Difference Between "Permitted" and "Required"?

5/10/2024

What is the difference between the terms "permitted" and "required" in NFPA standards?

For example, a later chapter will say that "Smokeproof enclosures complying with 7.2.3 shall be permitted.", which will point you back to:

7.2.3.1 General. "Where smokeproof enclosures are required in other sections of this Code, they shall comply with 7.2.3, unless they are approved existing smokeproof enclosures."

The "parent" section uses the phrase "where 'required' elsewhere", while the occupancy-specific section uses "permitted", as in allowed to be required, without specifically requiring it.

This feels very cyclic.

Am I directed back to the separation requirements of Chapter 6, or is there something buried in the occupancy chapter that I am not seeing?

Thanks in advance.

Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

5 Comments

Dan Wilder

5/10/2024 08:16:42 am

This got really long, hope the coffee cup is full...

Looks like you're pulling from NFPA 101...looking at those sections

7.2.3 - Indicates that "Where" the enclosures are required they must comply with that section
37.2.2.4 - Indicates that Smokeproof enclosures are permitted WHEN they comply with 7.2.3 (specific to "Means of Egress Components")

There are other options as indicated within 7.2.3.2 and the meet the definition in 3.3.277 Smokeproof Enclosure.

That entire 37.2.2 lists out several items like Doors, Stairs, Smokeproof Enclosures, Horizontal Exits, Ramps, Exit Passageways, Escalators & Moving Walks, Fire Escape Stairs, Fire Escape Ladders, Alternating Tread Devices, and Areas of Refuge....each pointing back to another section to comply with when required, but nowhere does it say that ALL of these are required to be used and (in most cases as there are several occupancy specific exceptions) does not require any one specific method to be complied with.

Looks like 11.3.4.4.7(Airport Traffic Control Towers) requires Smokeproof Enclosures, as does 11.8.2.3 (stairs serving the High-Rise portion of a building, but then not required when the building is fully sprinklered per 18.4.3.2)

I also keep the Glossary of Terms handy for definitions...60% of the time it's clear every time when things are vague

From the Glossary of Terms:

Required - Required by this Code.(pretty basic)

Permitted - Allowed or acceptable, and not requiring a permit (a
document granting permission) to be secured.

When the definition is vague or not provided, Chapter 3.1 of each of the standards indicates:

The definitions contained in this chapter shall apply to the terms used in this standard. Where terms are not defined in this chapter or within another chapter, they shall be defined using their ordinarily accepted meanings within the context in which they are used. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, shall be the source for the ordinarily accepted meaning.

https://www.nfpa.org/downloadable-resources/definitions/nfpa-glossary-of-terms-2021

Glenn Berger

5/10/2024 08:30:22 am

Summarizing what Dan posted -

Permitted - Shall be allowed.

Shall - Must be done.

Jerry Clark

5/10/2024 08:44:19 am

When a standard uses the term "required," it indicates a mandatory provision that must be adhered to. This means compliance with the requirement is necessary for meeting the standard and ensuring safety. Failure to meet a "required" provision could lead to non-compliance with the standard and potential safety hazards.

On the other hand, when a standard uses the term "permitted," it signifies an allowance or option within the standard. This means that while a certain action or condition is permitted according to the standard, it is not mandatory. Users have the discretion to choose whether or not to implement the permitted option, as long as they are aware of and adhere to any associated conditions or limitations specified in the standard.

Steve Cooper

5/10/2024 09:21:37 am

My company recently had a training with NFPA specifically for NFPA 13. The biggest thing we learned was the reason they use vague language. Our instructor made it simple by saying NFPA is the minimum. Per NFPA you are permitted to blah blah but, it also mentions AHJ has the final say. In my experience always design per NFPA but be well versed in your AHJ's requirements. They could be different, and you might not find out till plan review or even install.

Jon

5/10/2024 11:08:37 am

For years the codes and standards have been written using "exceptions". Example: "All Group Z occupancies shall be protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system. Exception: Groups Z occupancies less than 5,000 sq. ft. in size." Some argue it is simply easier to say, "All Group Z occupancies 5,000 or more sq. ft. in size shall be protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system."

Ruling by exception can be confusing. Most laws, rules, and regulations do not use exceptions. Some argue that you should say what you mean, and you should not say what you don't mean.

About 12-15 years ago, NFPA made a conscious decision to move away from exceptions in their codes and standards. Rather than having written "exceptions", many of these former exceptions were made into permissive language ("... shall be permitted").

The term "shall be permitted" allows something as an option that the code or standard does not generally accept. "Shall" is a mandate; something is required.

A few editions ago, one of the model codes had a section with 13 exceptions (and one of the exceptions had 7 conditions attached to it). One of the exceptions referred to another chapter and section of the code that had an additional 9 exceptions (one of which had 2 conditions attached to it). Your head hurt trying to read and apply it. Fortunately, the wording in that section got fixed in subsequent code changes.

Leave a Reply.

Home
Our Cause

The Blog
The Forum

PE Exam Prep
The Toolkit
MeyerFire University

Pricing
Login
Support
Contact Us

MeyerFire.com is a startup community built to help fire protection professionals shine.
Our goal is to improve fire protection practices worldwide. We promote the industry by creating helpful tools and resources, and by bringing together industry professionals to share their expertise.

MeyerFire, LLC is a NICET Recognized Training Provider and International Code Council Preferred Education Provider.
All text, images, and media Copyright © 2016-2025 MeyerFire, LLC

We respect your privacy and personal data. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. The views, opinions, and information found on this site represent solely the author and do not represent the opinions of any other party, nor does the presented material assume responsibility for its use. Fire protection and life safety systems constitute a critical component for public health and safety and you should consult with a licensed professional for proper design and code adherence.

Discussions are solely for the purpose of peer review and the exchange of ideas. All comments are reviewed. Comments which do not contribute, are not relevant, are spam, or are disrespectful in nature may be removed. Information presented and opinions expressed should not be relied upon as a replacement for consulting services. Some (not all) outbound links on this website, such as Amazon links, are affiliate-based where we receive a small commission for orders placed elsewhere.

Difference Between "Permitted" and "Required"?

Leave a Reply.

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

COMMUNITY

YOUR POST

PE EXAM

FILTERS

ARCHIVES

PE PREP SERIES