IBC Egress
IBC Egress
IBC Egress
First Printing
Publication Date: March 2015
Copyright 2015
By
International Code Council, Inc.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. This 2015-2017 Code Development Cycle, Group A (2015) Proposed Changes to the 2015
International Codes is a copyrighted work owned by the International Code Council, Inc. Without advanced written
permission from the copyright owner, no part of this book may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by
any means, including, without limitations, electronic, optical or mechanical means (by way of example and not limitation,
photocopying, or recording by or in an information storage retrieval system). For information on permission to copy
material exceeding fair use, please contact: Publications, 4051 West Flossmoor Road, Country Club Hills, IL 60478
(Phone 1-888-422-7233).
Trademarks: International Code Council, the International Code Council logo are trademarks of the International Code
Council, Inc.
PRINTED IN THE U.S.A.
Paul D. Martin
Rep: National Association of State Fire
Marshals
Deputy State Fire Administration
New York State Office of Fire Prevention and
Control
Albany, NY
Lorin Neyer
Rep: California Fire Prevention Officers
Association (Cal Chiefs)
Regional Compliance Officer
California Office of Statewide Health Planning
and Development
Manteca, CA
John Stovall, AIA
Rep: National Association of Home Builders
SBK Partnership, LLC
Bethesda, MD
Andrew Stuffler, CBO
Building Official
City of Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, CA
Jerry R. Tepe, FAIA
Rep: American Institute of Architects
Architect
JRT-AIA Architect
Hopkinton, NH
Jeffrey Tubbs, PE, FSFPE
Principal
Arup
Cambridge, MA
Armin Wolski, PE
Principal Owner and Partner
AWC LLP
El Cerrito, CA
Staff Secretariat
Kimberly Paarlberg, RA
Senior Staff Architect
Codes and Standards Development
ICC Indiana Field Office
E1
E32-15
E33-15
E34-15
E35-15
E36-15
E37-15
E38-15
E39-15
E40-15
E41-15
E42-15
E43-15
E44-15
E45-15
E46-15
E47-15
E48-15
E49-15
E50-15
E51-15
E52-15
E53-15
E54-15
E55-15
E56-15
E57-15 Part 1
E58-15
E60-15
E61-15
E62-15
E63-15
E64-15
E65-15
E66-15
E67-15
E68-15
E69-15
E70-15
E71-15
E72-15
E73-15
E74-15
E75-15
E76-15
E77-15
E78-15
E79-15
E81-15
E82-15
E83-15
E84-15
E85-15
E86-15
E87-15
E148-15
E88-15
E89-15
E90-15
E91-15
E92-15
E93-15
E94-15
E95-15
E96-15
E97-15
E98-15
E99-15
E100-15
E101-15
E102-15
E103-15
E104-15
E105-15
E106-15
E107-15
E108-15
E109-15
E110-15
E111-15
E112-15
E113-15
E114-15
E115-15
E116-15
E117-15
E118-15
E119-15
E120-15
E121-15
E122-15
E124-15
E125-15
E126-15
E127-15
E128-15
E129-15
E130-15
E131-15
E132-15
E133-15
E134-15
E135-15
E136-15
E137-15
E138-15
E139-15
E140-15
E141-15
E2
E142-15
E143-15
E144-15
E145-15
E146-15
E147-15 Part 1
E59-15
Chapter 11
E149-15
EB93-15
E150-15
E151-15
E152-15
E153-15
E154-15
E155-15
E156-15
E157-15
E158-15
E159-15
E160-15
E161-15
E162-15
E163-15
E164-15
E165-15
E166-15
E167-15
E168-15
E169-15
E3
E 1-15
406.4.1, 1003.2, 1003.3.1, 1003.3.2, 1003.3.3, 1003.4, 1012.5.2, 1208.2; (IFC[BE] 1003.2, 1003.3.1,
1003.3.2, 1003.3.3, 1003.4, 1012.5.2)
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
E4
1.
2.
3.
4.
In one- and two-family dwellings , beams or girders spaced not less than 4 feet (1219 mm) on center shall be
permitted to project not more than 6 inches (152 mm) below the required ceiling height.
