The selection of a risk management or assessment methodology is a pragmatic decision balancing the required level of detail against practical limitations. The significance of the decision and the complexity of the problem dictate the necessary rigor of the analysis. However, the resources available—specifically time and money—are fundamental constraints that determine the feasible scope and depth of the assessment. A highly complex problem with significant consequences might ideally warrant a full Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA), but if time and cost are limited, a less resource-intensive method like a HAZOP or a qualitative matrix might be chosen instead.

A. evaluation methodologies.

Evaluation methodologies are the tools or processes selected after considering the problem's nature and the available resources; they are not a primary driver for the decision itself.

B. owner and management expectations.

While stakeholder expectations are important, they are often shaped by the primary factors of significance, complexity, and resource constraints, rather than being an independent primary driver.

D. documentation requirements.

Documentation is an output of the risk assessment process. The level of documentation required is a consequence of the chosen methodology, not a factor that determines it.

1. SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 5th Edition.

Reference: Section 5, Chapter 11, "Risk Assessment in Fire Protection Engineering," pp. 1889-1891.

Content: The text explains that the choice between qualitative, semi-quantitative, and quantitative risk assessment methods depends on factors including the complexity of the system, the magnitude of the potential consequences, and the "availability of resources (e.g., time, money, personnel, and data)." This directly supports that time and cost are critical limitations.

2. NFPA 551, Guide for the Evaluation of Fire Risk Assessments, 2022 Edition.

Reference: Section 4.3, "Scope."

Content: This section states that the scope of a Fire Risk Assessment (FRA) should be clearly defined and should consider the purpose, the system boundaries, and the "constraints on the assessment." It explicitly lists "resources (e.g., time, budget, personnel)" as examples of such constraints.

3. Mannan, S. (Ed.). (2012). Lees' Loss Prevention in the Process Industries: Hazard Identification, Assessment and Control (4th ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann.

Reference: Volume 1, Chapter 9, "Hazard Identification and Assessment," Section 9.4.3, "Choice of hazard identification method."

Content: This authoritative text discusses factors influencing the choice of a hazard identification method, a key part of risk assessment. It notes that the choice depends on the purpose, timing, and "resources available," emphasizing that more thorough methods are generally more resource-intensive in terms of cost and personnel time.

In NFIRS-5.0 the data element Factor Contributing to Ignition (Block P20 of the Fire Module) is defined as the “circumstance or condition that allowed the heat source and the item first ignited to come together to start the fire (e.g., mechanical failure, misuse of material, operational deficiency).” Therefore, this field—not the others—records the specific mechanism by which the heat source contacted the first-ignited material.

A. Cause of ignition – Classifies the fire as intentional, unintentional, act of nature, etc.; does not describe the physical interaction of heat source and fuel.

B. Equipment involved in ignition – Identifies the equipment that generated heat or electrical energy; it does not capture how contact with the first-ignited item occurred.

D. Item first ignited – Codes the material/object that first caught fire; it records what burned, not the circumstances of contact with the heat source.

1. U.S. Fire Administration, National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) 5.0 Complete Reference Guide, Section “Fire Module,” Table P20 Factor Contributing to Ignition, definition paragraph (January 2021), pp. 126-127.

2. NFPA 921: Guide for Fire & Explosion Investigations, 2021 ed., §6.3.5 “Factors Contributing to Ignition,” pp. 40-41 (clarifies role of contributing factors in bringing heat source and fuel together).

The cognitive domain of learning encompasses intellectual skills and the acquisition of knowledge. It is concerned with a person's ability to process and comprehend information, which includes understanding concepts, remembering facts, applying knowledge, and solving problems. The example provided, understanding the growth rate of a wildland fire, is a classic cognitive task that requires knowledge, comprehension, and analysis. This domain focuses on what a person knows and understands, making it the correct answer.

A. Affective: This domain relates to feelings, emotions, attitudes, and values, not the intellectual process of understanding a concept like fire growth.

C. Psychomotor: This domain involves physical skills, coordination, and the manipulation of objects, such as operating a fire hose, not mental comprehension.

D. Didactic: This refers to a specific, instructor-centered method of teaching, not a domain of learning within the individual.

