMSFPE, is the Director of Engineering for the American Fire Sprinkler Association (AFSA). He is a member of several National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) technical committees responsible for developing the model codes and standards, including, NFPA 1 Fire Code, NFPA 13/13R/13D Installation of Sprinkler Systems, NFPA 20 Installation of Stationary Fire Pumps for Fire Protection, NFPA 25 Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems, and NFPA 200 Hanging, Bracing, and Anchorage of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems. He also represents AFSA on numerous UL technical committees responsible for revising and maintaining the product standards used in the sprinkler industry. He is a registered professional engineer in Delaware and Maryland, NICET III certified in water-based system layout, a certified water-based system professional through NFPA, and a professional member of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE). He earned his Bachelor of Science and Master of Engineering degrees from the University of Maryland College Park in fire protection engineering. In 2021, he was recognized as one of SFPE’s “5 Under 35” award recipients. Prior to his association and committee work, he worked for Reliance Fire Protection in Baltimore, Maryland as a project manager overseeing projects of various sizes and complexity.