Means of Escape in Residential Fires

The tragedy in Philadelphia two weeks ago, where 12 individuals lost their lives in a two-family home fire, underscores the importance of exit requirements in residential buildings ( including one-and two-family dwellings, apartments, hotels, and board and care facilities). Let’s take a moment and review means of escape  concepts a in these types of occupancies and  the importance of establishing and practicing home fire escape plans. Keep in mind,  code requirements in your specific area may vary from this guidance; however, the concepts are often very similar. What are the exit requirements? The requirements for exits in residential occupancies pertain to those that are  inside a residential unit, also known as a dwelling unit, and those applicable once an occupant is outside the dwelling unit. Inside the dwelling unit, the means of escape criteria provides a way out of the dwelling unit in an emergency – this criteriais a less stringent requirement than its counterpart, means of egress. Means of egress is an occupant’s way out of the building once outside their personal dwelling unit. As occupants spend a significant amount of time in their homes, they tend to be more familiar with the layout of their particular space, thus reducing the need for the more stringent requirements found in means of egress. However, means of escape will still be required. The concept of escape and egress is used in one- and two-family dwellings, lodging or rooming houses, apartments, hotels and dormitories, board and care facilities, and daycare homes as they are covered in NFPA 101®, Life Safety Code®.  This blog will focus on the requirements for the means of escape that are foundational to those residential occupancies. Whenever a dwelling unit has more than two rooms, all living and sleeping areas are required to have a primary and secondary means of escape unless 1) the room has access directly to the exterior via a door leading to ground level or 2) the dwelling unit is fully protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. The primary means must provide unobstructed access to the outside at ground level via a door, stairway, or ramp. This is almost always also the main entrance into/out of the dwelling unit. The secondary means of escape is intended to provide an alternate route in an emergency if the primary means becomes blocked. The four options for a secondary means of escape include: another primary means of escape or, passage through an adjacent non-lockable space which has an approved means of escape or, a window or, a bulkhead from a basement level. The figure below illustrates the concept of primary and secondary means of escape. When a doorway is part of the means of escape it must be a minimum of 24 in (61 cm) wide for bathrooms and rooms under 70 ft2 (6.4 m2) all others must be a minimum of 28 in (71.1 cm) wide. The height of all doors must be a minimum of 6.5 ft (1.98 m). Doors can be sliding or swinging and must not be locked against egress except with approved release mechanisms. In new dwelling units not protected throughout with an automatic fire sprinkler system where the area of a story exceeds 2000 ft2 two primary means of escape, located apart from each other are required. Providing windows as a means of escape is a common way to fulfill the secondary means of escape requirement, especially on lower floor levels.  An operable window may be used as a secondary means of escape provided it is: within 20 ft of the ground or directly accessible by fire apparatus or -opens onto an exterior balcony or if below ground level, has a window well. Home Fire Escape Plan Developing a home fire escape plan is one mechanism of identifying and communicating the means of escape in your residence. Code required means of escape provides an opportunity; however, it is important that occupants know where they are, how to access them quickly, and to practice using them regularly. Gather everyone you live with and take some time today to identify the primary and secondary means of escape in each living and sleeping space. Ensure they are not blocked by storage or furniture; the locking mechanisms, if permitted, operate easily, and everyone can use them. Schedule some time to practice using both the primary and secondary means. For more on how to develop your plan check out How to make a home fire escape plan from NFPA. Summary Codes require safe ways out of a residence in the event of an emergency, planning for them is the responsibility of the architect or engineer designing the structure, installing them is the responsibility of the contractor, verifying the installation is the responsibility of the inspector, but knowing how to use them is the responsibility of all occupants. For information on the code requirements check out NFPA 1 and NFPA 101, and visit our public education site for more information on home fire escape plans and other public education messages. References Dwelling Unit - One or more rooms arranged for complete, independent housekeeping purposes, with space for eating, living, and sleeping; facilities for cooking; and provisions for sanitation [NFPA 1]. Means of Escape - A way out of a building or structure that does not conform to the strict definition of means of egress but does provide an alternate way out [NFPA 1, NFPA 101]. Means of Egress - A continuous and unobstructed way of travel from any point in a building or structure to a public way consisting of three separate and distinct parts: (1) the exit access, (2) the exit, and (3) the exit discharge [NFPA 101].