If any room in a building has a sloped ceiling, the prescribed ceiling height for the room is required in one-half the
area thereof. Any portion of the room measuring less than 5 feet (1524 mm) from the finished floor to the ceiling
shall not be included in any computation of the minimum area thereof.
The height of mezzanines and spaces below mezzanines shall be in accordance with Section 505.1.
Corridors contained within a dwelling unit or sleeping unit in a Group R occupancy shall have a ceiling height of
not less than 7 feet (2134 mm) above the finished floor.
Reason: The intent of this proposal is consistency in language and coordination with E10-12 for where headroom clearances are important/relevant and to
what they are measured. This language would be consistent with Section 505.2, 1103.3 and 1106.5. The new text is coordinated with A117.1, and lets the
parking lot designer know where additional headroom clearance is required.
In July/2014 the ICC Board decided to sunset the activities of the Code Technology Committee (CTC). This is being accomplished by re-assigning many of the
CTC Areas of Study to the applicable Code Action Committee (CAC). This proposal falls under the CTC Area of Study entitled IBC Coordination with the New
ADAAG. Information on the CTC, including: the sunset plan; meeting agendas; minutes; reports; resource documents; presentations; and all other materials
developed in conjunction with the CTC effort can be downloaded from the CTC website.
This public proposal is submitted by the ICC Building Code Action Committee (BCAC). The BCAC was established by the ICC Board of Directors to pursue
opportunities to improve and enhance an assigned International Code or portion thereof. This includes both the technical aspects of the codes as well as the
code content in terms of scope and application of referenced standards. Since its inception in July, 2011, the BCAC has held 13 open meetings and numerous
workgroup calls which included members of the BCAC as well as any interested party to discuss and debate the proposed changes and the public comments.
Related documentation and reports are posted on the BCAC website at: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/BCAC/Pages/default.aspx.
E5
E 2-15
202(New), 1003.4, 1011.5.4, 1011.7.1, 1012.7.1, 1029.11.1, Chapter 35; (IFC[BE] 1003.4, 1011.5.4,
1011.7.1, 1012.7.1, 1029.11.1)
Proponent: Russell Kendzior, The National Floor Safety Institute (NFSI), representing National Floor Safety Institute
(russk@nfsi.org)
Openings in stair walking surfaces shall be a size that does not permit the passage of 1 / 2-inch-diameter (12.7
2.
mm) sphere. Elongated openings shall be placed so that the long dimension is perpendicular to the direction of
travel.
In Group F, H and S occupancies, other than areas of parking structures accessible to the public, openings in
treads and landings shall not be prohibited provided a sphere with a diameter of 11 / 8 inches (29 mm) cannot pass
through the opening.
1012.7.1 Ramp surface. The walking surface of ramps shall be of slip-resistant materialshave a high-traction surface that areis
securely attached.
1029.11.1 Walking surface. The surface of aisles, stepped aisles and ramped aisles shall be of slip-resistant materialshave a hightraction surface that areis securely attached. The surface for stepped aisles shall comply with Section 1011.7.1.
Add new standard(s) as follows:
ANSI/NFSI B101.1-2005 "Test Method for Measuring Wet SCOF (static coefficient of friction) of Common Hard-Surface Floor
Materials"
ANSI/NFSI B101.3-2012 "Test Method for Measuring Wet DCOF (dynamic coefficient of friction) of Common Hard-Surface Floor
Materials"
E6
definition of the term High-Traction should be listed in Section 202 and defined as it is defined in the ANSI/NFSI B101.1-2009 standard as: "The physical
property of a floor or walkway surface that is designed to mitigate slipping during normal human ambulation by providing a reasonably sufficient level of
available contact friction." Finally, a reference to the ANSI/NFSI B101.1-200 standard should be cited in Section 202 of the 2015 International Building Code.
Reference to ANSI A137.1
Historically the International Building Code has referenced the ANSI A137.1 "Specifications for Ceramic Tile" standard, which the most recent version cited, is
that of the 2008 version. In 2012 the ANSI A137.1 standard was revised whereby they abandoned their long standing reference to the ASTM C-1028 dry
SCOF test method and now reference an industry specific, wet DCOF test method, one which was created by and for the ceramic tile industry. Subsequently,
the ASTM C-1028 standard was withdrawn by the ASTM and is no longer a recognized test method.
