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?