The document discusses the International Code Council's (ICC) code development process and how individuals can get involved. Some key points: - The ICC is a membership organization that develops building safety codes used across the US and internationally. Their code development process is open for anyone to submit code change proposals or participate. - The code development cycle lasts 3 years, with opportunities for public comment. Proposed changes go through committee review and public hearings before final adoption. - Individuals can get involved by joining ICC committees, submitting code change proposals supported by research data, or participating in public hearings. The document provides tips on how to engage and potential issues to address in code changes.

2. Getting Involved With the ICC Code
Development Process

3. ICC Overview
 Membership based association dedicated to building safety, fire
prevention, and sustainable building practices. Approximately
40,000 members from diverse background including architects,
builders, engineers, code officials, and fire service professionals
 ICC Develops the codes and standards used to construct
residential and commercial buildings across the United States and
internationally. Fifty states and the District of Columbia have
adopted the I-Codes at the state or jurisdictional level
November 18, 2010 2010 IBHS Annual Conference 3

4. Code Development Process
Getting Involved
 Any interested individual, or group, can submit a code change
proposal and participate in the proceedings which proposals are
considered
 The ICC process is open and debate occurs before a diverse
membership from the built environment– both regulators and
industry are represented
 Voting members may either ratify the committee’s recommendation
or make their own recommendation which is then forwarded for
final action. Any member of ICC may participate in the Code
Development Hearing
November 18, 2010 2010 IBHS Annual Conference 4

5. ICC Code Change Cycle
2015 I-Codes
Code Changes
Submitted
Mar 12, 2012/2013 Jan 3, 2012/2013
Code Changes New
Printed & Distributed Edition Published
April 29, 2012/2013 Oct 24, 2012/2013
Code Development I-CODE DEVELOPMENT Final Action
Hearing CYCLE Hearing
June 8, 2012/2013 Sept 10, 2012/2013
Public Hearing Results Public Comments
Printed & Distributed Printed & Distributed
Aug 1, 2012/2013
Public Comments
Sought on Public
Hearing Results
November 18, 2010 2010 IBHS Annual Conference 5

6. Tips for Involvement
 Visit ICCsafe.org
 Network with code professionals through ICC Chapters
 Participate in code hearings – May 16, 2011 Dallas, TX (IGCC)
 Concerns about a code? Submit a code change!
 Join an ICC committee – Code Technology Committees, Code
Action Committees, Ad Hoc Committees (November 25, 2010,
Code Committees (June 1, 2011)
 Utilizing data from the IBHS Research Center to form code change
proposals
 ICC and IBHS are discussing collaborative efforts– Short time frame!
 Quickest way to transfer IBHS-RC data into the marketplace is through
the use of codes
November 18, 2010 2010 IBHS Annual Conference 6

7. Justin Wiley, Director of External Relations
International Code Council
jwiley@iccsafe.org
November 18, 2010 2010 IBHS Annual Conference 7

8. Wanda D. Edwards, PE
IBHS Director of Building Code Development
8

9. Overview
Creation of International Codes
Code Process
New International Green Code
Update on residential sprinklers
Focus for 2011
Target states for 2011
9

10. Brief History of International Codes
Three code organizations
– ICBO
– SBCCI
– BOCA
Three organizations came together to create the
International Code Council
First set of international codes produced in 2000
10

11. 11

12. 12

13. New code in the process of development is
the International Green Code
For commercial construction
Encompasses energy and water
conservation and site development
13

14. 14

15. 15

16. 16

17. Final action hearings for 2012 are complete
Eric Stafford will elaborate on the changes
sponsored by IBHS
Surprise – Energy Code changes may have
affect on structural aspects of construction
17

18. 18

19. 19

20. Propose changes to the Texas Department
of Insurance code requirements
Changes to Florida Building Code
Proposed changes for the Massachusetts
Code
20

21. Building
Codes
–
Are
We
Making
Progress?
T. Eric Stafford
T. Eric Stafford & Associates, LLC
21

22. Building
Codes
• Slow
process
• ICC
– Previously:
18
month
cycle
– Now:
36
month
cycle
• Roughly
6
total
minutes
of
floor
discussion
on
a
parJcular
proposal
each
cycle
22

23. Recent
Improvements
Sponsored
by
IBHS
• Lowering
the
wind
speed
threshold
for
when
residenJal
structures
do
not
require
wind
design
• In
WBDR
–
Plywood/OSB
shuQers
have
to
have
anchorage
permanently
installed
on
the
building
23

24. Recent
Improvements
Sponsored
by
IBHS
• Soffits
required
to
be
designed
for
wall
pressure
• Roof-­‐to-­‐wall
connecJons
for
residenJal
structures
– Metal
connectors
– Improved
nail
connecJons
24