Historically the subject of how to measure a floors slip resistance has been hotly debated to which there were two camps of thought, one, which supported
SCOF "drag sled" testing as described in ASTM D-2047 (polishes) and ASTM C-1028 (withdrawn) standards and the other camp, which supported a dynamic
version or DCOF testing. In 2006 the ANSI B101 committee on slip, trip and fall prevention was established and has since published five slip and fall prevention
standards including an SCOF (ANSI/NFSI B101.1-2009) and a DCOF (ANSI/NFSI B101.3-2012) test method, both of which are not specific to any type of
flooring material or industry but rather can be used on any type of hard surface walkway both in the laboratory (manufacturing) as well as in-situ.
NFSI vs. TCNA
The NFSI is a 501(c)-3 non-for-profit organization and is an ANSI Standard Developing Organization (SDO) which in 2006 established the ANSI B101
committee on "slip, trip and fall prevention." The NFSI's mission is "to aid in the prevention of slips, trips, and falls through education, research, and standards
development." The Tile Council of North America (TCNA) which serves as the SDO of the A108 committee which authored the A137.1 standard is a for-profit
industry trade association which according to their website " was created with the sole purpose of expanding the ceramic tile market in the United States."
In-short, the ANSI B101 committee author's walkway safety standards while the ANSI A108 committee authors ceramic tile manufacturing specifications.
ANSI A137.1-2012
According to Section 1.0 "Purpose" of the ANSI A137.1-2012 standard states that: "these specifications serve as a reference standard for buyers and
specifiers of Standard Grade and Second Grade ceramic tile, Decorative Tile, and Specialty Tile. These specifications are also a guide to producers in
maintaining quality control of the manufacture of such ceramic tile" therefore the standard is as it states "a guide to producers in maintaining quality control" of
un-installed tile and does not purport to describe any safety specifically slip and fall prevention capabilities of ceramic tile.
Section 2.0 "Scope" of the ANSI A137.1-2012 further states that: "These Specifications describe the normally available sizes and shapes of ceramic tile: the
physical properties of Standard Grade and Second Grade Ceramic Tile, Decorative Tile and Specialty Tile; the basis for acceptance and methods of testing
prior to installation; the marking and certification of ceramic tile; and the definitions of terms employed in these specifications." The ANSI A137.1 standard only
applies to un-installed ceramic tile and not installed floors. Uninstalled ceramic tile is not considered a floor until it's installed. By way of example, a wooden
2"X4" is simply that, a piece of wood measuring 2"X4" in size. Although commonly used to construct walls, a wooden 2"X4" is not a wall until it is installed as
such. The same is true for uninstalled ceramic tile. It becomes a floor after its installed to which the A137.1 standard does not govern the characteristics of
installed tile.
Safety managers, risk managers, property/facility managers, and all other parties whose responsibility is to insure the safety of their walkways are only
concerned with installed floors and not uninstalled materials and require an in-situ test method to insure compliance. Therefore, because of the limitations of the
ANSI A137.1 standard as a laboratory lab test for quality control purposes only that it should no longer be referenced within the International Building Code.
Furthermore, it is estimated that only 12.9% of all installed floorcoverings are ceramic tile and 1.1% is stone. In-fact, according to the most recent research*,
more vinyl sheet & floor tile is in use (16% of the total square footage sold), than that of ceramic tile, stone and laminate flooring combined! The A137.1-2012
standard only applies to ceramic tile and is not applicable to the remaining 87% of hard surface flooring materials used by property owners.
In contrast, the scope statements of the ANSI/NFSI B101.1 and B101.3 standards provide specific test methods and defined traction ranges for both
laboratory (un-installed) as well as in-situ (installed) flooring materials and applies to all types of hard surface flooring materials.
Financial Burden to Industry
Although the ANSI A137.1 standard has been cited in previous versions of the International Building Code, with the recent development of the ANSI B101
walkway safety standards which have been widely embraced by the flooring, floor care, legal and insurance industries. Given the broad use and industry
acceptance of the ANSI B101 standards we are requesting that any reference to the A137.1 standard as it relates to the measurement of slip resistance be
removed and replaced with references to the ANSI B101.1-2009 and ANSI B101-3-2012 standards respectively.