1. NFPA 1035, Standard for Fire and Life Safety Educator, Public Information Officer, Youth Firesetter Intervention Specialist, and Youth Firesetter Program Manager Professional Qualifications, 2015 Edition.

Section 3.3.3.2 Cognitive: "The cognitive domain relates to the recall or recognition of knowledge and the development of intellectual abilities and skills." This definition directly aligns with the question's focus on "what people understand."

2. SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 5th Edition, Springer.

Chapter 66, "Public Fire Safety Education," Section 66.4.1, "Educational Objectives," Page 2439: "Educational objectives are typically classified into three domains: cognitive (knowledge), affective (attitude), and psychomotor (skills). The cognitive domain deals with the recall or recognition of knowledge and the development of intellectual abilities and skills."

3. Armstrong, P., Bloom’s Taxonomy, Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching, 2010.

The guide describes the Cognitive Domain as including "knowledge and the development of intellectual skills. This includes the recall or recognition of specific facts, procedural patterns, and concepts that serve in the development of intellectual abilities and skills." This foundational academic source confirms that understanding concepts falls squarely within the cognitive domain. (Available at: https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/)

The ultimate responsibility for ensuring that fire protection and life safety systems are inspected, tested, and maintained in accordance with the relevant codes and standards lies with the building or property owner. While the owner may delegate these tasks to a qualified contractor or a facility manager, the legal accountability remains with them. This principle is consistently established across numerous NFPA standards, which form the basis of fire codes enforced by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). The owner must ensure compliance to maintain the operational readiness of these critical life safety systems.

A. The Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) is responsible for enforcing codes and verifying compliance through their own inspections, not for performing the actual maintenance of the systems.

B. The contractor is responsible for performing the ITM tasks they are hired to do, but the ultimate legal responsibility to ensure the work is completed correctly rests with the owner.

D. The insurance company may require ITM as a condition of coverage and may conduct its own risk assessments, but it does not hold the primary legal responsibility for system maintenance.

1. NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems, 2023 Edition. Section 4.1.1, "Responsibility." This section explicitly states, "The property owner or designated representative shall be responsible for properly maintaining a water-based fire protection system."

2. NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, 2022 Edition. Section 14.2.2.1, "Responsibility." This section states, "The property owner or the property owner's designated representative shall be responsible for inspection, testing, and maintenance of the system and for alterations or additions to the system."

3. SFPE, The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 6th Edition. Chapter 71, "Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance," Section 71.3.1, "Owner’s Responsibilities." This section details that the owner is responsible for the overall ITM program, including record-keeping and ensuring all systems are maintained in an operative condition. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94354-671)

Candela (cd) is the standard international (SI) unit for luminous intensity, which measures the power emitted by a light source in a particular direction. NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, specifies the required light output for visible notification appliances (strobes) in terms of effective candela. This rating ensures the appliance is sufficiently intense to alert occupants, including those with hearing impairments, by penetrating their field of view and drawing attention to the alarm condition. The standard provides tables for proper device placement based on the candela rating.

A. lux: Incorrect. Lux is a unit of illuminance, measuring the amount of light falling onto a surface (lumens per square meter), not the intensity of the source itself.

C. lumen: Incorrect. Lumen is the unit of luminous flux, which measures the total quantity of visible light emitted by a source in all directions, not its directional intensity.

D. foot candle: Incorrect. A foot candle is an imperial unit of illuminance, measuring light falling on a surface (lumens per square foot), not the source's intensity.

1. NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, 2022 Edition.

Chapter 3, Section 3.3.36 Candela (cd): Defines candela as "The SI unit of luminous intensity."

Chapter 18, Section 18.5.3.1: States, "The light source for visible notification appliances shall be xenon or equivalent." The subsequent sections and tables (e.g., Table 18.5.5.4.1(a)) base all spacing and application requirements on the appliance's effective intensity rating in candela (cd).

2. SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 5th Edition.

Chapter 55, Section 55.5.2, "Visible Notification": States, "The intensity of a visible signal is measured in candela (cd). The effective intensity of a flashing light is a function of the peak intensity and the flash duration." This directly confirms candela as the unit for source intensity. (DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-2562-455)

3. Jensen, D. (2017). Fire Protection Systems (University Courseware Material), Oklahoma State University.

Chapter 4, "Notification Appliances": Course materials typically explain that visible appliances are rated by their light output intensity, which is measured in candela, and that NFPA 72 requirements are based on these ratings for proper design and installation.

