Residential Fire Sprinklers .com

Protecting Your Home & Family

House Bill 1511 will prohibit jurisdictions from enforcing ANY law that would mandate fire sprinklers in new one- and two-family dwellings that are less than 7,500 square feet in area. Texas home builders have leveraged connections in the legislature to initiate and push this unprecedented assault on home rule.

If HB 1511 becomes law, cities, counties and emergency service districts will lose authority to determine the best approach to providing fire safety based on local conditions. Although this bill specifically targets residential fire sprinklers, it sets a precedent for the legislature to enact virtually any targeted code amendment to satisfy a special interest group. Imagine home builders’ future attacks on fire hydrants, fire department access roads and other perceived “impediments” to unregulated development, any of which might be next.

HB 1511 has momentum. Against opposition by the Texas Fire Chiefs Association, the Texas Fire Marshals’ Association, the Texas Firemen’s and Fire Marshal’s Association; the Building Officials Association of Texas, the Texas Municipal League and others, the House Committee on Insurance voted 9-0 to pass the bill. Next stop is the House Calendars Committee, which has authority to schedule it for consideration by the full House of Representatives.

Why oppose HB 1511:

- Supporters of HB 1511 would rescind the Texas tradition of “Home Rule” whereby local officials and citizens, those most intimately familiar with their specific need, are allowed to determine the best fire and building code requirements to address their unique circumstance.

- The fire service, building officials and municipalities oppose HB1511 because it would remove local control and self-determination.

- HB1511 is intrusive and an overreach. Rejecting HB1511 will maintain the current
practice of Texas localities making their own decisions, as they have for decades.

- Under the current system, localities adopt only what they determine to be the best policy, rule or law for the protection of their community.

- HB 1511 prohibits localities from protecting citizens and properties from the menace of fire with the most effective technology known to reduce loss of life and property to fire, residential sprinklers.

Click on the following to view the full Texas HB1511 Legislative Alert

Just weeks after the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) request to appeal residential fire sprinkler requirements in the 2009 edition of the International Residential Code (IRC) was defeated, the home builders lobby has moved on to their next attempt to attack required residential fire sprinkler use. This time they are introducing state legislation in an effort to block the local adoption of these requirements.

To date, the IRC Fire Sprinkler Coalition is aware of two states where these bills have been introduced: Arizona with the recently filed HB2267 and North Dakota with the recently filed SB2354.

The language used in these bills makes it clear that this is a direct attack on residential fire sprinklers and the recent IRC requirements. Consider the following text from the North Dakota bill:

“Neither the state building code nor a building code adopted by a city, township, or county may include a requirement that fire sprinklers be installed in a single family dwelling or a residential building that contains no more than two dwelling units.”

It is expected that this type of legislation will be introduced in other states across the country. At a national level, the IRC Fire Sprinkler Coalition and fire sprinkler advocacy organizations are coordinating resources to identify and respond to this type of legislation.

Some may wonder what chance this legislation has of passing since it restricts a state from choosing to follow a nationally recognized code standard. Fire safety supporters hope that this latest home builder tactic will be quickly recognized by state legislators as another blatant attempt by home builders to dictate public policy. After all, it was the hundreds of voting fire and building officials from across the country who approved adding the residential fire sprinkler requirement to the IRC by utilizing a code making process specifically designed to give government officials, not special interests, the final word.

Ironically, Arizona, one of the first states to see this type of proposed legislation, is home to a shinning example of how effective residential fire sprinkler requirements are, the City of Scottsdale. For over 20 years the city has required fire sprinklers in every home and history has shown an impressive record of fire safety and declining costs of system installation. How could state legislators from the “poster child” city of residential fire sprinkler success support a bill denying the same fire safety progress in other areas of the state?

State and local groups are encouraged to watch for the use of these tactics. If you become aware of a similar bill in your area, please notify the IRC Fire Sprinkler Coalition to ensure that an organized response is given.

---

UPDATE 1/28/2009: Similar proposed legislation has been introduced in Connecticut. See Connecticut HB-6204.

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?