Since the publication of the ANSI/NFSI B101.1 standard in 2009, hundreds of flooring manufacturers products have voluntarily submitted to the NFSI for
certification. A wide range of industries have adopted the ANSI/NFSI B101 standards and have come to rely upon the NFSI to perform independent slip
resistance testing, all of which are done in compliance with the ANSI/NFSI B101.1 or B101.3 standards.
One example is that of the polished concrete industry who shortly after the publication of the ANSI/NFSI B101.3 standard publicly announced their support.
The polished concrete industry, through its representative trade association the Concrete Polishing Association of America (CPAA) openly adopted the
ANSI/NFSI B101.3 standard (see enclosed CPAA press release) to which the NFSI has been awarding certificates of compliance (NFSI Certification) to
manufacturers of polished concrete systems for many years. The economic burden to the floorcovering and floor care industries to abandon the tried and true
published ANSI B101 walkway safety standards would be financially burdensome.
Bibliography: 2013 "Statistical Report 13" as published in Floor Covering Weekly magazine, July 21, 2014
Cost Impact: Will not increase the cost of construction
There is no cost impact to this proposal since manufacturers of flooring materials are and have been measuring their products safety performance to the
ANSI/NFSI B101.1-2005 and ANSI/NFSI B101.3-2012 standards for years.
Analysis: A review of the standard proposed for inclusion in the code, ANSI/NFSI B101.1-2009 and ANSI/NFSI B101.3-2012, with regard to the ICC criteria for
referenced standards (Section 3.6 of CP#28) will be posted on the ICC website on or before April 2, 2015.
E 2-15 : 1003.4-KENDZIOR4911
E7
E 3-15
1003.4.1 (New), (IFC[BE] 1003.4.1(New))
Proponent: Eric Astrachan, Tile Council of North America, representing Tile Council of North America
(eastrachan@tileusa.com); James Hieb, Marble Institute of America (Jhieb@marble-institute.com); Nathaniel Mohler,
Concrete Polishing Association of America (Nate.Mohler@cpaa-us.org); Jennifer Faller, Diamatic USA
(Jennifer.faller@diamaticusa.com); Richard Bruns, National Terrazzo and Mosaic Association (rbruns@ntma.com)
1. Tiles appropriate for ramp applications shall be chosen for the specific properties and use of the ramp and require a wet DCOF greater than 0.42 if the
ramp will be used under wet conditions. Specifier shall determine tiles appropriate for specific project conditions, considering by way of example, but
E8
not in limitation, type of use, traffic, grade of ramp, expected contaminants, expected maintenance, expected wear, and manufacturers' guidelines and
recommendations.
2. The COF of installed tiles can change over time as a result of wear and surface contaminants. In addition to regular cleaning, deep cleaning and
traction-enhancing maintenance may be needed periodically to maintain DCOF values.
The proposed reference is in the 2012 edition of ANSI A137.1. An update to this edition will be proposed for the Group B Administrative changes. This language
is not in the 2008 edition of ANSI A137.1 that is currently referenced in the code for the definition for Porcelain tile.
Bibliography: [Handbook for Ceramic, Glass, and Stone Tile Installation] [TCNA] [2014] [Page 5-6]
[http://www.tcnatile.com/trade-news/dcof-acutest.html]
[Interiors and Sources][DCOF: Legal Liabilities, Stopping the Falls] [Elianne Halbersberg] [2013] [Page 58-60]
[http://www.interiorsandsources.com/article-details/articleid/16530/title/stopping-the-falls.aspx]
[Interiors and Sources][Stranger than Friction] [Robert Nieminen][11/2013] [Pages 54-55]
[http://www.interiorsandsources.com/article-details/articleid/16571/title/stranger-than-friction.aspx]
[Floor Focus][TILE FILES: What is friction, and how does it relate to slip resistance?] [Jim Neel] [10/2013] [Pages 74-75] [http://www.floordaily.net/flooringnews/jim_neel_discusses_coefficients_of_friction.aspx]
E9
E 4-15
1003.4.1 (New), (IFC[BE]1003.4.1 (New))
Proponent: Eric Astrachan, Tile Council of North America, representing Tile Council of North America
(eastrachan@tileusa.com)
1. Tiles appropriate for ramp applications shall be chosen for the specific properties and use of the ramp and require a wet DCOF greater than 0.42 if the
ramp will be used under wet conditions. Specifier shall determine tiles appropriate for specific project conditions, considering by way of example, but
not in limitation, type of use, traffic, grade of ramp, expected contaminants, expected maintenance, expected wear, and manufacturers' guidelines and
recommendations.