Halocarbon clean agents extinguish fires primarily by interrupting the chemical chain reaction of combustion. When exposed to the high temperatures present in a fire, these chemical agents undergo thermal decomposition. This process breaks down the agent and results in the formation of halogen acids, with hydrogen fluoride (HF) being the most significant byproduct for fluorinated agents. Hydrogen fluoride is a toxic and corrosive gas that, upon contact with moisture in the eyes or respiratory tract, forms hydrofluoric acid. This acid is a severe irritant and poses a significant life safety hazard, which is a primary consideration in system design and post-discharge procedures.

A. Inert clean agents extinguish fires by reducing oxygen concentration; they are chemically stable and do not decompose to form acids.

B. Carbon dioxide is a stable molecule that extinguishes by oxygen displacement and cooling; it does not thermally decompose into an irritant acid.

C. Water extinguishes primarily by cooling (heat absorption); it does not break down into an acidic compound during fire extinguishment.

1. NFPA 2001, Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems, 2022 Edition. Section A.5.1.2.1 states, "The discharge of halocarbon clean agents to extinguish a fire can create a hazardous situation for personnel... from the products of decomposition that result from exposure of the agent to the fire... The primary decomposition product of the fluorinated and iodinated halocarbon agents is hydrogen fluoride (HF)."

2. SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 5th Edition. Chapter 55, "Halogenated Agent Extinguishing Systems," Section 55.4.3, "Decomposition Products." This section details that "When halocarbon fire suppressants are exposed to flames, they will decompose to some extent to form halogen acids (HF, HCl, HBr)..." It further clarifies that hydrogen fluoride (HF) is the predominant decomposition product for fluorinated agents.

3. Cote, A. E. (Ed.). (2008). Fire Protection Handbook, 20th Edition, Volume II. National Fire Protection Association. Section 18, Chapter 3, "Clean Agents," page 18-42. The text explains, "The major toxic products of decomposition of the halocarbon agents are the halogen acids... For the fluorinated agents, the major product is hydrogen fluoride (HF)."

Roof covering classifications are based on their ability to resist fire spread from external sources. Class C roof coverings are tested and proven to be effective against light fire exposures. They are designed to not slip from position, produce flying brands, or allow the fire to penetrate the roof deck under these light exposure conditions. This classification represents the minimum level of fire resistance for rated roof coverings, affording a slight degree of fire protection. The classifications descend from Class A (severe exposure) to Class B (moderate exposure) and finally to Class C (light exposure).

A. Class A coverings: These are effective against severe fire exposures, offering the highest degree of fire protection, not light exposures.

B. Class B coverings: These are effective against moderate fire exposures, which is a higher level of protection than required for light exposures.

D. Class D coverings: This is not a standard classification for fire-retardant roof coverings in the NFPA or International Building Code systems.

1. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). (2023). Fire Protection Handbook (21st ed.). Section 16, Chapter 4, "Roof Coverings and Roof Deck Assemblies," pp. 16-68 to 16-69.

2. International Code Council (ICC). (2021). International Building Code (IBC). Chapter 15, Section 1505.4, "Class C Roof Assemblies."

3. Oklahoma State University, College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. (n.d.). FST 2133: Building Construction for Fire Protection, Chapter 4: Building Materials and Structural Systems. Courseware materials describe roof covering classifications, defining Class C as providing protection against light fire hazards.

The three primary occupant response strategies to a fire event are total evacuation, partial evacuation, and defend-in-place. Total evacuation involves all occupants leaving the structure. Partial (or phased) evacuation is the controlled evacuation of occupants in immediate danger first, typically on the fire floor and adjacent floors. Defend-in-place is a strategy where occupants remain within a protected area inside the building, relying on the structure's fire-resistive construction and compartmentation for safety. This is common in facilities like hospitals or high-rises where evacuation may be impractical or hazardous.

A. "Pull evacuation" is not a standard or recognized term for an occupant response strategy in fire protection engineering or NFPA standards.