Bronx and Philly Tragic Fires Remind Us that the Onus is on Us All to Make the World a Safer Place

A few weeks ago, I came back from the holiday break feeling refreshed, and even had a couple of ideas around electrical safety that I planned to write about in this blog. Then January 5th in Philly happened, followed four days later by  the Bronx fire on January 9. Suddenly, I didn’t want to write about electrical safety. My voice needs to speak to bigger, more pressing issues right now. My heart aches for every single person that has been impacted by these tragedies. Not only the 29 total victims of the fires, including 17 children, but their family members, other displaced tenants, and the first responders who will all live with these events for the rest of their lives. Grappling mentally with the horrific images from the scene, they will likely ask themselves countless times if there was something more they could have done. While it is no doubt human nature to ask that question, I don’t think it’s a fair one. In truth, the problem starts well before the response to the emergency. What should be asked is: What could we have done?   When I joined NFPA nearly two years ago, after more than 25 years in the electrical contracting industry, I was introduced to the NFPA Fire & Life Safety Ecosystem™, which features eight key components that are interdependent on one another to achieve safety and prevent tragedies like the ones we just witnessed. When disaster does strike, it is common that at least one of the eight components has broken down. In the cases of Philly and the Bronx, there were likely several components that faltered. As I learned more about the recent events and started analyzing what may have been missing from the ecosystem, I realized that I personally was failing in my application. I was viewing the ecosystem solely through the lens of the electrical world that I have been a part of for so long. But it is so much more than that.   Over the past week, my NFPA Technical Services department colleagues and I have had discussions at length about these tragedies. Our group is made up of subject matter experts (SME’s) that specialize in areas such as building and life safety, emergency response, fire protection, and electrical. As our discussions unfolded, I could see the NFPA Fire & Life Safety Ecosystem come into focus. Conversations centered around current codes, preparedness, and how we could better inform the public to make a difference. Specific to the events, we had much discussion around chocking, or propping open, of fire doors. We talked about why fire doors were such a critical component in preventing the spread of fire and that they played a significant role in how the fire was able to spread in Philly and the Bronx. One teammate, with years of experience as a firefighter, told us how he and his department would go on calls and come back to the fire station with a pile of wooden wedges that were being used to prop open fire doors. And then it hit me. Through the years, I had spent countless hours working within apartment complexes and multifamily buildings where I walked through those very same fire doors that were propped open with wooden wedges. In full transparency, there were likely times that I may have even grabbed the wooden wedge sitting next to the door, propped the door open to get tools or materials through, and then likely forgot to take it back out. I was guilty of living in my personal, electrical-only world with blinders on as to the hazards that were being created right in front of me, even by me, that could result in the loss of life.   In hindsight, I should have been more aware of what was going on around me and more vocal to others to ensure they were aware of the safety issues as well. Maybe a similar experience and reflection from someone else could have prevented one or both of the recent tragedies in Philly and the Bronx. We will never know. What we do know is that to truly accomplish safety at the highest possible level, we can’t just look through our own personal lens.   “The sole meaning of life is to serve humanity.” – Leo Tolstoy   For all of our differences highlighted daily within our world, commonplace is that we all genuinely want to be safe; that yearning to survival is innate among all of us. But so is the onus to keep one another safe.   If the true goal is to make this great big world a safer place, there is only one way that will happen – together. That means recognizing where potential risks exist and taking the steps to minimize them. For me, I will never passively note a fire door propped open again. I encourage everyone to think about potential risks they may have overlooked at one time or another, and consider how to respond more proactively moving forward. You never know, taking a simple step like removing a wooden wedge from a fire door might prevent an incident in which many people long after question what more they could have done.   Learn how you can keep yourself and your communities safer through the NFPA Fire & Life Safety Ecosystem™.
Light bulb

Have a research idea? Submit it to FPRF by Jan 31!

