Residential Fire Sprinklers .com

Protecting Your Home & Family

2009 International Residential Code Will Require Residential Fire Sprinklers

The International Code Council (ICC) Board of Directors has voted unanimously to reject an appeal by the National Association of Home Builders seeking to remove residential fire sprinkler requirements from the 2009 edition of the International Residential Code (IRC). This action, which follows a unanimous vote by the ICC Appeals Board to reject the appeal, concludes ICC’s appeals process and exhausts the final administrative option for overturning the IRC sprinkler requirements prior to publication of the 2009 edition.

“This is truly a great day in the history of fire safety,” said Ronny Coleman, President of the IRC Fire Sprinkler Coalition. “ICC has now officially affirmed that the membership vote to require fire sprinklers in new homes was in compliance with their bylaws and regulations governing code development, and the unanimous vote by their Board of Directors removes any shadow of doubt regarding the legitimacy of the fire sprinkler requirement.”

NAHB’s appeal had asked ICC to set aside the sprinkler requirement because of claimed procedural irregularities, including an assertion that ICC’s bylaws do not permit firefighters, particularly volunteer firefighters, to vote in the ICC process. With the appeal rejected, ICC will now proceed with publication of the 2009 IRC, which serves as the basis of regulation for new home construction in 48 states plus the District of Columbia. The new code will require fire sprinklers in all new
townhouses, effective immediately upon adoption, and in all new one- and two-family dwellings, effective January 1, 2011.

The potential impact of this code change is discussed at “Residential Fire Sprinklers Market Growth and Labor Demand Analysis“

In November it was announced that the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) had formerly requested an appeal of RB64-07/08 and RB66-07/08, which requires residential fire sprinklers to be installed in one and two family homes and town homes effective January 1, 2011. See “National Association of Home Builders Requests Appeal of IRC Residential Fire Sprinklers Requirement” for more details.

Today, December 11, 2008, the International Code Council (ICC) Appeals Board met in Chicago to determine if there was any validity to the NAHB claims that a single interest group unfairly dominated the voting at the final action hearings. At the conclusion of the hearing the ICC Appeals Board unanimously voted (3-0) to deny the NAHB claim that the fire sprinkler industry engaged in practices that violated ICC established procedure.

This unanimous decision to uphold the voting members decision to pass RB64-07/08 and RB66-07/08 reinforces that the voting governmental members of the ICC are the decision makers and will not have their votes denied by special interest groups. Much to the frustration of interested parties concerned about the NAHB influence with the ICC, the appeal hearing did not allow for phone conferencing or web conferencing of the discussions, but supporters of residential fire sprinklers can feel confident that the ICC voting process has been upheld.

The passing of the IRC residential fire sprinkler requirements reinforces the growing recognition that fire sprinklers need to play an integral role in home fire safety.

The potential impact of this code change is discussed at “Residential Fire Sprinklers Market Growth and Labor Demand Analysis“

UPDATE: ICC Appeals Board Denies NAHB Claim Regarding IRC Residential Sprinkler Requirement

See the article “ICC Appeals Board Denies NAHB Claim“

The opposition to residential fire sprinkler requirements continues as the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) filed a request to appeal on October 30, 2008 with the International Code Council (ICC). The appeal targets the recent passing of RB64-07/08 to the International Residential Code (IRC) which requires residential fire sprinklers to be installed in one and two family homes and town homes effective January 1, 2011.

RB64-07/08, with public comment 2, passed overwhelming on September 21, 2008 with 73% percent approval from close to two thousand voting members at the final action hearings in Minneapolis. The NAHB appeal contends that the ICC failed to provide a balance of interest in voting.

Specifically, the appeal claims that:

- the ICC did not prevent a single interest group, specifically the fire service, from unfairly dominating the voting at the final action hearings.

- the ICC’s governmental consensus process was manipulated and subverted to advance the interests of a single stakeholder.

- the ICC must take immediate and strong action to eliminate the growing influence of third-part funding to secure votes at the ICC final action hearings.

To view a copy of the appeal click on the following NAHB Appeal to ICC Regarding RB64 and RB66

The appeal is currently planned to be conducted in Chicago with conference call capabilities. Parties involved will be notified of the specific details of the appeals hearing at least twenty days prior.

Further, the appeals board is taking written views from interested parties on the request for appeal. You are encouraged to provide your views on this matter by filing a written comment with Michael Pfeiffer, ICC Deputy Senior Vice President of Technical Affairs.

To view the ICC Appeal Policy click on the following ICC Appeal Policy

Many supporters of residential fire sprinkler requirements find it ironic that such claims are coming from the NAHB organization with a long history of representing their members special interests and using their collective strength to influence the code development process.

The ICC develops its codes using the governmental consensus process. Voting members for the building codes are typical building officials and fire officials from government jurisdictions across the country. Non-governmental representatives are allowed to be members of the ICC, but may not vote on code changes. Further, each voting governmental member must physically be present at the final action hearings to cast their vote. In the case of RB64-07/08, the authorized ICC voting members from the fire service exercised their right to vote by traveling to the hearings and officially showing their support for residential fire sprinkler requirements.

Financial assistance for travel expenses of voting members was offered by both proponents and opponents of RB64-07/08. Such travel assistance does not change the view of the voting members, rather it simply helps to remove the travel barrier that hinders some voting governmental members from casting their vote.

The NAHB claims that the vote was manipulated by the fire service, but supporters argue that the fire service has simply exercised their right to vote and participate in the governmental consensus process. The NAHB obviously is not pleased with the outcome of the vote, but their claims that the fire service has “unfairly” dominated the voting process may be going too far in pushing their agenda. Since when is winning a majority of the vote considered “unfairly” dominating? Isn’t that the objective of both sides of any issue being voted on?