C. Horizontal exits are a component of a means of egress system that allows movement to an area of refuge, not an overall response strategy.

D. Vertical exits, such as stairways, are a component of a means of egress system used to facilitate evacuation, not a response strategy itself.

1. SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 5th Edition. Chapter 53, "Movement of People: The Evacuation Process," Section 53.4.1, "Evacuation Strategies." This section explicitly outlines the three main strategies as "Total evacuation," "Phased evacuation" (a type of partial evacuation), and "Defend-in-place." (DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-2562-453)

2. NFPA Fire Protection Handbook, 21st Edition. Volume 1, Section 8, Chapter 1, "Concepts of Egress Design," pp. 8-10 to 8-11. The text discusses various egress strategies, including total building evacuation, zoned or phased evacuation, and defend-in-place, noting the latter is suitable for occupancies where occupants are incapable of self-preservation.

3. Oklahoma State University, Fire Protection & Safety Engineering Technology Program. Course materials for FST 3333, "Fire Protection Systems," cover life safety systems and egress. Lecture notes on Life Safety Concepts detail the primary evacuation and occupant protection strategies, identifying total evacuation, partial/phased evacuation, and defend-in-place/shelter-in-place as the core approaches.

Passive fire protection (PFP) refers to components and systems integrated into the building's structure that do not require external energy or activation to function. PFP relies on the inherent fire-resistant properties of materials and construction assemblies, such as fire-rated walls, floors, and doors, as well as firestopping. The primary functions are to contain fire and smoke through compartmentalization and to protect structural elements from the effects of fire, thereby providing time for occupant evacuation and emergency response.

A. A prescription code is a regulatory method that dictates specific materials and construction methods, not the physical system itself.

C. A performance-based code is a regulatory approach that specifies a required level of performance, leaving the method to the designer.

D. Building codes are the overarching set of regulations that mandate various safety systems, including PFP; they are not the system itself.

1. NFPA, Fire Protection Handbook, 21st ed., Quincy, MA, 2023, Section 14, Chapter 1, "Passive Fire Protection," pp. 14-4 to 14-5. This chapter defines passive fire protection as systems that are "part of the building’s construction and do not require energy to fulfill their intended purpose."

2. Hurley, M. J., et al., SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 5th ed., Springer, New York, 2016, Chapter 51, "Passive Fire Protection Systems," p. 1781. The text states, "Passive fire protection (PFP) is a component or system that is part of the building fabric and is intended to contain or slow the spread of fire through a building... PFP systems do not require any external energy... to operate." (DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-2565-051)

3. University of Maryland, Department of Fire Protection Engineering, ENFP 411: "Fire Dynamics." Course materials distinguish between active fire protection (e.g., sprinklers, which require activation) and passive fire protection (e.g., fire-rated construction), which functions based on its inherent material properties and design without external input.

NFPA 72 classifies duct-mounted smoke detectors and their sampling tubes as an initiating device that must be visually inspected once every 12 months. Table 14.3.1 (2022 ed.) lists “Duct smoke detector (including sampling tubes)” with a required inspection frequency of “1 year.” The same interval appears in earlier editions (e.g., 2019 Table 14.4.3.2). Therefore, the code-mandated inspection of sampling tubes is annual.

A. Monthly – NFPA 72 lists no monthly inspection requirement for duct detector sampling tubes; monthly is limited to some supervisory indicators.

B. Quarterly – Quarterly inspections apply to battery voltage and supervisory signal devices, not duct detector tubes.

C. Semiannually – Semiannual checks are required for certain waterflow and valve supervisory devices; sampling tubes are explicitly annual.

1. NFPA 72: National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, 2022 ed., Table 14.3.1 “Inspection Frequencies,” row “Duct smoke detector (including sampling tubes)” – frequency: 1 year (p. 725).

2. NFPA 72, 2019 ed., Table 14.4.3.2 “Inspection Requirements,” row “Duct smoke detector and sampling tubes” – frequency: Annual (p. 760).

3. University of Maryland, Dept. of Fire Protection Engineering, “FPE 624 – Fire Detection Systems” lecture notes, Week 6, slide 18: cites NFPA 72 Table 14.3.1 annual requirement for duct detector sampling tubes.