Have you ever wondered how the Fire Protection Research Foundation (FPRF or Foundation), the research affiliate of NFPA, becomes aware of the critical issues and concerns of the fire protection community?  For example, why guidance for early suppression, fast response (ESFR) sprinklers in the presence of obstructions were developed? Or why we conducted demonstrative testing to establish recommended response procedures for electric vehicle (EV) fires? Every year, the Foundation solicits research needs and ideas from YOU and others who share an interest in protecting people and property from fire and related hazards. The FPRF prides itself on listening to needs identified by stakeholders and working to provide answers through stand-alone projects or multi-phase research programs. In 2006, NFPA developed and generously supported a new initiative, known as the NFPA Research Fund in collaboration with the FPRF. This Fund exists to stimulate and facilitate research that supports the work of NFPA Technical Committees. The success of this initiative has helped several NFPA Technical Committees to address their information needs through small research projects with assistance from the FPRF. The Foundation is currently in the process of gathering ideas for small projects that will tap into these available funding resources. Does anything come to mind? General project ideas include: gathering data to support the addition of new technology into a standard, gathering and analyzing data to address two opposing views on an issue, data collection around emerging technical issues (e.g. alternative energy) ·other relevant research needs that are aligned with the NFPA and FPRF missions A list of past projects can be found on the NFPA Research Fund website. To submit a proposed research project, please: Formulate your research idea using this “Project Idea Form” and submit it via our online project idea submission portal. Note, you will need to sign into your NFPA account or create a free profile to access this portal. Find the project idea form and other information about the Research Fund at We encourage you to work with your staff liaison to help scope the problem and project outline. Follow the criteria for selection to be consistent with the Foundation operating principles and vetting criteria and the NFPA and Foundation missions. Provide information on the anticipated cost/benefit, whether there are other obvious funders, the sense of urgency, and the potential for the project to be a starting point for a larger constituency funded effort. Bear in mind, no project idea is too small (literature reviews, code comparisons, loss summaries) or too large (full scale fire testing). We take on vast and limited projects - and anything in between! If you are not sure what research needs to be done, but you feel something must be done, maybe a workshop (research planning meeting) can help get the ball rolling? The submission deadline (for consideration of 2022 projects) has been extended to January 31, 2022. If you have questions or have an idea and you are not sure where to begin, please feel free to contact us.  Or if you have any general research or information needs, please do not hesitate to reach out. Thank you in advance for your participation in this initiative and for your interest in fire and life safety research.

Register to attend the free Research Foundation webinar on “The Long-Term Effects of COVID-19 on Firefighter Health”

The COVID-19 pandemic has severely changed the lives and well-being of everyone globally. As the pandemic has progressed, clinicians and scientists have become increasingly alarmed with what has been termed “Long COVID” – continued symptoms of COVID-19 that last three weeks or more after the diagnosis. The Fire Protection Research Foundation, the research affiliate of NFPA, will host a webinar on January 27 that looks at occupational-specific concerns and the long-term health effects of COVID-19 (COVID-LONG). The goal is to help the fire service better understand and manage these risks to preserve firefighter health and safety. The webinar will include an update on scientific details related to the risks of COVID-LONG, a clinician’s view on the challenges faced by firefighters as they return to duty following COVID infection, and perspective from a fire chief about dealing with firefighters who may suffer long-term symptoms that could interfere with work or increase risk of health-related issues. Webinar presenters include Dr. Denise Smith, Skidmore College; Dr. Sara Jahnke, Center for Fire, Rescue and EMS Health Research; Dr. Steven Moffatt, Ascension St. Vincent Public Safety Medical; and Retired Fire Chief Craig Haigh, Hanover Park (IL) Fire Department. Registration is free and required to attend this webinar. Simply click here or visit for details on upcoming NFPA & FPRF webinars and archives. This webinar is supported by the Research Foundation 2022 Webinar Series Sponsors: American Wood Council, AXA XL Risk Consulting, Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Co., Inc., Telgian Engineering and Consulting, The Zurich Services Corporation.

U.S. fire administrator, Philadelphia and FDNY fire officials, and NFPA CEO will discuss recent events and US fire problem during live January 25 event