25. Recent
Improvements
Sponsored
by
IBHS
• SWB
required
for
all
areas
where
wind
speed
is
120
mph
and
greater
– 30
lb
felt
with
significantly
improved
fastener
size,
metal
or
plasJc
caps,
and
closer
nail
spacing
– Self
adhering
membrane
(peal
&
sJck)
25

26. Recent
Improvements
Sponsored
by
IBHS
• PrescripJve
procedures
for
voluntary
retrofits
of
gable
ends
• PrescripJve
procedures
for
voluntary
retrofit
of
roof
decks
when
reroofing
26

27. Recent
Improvements
Sponsored
by
IBHS
• Successfully
integrated
new
wind
speed
thresholds
for
prescripJve
provisions
with
new
ASCE
7-­‐10
wind
speed
maps
27

29. US Residential Fire Problem*
 A fire every 84 seconds
 86% of fire deaths – 2,590
 77% of fire injuries – 13,050
 72% of structure property damage–$7.8B
 53% of fireground firefighter deaths
*2009 NFPA

30. Fire deaths and injuries in one and
two-family homes*
(percentage of residential)
 81 % of fire deaths - 2,100
 71% of fire injuries - 9,300
 82% of fire property damage - $6.4 B
 78% of fireground firefighter deaths - 7/9
*2009 NFPA

31. Historical perspective:
1973 – America Burning Report
1975 – NFPA 13D Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler
Systems in One- and Two-Family Dwellings and
Manufactured Homes is first issued
1996 – The Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition is formed
2005 – NFPA 1 Fire Code, NFPA 101 Life Safety Code, and
NFPA 5000 Building Construction and Safety Code all
require fire sprinklers in new one- and two-family dwellings
2008 – Included in the 2009 IRC
2009 – NFPA launches the Home Fire Sprinkler Initiative:
Bringing Safety Home

32. Challenges:
 Myths
 Community awareness
 Support from stakeholders
 Political landscape
 Political muscle/willpower

33. Opponent arguments:
 Too expensive
 Will negatively impact housing
 New houses don’t burn
 Smoke alarms are enough
 Should be a matter of choice
 Water issues horror stories
 Insurance won’t cover water damage

34. Fire Protection Research Foundation
Home Fire Sprinkler Cost Assessment
Opponents argument:
 Sprinklers are expensive
THE FACTS:
 Average cost per sprinkler SF is $1.61

35. Fire Protection Research Foundation
Incentives for the Use of Residential
Fire Sprinklers Systems
Opponents argument:
 High financial impact/not cost effective
THE FACTS:
 Typical incentives to home builders offset
33% of system cost

36. Opponents argument:
 Smoke alarms are enough
THE FACTS:
 Smoke alarms have done a good job in
reducing home fire deaths
 We’ve reached a plateau. People are still
dying and being injured in home fires
 Over 37% of people who died did so in
homes with working smoke alarms*
*NFPA 2008

37. Opponents argument:
 Home fire incidents, injuries and death
continue to decline without the installation
of fire sprinklers.
THE FACTS:
 Have we solved the fire death and injury
problem?

38. Opponents argument:
Demand is not there. Should be a matter
of choice
THE FACTS:
 Belief of "it won't happen to me" -- until it
does
 Fire impacts the entire community
 Whose responsibility is it?
 What about liability – constructive
knowledge?

39. Comparative Analysis of Housing
Cost and Supply
Key findings:
 No reduction in number of housing
 Relative increase in construction
 Analysis did not reveal any detrimental
effects
 Minor influence compared to other factors

40. Key findings:
 Majority did not experience meter cost
increase
 90% experienced no increase on service
fees
 Domestic water consumption rates did not
increase
 Majority did not see an increase in tapping
fees

41. HFSC/FM Global
The Environmental Impact of
Automatic Fire Sprinklers
Conclusions:
Fire Sprinklers Are Green!
 Reduce green house gases by 98%
 Reduce fire damage by up to 97%
 Reduce water usage to fight a home fire by upwards of
90%
 Reduce the amount of water pollution released into the
environment
 Reduce debris to landfills

42. A coordinated effort to provide resources
for the fire service and other sprinkler
advocates
firesprinklerinitiative.org

43. States adopting:
CA, MD, PA, SC (delayed)
Anti-sprinkler legislation:
AK,AR,AZ,MS,NM,OH – died without action
KS,NE,NH,LA – sent to study committee
IA,TN,UT – allowed under certain conditions
MO – mandatory option
ME – failed last year
AL,FL,GA,ID,ND,SD,TX – signed into law

45. Questions?