What does "Shall Be Permitted" Mean in NFPA 13?

3/4/2024

The difference between "Should" and "Shall" statements is clearly understood by most of us.

How about "Shall be permitted" (for instance NFPA 13, 2019 9.3.2.2)?

Splitting frog of hairs but I'm guessing that it equates to "May be allowed"?

How do you interpret this?

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

6 Comments

Dan Wilder

3/4/2024 07:06:23 am

It's an allowance to something prior (the "parent" section) that has a hard definition, criteria, or requirement...

In this case 9.3.2 has several clarifying statements (horizontal combustible concealed space, slope not exceeding 2:12, **depth not exceeding 36"**)

All 3 sections 9.3.2.1, 9.3.2.2, and 9.3.2.3 all modify the "Parent" statement.

9.3.2.2 allows sprinklers in these conditions (stated in 9.3.2) but has the extra piece that says "when specifically listed...greater than 36"..."

Similarly, for example, 9.3.4.2.3 requires sprinklers beneath landings that are used for storage (i.e. accessible as stated in 9.3.4.2.1). 9.3.4.2.3.1 allows omission of that sprinkler when the area is "blocked off so that storage cannot occur". This specifically doesn't say the space is inaccessible, just that storage cannot occur.

Ricardo Gonzales Jr

3/4/2024 08:33:26 am

As defined in NFPA 1, Shall and Should have two different and distinct requirements.

"Shall" is mandatory and doesn't give any lee way to the requirement or allowance. It is possible to no have the shall IF the person disagreeing with the "Shall" proves an equivalent or improvement. This change can come from either the Designer/Engineer or the AHJ, in either case, needs to be in writing as selective amnesia is common between AHJs and Contractors and agreed by both sides, for future reference.

"Should" is a recommended path, however, can be changed if documented as an equivalent. It is recommended that the documentation be as detailed as a change from the "Shall" to avoid any future misconceptions or disagreements. Again, the agreement in writing and agreed to by both sides, contractors and AHJs.

All it takes is once in a court room to fully understand the implications of having any changes and details documented in writing. Phone calls are quicker, but always follow-up with emails.

Jesse

3/4/2024 09:53:18 am

Shall is typically required as the absolute requirement or allowance whereas should is an advisory recommendation.

I always recommend people check their local amendments. Several cases in my local area where AHJs have taken the model codes and replaced "should" with "shall"

Pete H

3/4/2024 01:05:13 pm

In my opinion, I go by the old rules:

Shall is a requirement.

Should is guidance.

Shall be permitted to me is "Is required to be allowed".

That said, the AHJ can override anything so "is required to be allowed" ends when they say "Okay, Even if that is allowed by code, I'm putting a requirement beyond code."

And at that point if they're nice, they make sure it's actually recorded in an ordinance because the requirement beyond code actually matters to them.

Glenn Berger

3/4/2024 01:41:31 pm

Not a lawyer here!

To me "Shall be allowed" providing some clarification on a technical merit that is not explicitly stated in the code.

"Should be allowed' is a statement that needs to be verified based upon specific conditions being met. A good idea, but maybe not in all cases.

Ivan J Humberson

3/6/2024 03:21:24 pm

Ever since NFPA standards removed "Exceptions", this is the kind of (sometimes confusing) language we now see in many sections. Basically, it usually refers to something that the main section would prohibit, but the "shall be permitted" allows an exception to the overall requirement/restriction. Personally, I felt that having "Exceptions" was a much cleaner and logical manner to describe what is required or not required. Today's methodology requires one to read every subsection just to ensure there are no 'shall be permitted' sections.

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 © 2016-2024 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.

What does "Shall Be Permitted" Mean in NFPA 13?

Leave a Reply.

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

COMMUNITY

YOUR POST

PE EXAM

FILTERS

ARCHIVES

PE PREP SERIES