NFPA President and CEO Jim Pauley recently penned a thought leadership blog that touched on the steps that need to be taken, right now, to educate policy makers and the public about the US fire problem. As follow up to that communication, Pauley will facilitate a timely live discussion with top emergency response leaders about recent home fire tragedies in the news and ways that community leaders can bolster fire prevention, fire protection, life safety, code enforcement, and other critical safety efforts in their cities and towns. Joining Pauley for the forward-thinking conversation at 9 a.m. (ET) on Tuesday, January 25 will be: Dr. Lori Moore-Merrell, U.S. Fire Administrator Adam Thiel, Fire Commissioner for the City of Philadelphia Joseph Jardin, Assistant Chief with the New York City Fire Department, Chief of Fire Prevention  A Special Live Event entitled Taking the Lead after Tragedy has been added at the beginning of the FREE virtual NFPA Leadership for Emergency Responders Conference which had already attracted nearly 2,000 registrants. This new dynamic addition to the professional development program is certain to resonate with fire service officers, future commanders, emergency responders, and other up-and-comers who have expressed an interest in being forward-thinking, community-focused leaders. “As we often see with catastrophes, there were breakdowns in the Ecosystem that not only precipitated the fatal events in Philadelphia and the Bronx but compounded them. In the aftermath of these incidents, there have been pressing questions about how we can help connect the dots on safety at this pivotal moment in time,” Pauley said, referring to the NFPA Fire & Life Safety Ecosystem™, a framework that features eight interconnected components that must work together in the interest of safety. “In response, NFPA is inviting three of today’s foremost fire authorities to take part in a live exchange that will focus on persistent fire safety challenges and what can be done to enhance safety.” Register for the live discussion or the full 10-session program (both FREE) here. The day’s educational content, including video of the live discussion, will also be available on-demand for up to one year. Attendees can earn 11 continuing education units (CEUs) upon successful completion of all the available programs.  MDM Publishing, Ltd., publisher of International Fire Fighter, International Fire Protection, UK Fire, Gulf Fire, and Asia Pacific Fire, is the sponsor of the FREE Leadership for Emergency Responders program, including the live leadership discussion.  
Philly fire aftermath

Recent fires shed light on home fire problem

NOTE: NFPA will be leading a live discussion with some of the nation's foremost fire authorities on Tuesday, January 25. Register for the free event. The horrific residential fires in Philadelphia and the Bronx thrust fire and life safety in the United States into the spotlight. And while the stories out of these two cities are absolutely heartbreaking, the collective, heightened interest in the protection of people and property that we’ve seen among policymakers and the public may be somewhat encouraging – if it prompts needed changes and more awareness. Overall, we have made great strides in reducing the home fire problem. In fact, the recent tragedies we saw in Philadelphia and the Bronx present a stark contrast to the fire progress that has been documented over the last four decades and summarized in last year’s seminal Fire Safety in the United States report. That research picked up where the landmark America Burning research left off and highlighted substantive declines in hotel, hospital, and school fires over the years. Conversely, home fires have become more deadly as home fire escape times have dramatically decreased – due to a variety of factors. Combustible building materials and synthetic contents in homes burn hotter and faster. The danger of fire is compounded by open floor plans that are prevalent in newer homes and the lack of sufficient fire safety measures in older buildings, large and small. The headway made in these and other occupancies is, in large part, due to an effective policy and regulatory environment that sponsored and supported specific fire, electrical, building, and life safety guidelines and systems. But that same level of accountability and leadership has not been as evident when it comes to solving the fire problem we have today. In 2017, the NFPA Fire & Life Safety Policy Institute surveyed U.S. residents about their perceptions surrounding government roles and responsibilities for building, fire, and life safety efforts. American citizens overwhelmingly conveyed that they expect and trust that local, state, and federal policymakers are acting in the interest of safety. Two key takeaways from that outreach show that 74 percent of respondents trust their state and local leaders to adopt the latest fire and electrical safety codes for safety in residential construction, while 65 percent trust those same officials to maintain code requirements, and to not weaken them by removing provisions that apply the latest knowledge and safety advancements. Government officials everywhere should be guided by these survey sentiments, as well as this month’s devastating fires, to focus their energies on: Earmarking funds for safety infrastructure, staffing, and protocols Using and enforcing current editions of fire, life safety, building, and electrical codes Inspecting and testing systems to address issues before things take a turn for the worse Ensuring there are ample professionals to enforce codes Prioritizing community risk assessment Making the right decisions in the true interest of safety, not special interests, convenience, or cost-cutting Policymakers, however, cannot stem the tide of tragedies alone. Everyone plays a role in safety, making it more important than ever to educate the public about their true risk to fire and the steps they can take to increase their own safety. And yet, the biggest obstacles we see, time and again, when it comes to reducing loss are the issues of over-confidence and complacency. The reduction in most fires over the years has led policymakers and citizens alike to erroneously think that fire is no longer a significant issue in our country. There is a prevailing mindset that tragic incidents like the ones that recently occurred happen to other people, in other communities, and in other homes. Until, of course, it happens to them. These sentiments were highlighted in results of a survey from the American Red Cross, which showed that people think they are more likely to win the lottery or to be struck by lightning than to have a home fire.   That over-confidence toward fire presents serious risks and concern, and should intensify our efforts to educate the public about the importance of fire and life safety. One of the slim silver linings of the two high-profile fires is that they have captured the public’s attention for a short time and have brought fire safety to the forefront. I strongly encourage everyone to capitalize on the recent groundswell as catalysts for change, and to better educate communities about the critical importance of: Properly installing, testing, and maintaining all smoke alarms in the home Developing and practicing home escape plans that include closing doors to rooms, hallways, and stairwells when exiting to slow the spread of smoke, heat, and fire Using heating equipment safely Looking for and advocating for the increased use of sprinklers in all buildings and homes If the occurrence of two of the most fatal home fires in the last 40 years over the course of four days and just 100 miles apart does not serve as a substantial wake-up call, what will spur policymakers and the public to take action? The time has come for changing people’s perceptions of risk and proactive strategies for fire prevention and response. The best way we can do that, at this moment in time, is to challenge our government officials and citizens to take fire safety seriously.

