ICC Code Hearing Updates

The International Code Council (ICC) has been meeting in Orlando, Fla., since September 20, and DWM magazine has been staying informed with the progress by attending the meetings via webcast.

On September 27, members of the International Code Council (ICC) heard proposed changes to the International Energy Conservation Code.

EC87-06/07, John Neff, of and representing Washington State Building Code Council, suggested a revision of Table 502.2(1) Building Envelope Requirements - Opaque Assemblies Elements because Neff said some of the insulation criteria for climate zones 5 and 6, listed in the table, are below those that have been enforced in State Energy Codes for a number of years. The proposed revisions reflect requirements from the Washington State Energy Code and changes were made for colder climate zones for consistency.

After extended discussion, the proposal submitted was disapproved by a 7 to 6 vote.

EC95-06/07. The following proposal by Garrett Stone of Brickfield Burchette Ritts & Stone, P.C., representing Cardinal Glass Industries, involved a change to Table 502.3 Building Envelope Requirements: Fenestration to eliminate the plastic and glass categories of skylights in the simplified prescriptive path and establish a single set of prescriptive values, in order to ensure consistent stringency regardless of the type of skylights chosen. The American Architectural Manufacturers Association (AAMA) was against it because they represented minor changes for glass, but big changes for plastic, and plastic skylights would have a hard time getting through, said Julie Ruth, representing AAMA.

After agreement to modify the proposal-changing climate zones from .40 to .35-the motion to change the table carries 11 to 3.

In EC-91 - 06/07, Michael D. Fischer of the Kellen Co., representing the Window and Door Manufacturers Association (WDMA) also proposed a change to Table 502.3, so that the user of the table shall select the 40 percent glazing, 35 percent glazing or 30 percent glazing requirements based on the overall percentage of vertical fenestration to above-grade wall. The proposal read that the requirements shall apply to all vertical fenestration including fixed and operable windows, curtainwall, storefront glazing and doors other than entrance doors. Entrance door glazing area shall be included in the vertical fenestration area used to determine the appropriate fenestration U-factors.

The purpose for this change is to convert the vertical fenestration requirements of the table from material specific requirements to material neutral requirements. The current IECC requirements contain a material bias base upon the type of frame selected by the designer. Fischer and WDMA believe that the energy efficiency requirements for fenestration should be more appropriately based solely upon product performance. The motion for disapproval of the proposal carried 12 to 2.

Fischer, representing WDMA, also proposed another change of Table 502.3 in EC92-06/07 regarding U-factors of skylights. The proposal was disapproved 14-0 because many in the room thought it was a decrease in energy efficiency.

EC 90-06/07, 202, proponents Julie Ruth of JRuth Code Consulting, representing AAMA and Charlie Curcija of Carlie, Inc., also representing AAMA, proposed adding new text to the Section 202 general definitions regarding day lit area under skylights. Ruth and Curcija say the proposal permits the maximum skylight roof area to be increased from 3 percent to 6 percent of the roof area in buildings that are equipped with multilevel daylighting controls, when the skylights meet certain criteria for U-factor, SHGC and haze. The proposal was disapproved 14-0, but the proponents were asked to meet together again and come back with another proposal that considered how it could be applied.

EC93-06/07 and EC94-06/07 were heard together, both changes to Table 502.3 proposed by Garrett Stone, of Brickfield Burchette Ritts & Stone, P.C., representing Cardinal Glass Industries. The purpose of the proposal is to modify the commercial fenestration SHGC requirements by projection factor to reflect a uniform method of determining such requirements, but some said this change would give a competitive advantage to Cardinal Glass. Both proposals failed; EC-93 failed 10-3; EC-94 failed 8-6.

Also on Wednesday, members of the International Code Council (ICC) Means of Egress Code Committee heard code change proposals to the International Building Code as part of the ICC's code change hearings.

E162-06/07. The following proposal (1026.6) to add new text was disapproved:

Emergency escape ladders. Emergency escape and rescue openings located above the first story in Group R-3 occupancies shall be provided with an approved permanently mounted emergency escape ladder.

Mike Fischer, of the Kellen Co., representing the Window and Door Manufacturers Association was one of the supporters of this proposal but it was ultimately disapproved 13-1.

On Thursday, September 28, the following proposal was submitted for the International Residential Code but was ultimately disapproved 10-1. Julie Ruth, representing AAMA and Mike Fischer, representing the WDMA were some of the supporters of the proposal.

N1101.8 Certificate was the proposal, suggesting a permanent certificate shall be posted on or in the electrical distribution panel. The certificate shall not cover or obstruct the visibility of the circuit directory label, service disconnect label or other required labels. The certificate shall be completed by the builder or registered design professional, and shall list the predominant R-values of insulation installed in or on ceiling/roof, walls, foundation (slab, basement wall, crawlspace wall and/or floor) and ducts outside conditioned spaces; U-factors for fenestration; and, where requirements apply, the solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) of fenestration. Where there is more than one value for each component, the certificate shall list the value covering the largest area. The certificate shall also list the type and efficiency of heating, cooling and service water heating equipment.

On Thursday, September 21, the following proposed structural code changes were voted on.

The following code, S48-06/07, was passed by a vote of 13 (in favor), 0 (against) and 1 abstention. An opposition statement to note is that one person commented that this code will add additional testing for garage doors. Here is how the structural code reads:

1714.5.2, Chapter 35
Joseph R. Hetzel, P.E., Door & Access Systems Manufacturers Association
1. Revise as follows:
1714.5.2 Exterior windows and door assemblies not provided for in Section 1714.5.1.
Exterior window and door assemblies shall be tested in accordance with ASTM E 330. Structural performance of garage doors shall be determined in accordance with either ASTM E 330 or ANSI/DASMA 108, and shall meet the acceptance criteria of ANSI/DASMA 108. Exterior window and door assemblies containing glass shall comply with Section 2403. The design pressure for testing shall be calculated in accordance with Chapter 16. Each assembly shall be tested for 10 seconds at a load equal to 1.5 times the design pressure.

2. Add standard to Chapter 35 as follows:

ANSI/DASMA 108-02, Standard Method for Testing Sectional Garage Doors: Determination of Structural Performance Under Uniform Static Air Pressure Difference

Reason: The purpose of this proposed code change is to reference an ANSI standard published specifically for the static air pressure testing of garage doors. ANSI/DASMA 108 includes garage door acceptance criteria, which is not contained within ASTM E 330. Similar language to what is being proposed is contained in 2006 IRC Section R613.5.

Cost Impact: The code change proposal will not increase the cost of construction.

Analysis: Results of review of the proposed standard(s) will be posted on the ICC website by August 20, 2006.
Public Hearing: Committee: AS AM D
Assembly: ASF AMF DF

If you would like to watch the ICC hearings live, please visit http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes/webcast/index.html.

DWM™ is a registered trademark of Key Communications Inc.
Publisher does not accept responsibility for statements or claims made by advertising placed on this website.
Signed articles represent the opinions of the writer and not necessarily those of the publisher.
All information published on this website is believed to be accurate.
No responsibility is assumed for losses incurred due to errors in text and/or graphic content.

No reproduction of any type without expressed written permission.