2. The COF of installed tiles can change over time as a result of wear and surface contaminants. In addition to regular cleaning, deep cleaning and
traction-enhancing maintenance may be needed periodically to maintain DCOF values.
The proposed reference is in the 2012 edition of ANSI A137.1. An update to this edition will be proposed for the Group B Administrative changes. This
language is not in the 2008 edition of ANSI A137.1 that is currently referenced in the code for the definition for Porcelain tile.
E10
Bibliography: [Handbook for Ceramic, Glass, and Stone Tile Installation] [TCNA] [2014] [Pages 5-6]
[http://www.tcnatile.com/trade-news/dcof-acutest.html]
[Interiors and Sources][DCOF: Legal Liabilities, Stopping the Falls] [Elianne Halbersberg] [11/2013] [Pages 58-60]
[http://www.interiorsandsources.com/article-details/articleid/16530/title/stopping-the-falls.aspx]
[Interiors and Sources][Stranger than Friction] [Robert Nieminen][11/2013] [Pages 54-55]
[http://www.interiorsandsources.com/article-details/articleid/16571/title/stranger-than-friction.aspx]
[Floor Focus][TILE FILES: What is friction, and how does it relate to slip resistance?] [Jim Neel] [10/2013] [Pages 74-75] [http://www.floordaily.net/flooringnews/jim_neel_discusses_coefficients_of_friction.aspx]
E11
E 5-15
Part I:
1004.1 (IFC[BE]1004.1)
Part II:
Chapter 3, 301, 301.1, 302, 302.1, 302.2 (New)
THIS IS A 2 PART CODE CHANGE. PART I WILL BE HEARD BY THE IBC-MEANS OF EGRESS COMMITTEE. PART II WILL BE HEARD BY THE IBCGENERAL COMMITTEE. SEE THE TENTATIVE HEARING ORDERS FOR THESE COMMITTEES.
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
Part I
2015 International Building Code
Revise as follows:
1004.1 Design occupant load. In determining means of egress requirements, the number of occupants for whom means of egress
facilities are provided shall be determined in accordance with this section. The determination of occupant loads for the purposes of
means of egress design is based on the function of the area, room or space under consideration as listed in Table 1004.1.2. The
assigned function of the space establishes an occupant load factor based on typical usage.
Part II
2015 International Building Code
Revise as follows:
CHAPTER 3
USE AND OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION AND USE
Assembly (see Section 303): Groups A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5.
Business (see Section 304): Group B.
Educational (see Section 305): Group E.
Factory and Industrial (see Section 306): Groups F-1 and F-2.
High Hazard (see Section 307): Groups H-1, H-2, H-3, H-4 and H-5.
Institutional (see Section 308): Groups I-1, I-2, I-3 and I-4.
Mercantile (see Section 309): Group M.
Residential (see Section 310): Groups R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4.
Storage (see Section 311): Groups S-1 and S-2.
Utility and Miscellaneous (see Section 312): Group U.
E12
Reason: This public proposal is submitted by the ICC Building Code Action Committee (BCAC). The BCAC was established by the ICC Board of Directors to
pursue opportunities to improve and enhance an assigned International Code or portion thereof. This includes both the technical aspects of the codes as well
as the code content in terms of scope and application of referenced standards. Since its inception in July, 2011, the BCAC has held 13 open meetings and
numerous workgroup calls which included members of the BCAC as well as any interested party to discuss and debate the proposed changes and the public
comments. Related documentation and reports are posted on the BCAC website at: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/BCAC/Pages/default.aspx.