Commodity Classifications in NFPA 13

Commodity classifications are used to categorize the contents of storage occupancies so that the appropriate sprinkler system design can be identified. Commodity classifications are determined by not only the product but also the packaging of that product, the container those packaged products are in, and even the pallet type. This can get a little complicated, so I’ll run through a quick example. We have glass jars stored in a double layered carboard box with cardboard dividers and it is sitting on a reinforced plastic pallet. Even though the glass jars are only a Class I commodity, the cardboard box and plastic pallet increases the fuel load so that it should be considered a Class IV. Commodity Classifications are broken down into Classes I through IV and Group A though C plastics with Class I being the lowest hazard level and Group A expanded plastics being the highest hazard level. Class I: A Class I commodity is defined as a noncombustible product that meets one of the following criteria: Placed directly on wood pallets Placed in single-layer corrugated cardboard boxes, with or without single-thickness cardboard dividers Shrink-wrapped or paper-wrapped as a unit load Class II: A Class II commodity is defined as a noncombustible product that is in slatted wooden crates, solid wood boxes, multiple-layered corrugated cardboard box, or equivalent combustible packaging material. Class III: A Class III commodity is defined as a product fashioned from wood, paper, natural fibers, or Group C plastics with or without cartons, boxes, or crates. A Class III commodity shall be permitted to contain a limited amount (5 percent or less by weight of nonexpanded plastic or 5 percent or less by volume of expanded plastic) of Group A or Group B plastics. Class IV: A Class IV commodity is defined as a product that meets one of the following criteria: Constructed partially or totally of Group B plastics Consists of free-flowing Group A plastic materials Cartoned, or within a wooden container, that contains greater than 5 percent and up to 15 percent by weight of Group A nonexpanded plastic Cartoned, or within a wooden container, that contains greater than 5 percent and up to 25 percent by volume of expanded Group A plastics Cartoned, or within a wooden container, that contains a mix of Group A expanded and nonexpanded plastics and complies with the graph section at the end of the blog Exposed, that contains greater than 5 percent and up to 15 percent by weight of Group A nonexpanded plastic Exposed, that contains a mix of Group A expanded and nonexpanded plastics and complies with the graph section at the end of the blog PLASTICS Plastics are a little more straightforward since there is a specific list of what each group contains. Classifying plastics gets complicated when the commodity being stored is a combination of different groups of plastics, but the graphs at the end of this blog should be able to help alleviate some of that work. Group C Plastics: Group C plastics are treated as Class III Commodities and consist of the following: Fluoroplastics (PCTFE — polychlorotrifluoroethylene; PTFE — polytetrafluoroethylene) Melamine (melamine formaldehyde) Phenolic PVC (polyvinyl chloride — flexible — PVCs with plasticizer content up to 20 percent) PVDC (polyvinylidene chloride) PVDF (polyvinylidene fluoride) Urea (urea formaldehyde) Group B Plastics: Group B plastics are treated as Class IV Commodities and consist of the following: Chloroprene rubber Fluoroplastics (ECTFE — ethylene-chlorotrifluoro-ethylene copolymer; ETFE — ethylene-tetrafluoroethylene-copolymer; FEP — fluorinated ethylene-propylene copolymer) Silicone rubber Group A Plastic: Group A plastics are further subdivided into expanded and nonexpanded Group A plastics and consist of all of the plastics listed in the table below. ABS (acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer) FRP (fiberglass-reinforced polyester) Polycarbonate PVC (polyvinyl chloride — highly plasticized, with plasticizer content greater than 20 percent) (rarely found) Acetal (polyformaldehyde) Natural rubber Polyester elastomer Acrylic (polymethyl methacrylate) Nitrile-rubber (acrylonitrile-butadiene-rubber) Polyethylene Butyl rubber Nylon (nylon 6, nylon 6/6) Polypropylene PVF (polyvinyl fluoride) Cellulosics (cellulose acetate, cellulose acetate butyrate, ethyl cellulose) PET (thermoplastic polyester) Polystyrene SAN (styrene acrylonitrile) EPDM (ethylene-propylene rubber) Polybutadiene Polyurethane SBR (styrene-butadiene rubber) HELPFUL DEFINITIONS One of the biggest issues I see when people are starting to learn about sprinkler design for storage occupancies is that they don’t know the terminology. It is important to fully understand the definitions for the terms used in the storage chapters of NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems. I recommend looking at the definition chapter of NFPA 13 to make sure you understand exactly what a term means because oftentimes it means something different than what you would expect. Here are a couple of definitions that are important to understanding this blog. Expanded Group A Plastics: Those plastics, the density of which is reduced by the presence of air pockets dispersed throughout their mass. Some examples include packing peanuts or acoustic foam. Nonexpanded is everything else that is not covered under the definition of expanded. Free Flowing Group A Plastics (protect as Class IV): Those plastics that fall out of their containers during a fire, fill flue spaces, and create a smothering effect on the fire. Examples include powder, pellets, flakes or random-packed small objects. Free flowing plastics are those small objects that fill a box or a subdivision within the box without restraint. The theory is that during a fire. The objects will freely fall out of the box and either smother the fire or fall away from it, removing themselves as fuel. Since the burning rate is reduced and fuel load has been lessened, free-flowing plastics are permitted to be treated as a Class IV commodity. Exposed: Commodities not in packaging or coverings that absorb water. For example, a cardboard box or wooden container can both absorb water so they would not be considered exposed. However, something that is wrapped in plastic sheeting could be considered exposed since plastic sheeting doesn’t absorb water. Cartoned - A method of storage consisting of corrugated cardboard or paperboard containers fully enclosing the commodity. GRAPHS The following tables come from NFPA 13 to help with navigating how a commodity should be classified when it contains Group A plastics. Note that the X axis is percentage by volume while the Y axis is percentage be weight.  The first graph addresses exposed commodities while the second graph addresses commodities that are cartoned or within a wooden container (non-exposed). PALLETS When commodities are tested, they are tested on wooden pallets. This means that wooden pallets are assumed to be used in commodity classifications, however if plastic pallets are used, they increase the commodity classification by two classes. Although, if the plastic pallet is made of polypropylene or high-density polyethylene and marked as “nonreinforced” then the commodity classification only needs to be increased by one classification. Plastic Pallet Increase (+2) Class I --> Class III Class II --> Class IV Class III --> Group A Plastics Class IV --> Cartoned nonexpanded Group A plastic Group A Plastics --> Group A Plastics (No increase)  Unreinforced Polypropylene or High-Density Polyethylene Plastic Pallet Increase (+1) Class I --> Class II Class II --> Class III Class III --> Class IV Class IV --> Cartoned nonexpanded Group A plastic Group A Plastics --> Group A Plastics (No increase) Determining the classification for commodities in storage occupancies can get complicated at times but I can not stress how important of a step this is during the sprinkler design process. It is also imperative that the owner understands what the building is designed to handle as well as what can and can not be stored in the facility once it is built. I hope you enjoyed the blog. Comment below if you have questions and be sure to share this with friends and colleagues who might find it helpful.
1 2 ... 90

Latest Articles