Properly classifying the purpose of a given building or structure is the very important first step in the design or analysis process. The reason for this is that the
various designations account for the inherent hazards and risks typically associated with the intended purpose. Based on those hazards and risks,
appropriate limitations and controls are assigned to the building or structure. The International Building Code uses several specific terms to identify the purpose
of the building or structure. Those are: occupancy classification, use and function. Occupancy classification and use are often confused and function is
misunderstood.
The purpose of this code change is to simply formalize these terms and explain their relationship. This will assist code practitioners in properly establishing
applicable code requirements and improve uniformity and continuity in the identification of appropriate provisions. Some of the current confusion is owed to the
fact that the legacy codes used these terms, however, in different ways. For instance, BOCA used "use group" as the major designation with "occupancy"
being the subordinate term. On the other hand, ICBO used "occupancy/division" as the major designation with "use" as the secondary term. The IBC was
created using provisions from each of the legacy codes and the terms are often seen out of technical context.
This proposal will inform users of the IBC system of building classification and assist all concerned in the proper communication of applicable code
requirements.
Cost Impact:
Part I: Will not increase the cost of construction
Provisions simply provide clarification of current requirements.
Part II: Will not increase the cost of construction
Provisions simply provide clarification of current requirements.
E 5-15 : 1004.1-KULIK5034
E13
E 6-15
1004.1.1.1, 1026.4; (IFC[BE] 1004.1.1.1, 1026.4)
Proponent: Gregory Keith, Professional heuristic Development, representing The Boeing Company
(grkeith@mac.com)
E14
E 7-15
1004, 1004.1.3 (New); (IFC[BE] 1004, 1004.1.3 (New))
Proponent: David Collins, representing The American Institute of Architects (dcollins@preview-group.com)
1004.21004.5.1 Increased occupant load. The occupant load permitted in any building, or portion thereof, is permitted to be
increased from that number established for the occupancies in Table 1004.1.21004.5, provided that all other requirements of the
code are met based on such modified number and the occupant load does not exceed one occupant per 7 square feet (0.65 m 2) of
occupiable floor space. Where required by the building official, an approved aisle, seating or fixed equipment diagram substantiating
any increase in occupant load shall be submitted. Where required by the building official, such diagram shall be posted.
1004.41004.6 Fixed seating. For areas having fixed seats and aisles, the occupant load shall be determined by the number of fixed
seats installed therein. The occupant load for areas in which fixed seating is not installed, such as waiting spaces, shall be
determined in accordance with Section 1004.1.21004.5 and added to the number of fixed seats.
The occupant load of wheelchair spaces and the associated companion seat shall be based on one occupant for each wheelchair
space and one occupant for the associated companion seat provided in accordance with Section 1108.2.3.
For areas having fixed seating without dividing arms, the occupant load shall be not less than the number of seats based on one
person for each 18 inches (457 mm) of seating length.
The occupant load of seating booths shall be based on one person for each 24 inches (610 mm) of booth seat length measured at
the backrest of the seating booth.
1004.51004.7 Outdoor areas. No change to text.
1004.31004.8 Posting of occupant load. No change to text.
Reason: The purpose for adding Section 1004.3, Multiple function occupanc load: The current table for determining the occupant load for a space or a building
uses the term function. Since many of the activities noted in the table are not occupant specific that logic appears to be correct. However, there are differing
ways to determine what the occupant load is based on the measurement by net or gross area. Both terms are defined in the code, and both are exclusive of
each other (they don't overlap). However, within most buildings there are more than one function and quite often more than one occupancy. The application of
Table 1004.1.2 does not provide guidance as to how to determine which load factor to use.
One very common area of confusion is often found in office buildings. The table indicates that for "business areas" that 100 sf. of gross area would provide the
E15
basis for the occupant load. Gross floor area is by definition the entire building floor. So, a 10,000 sf. floor for business would have 100 occupants. However,
within a typical office there are other functions as well, such assembly. The code specifically anticipates this in Chapter 3 and notes that assembly space
within an office, with an occupant load of less than 50 is allowed to be classified as a B occupancy, thus eliminating a "mixed-use" condition. Assembly
occupant loads are measured either by fixed seats or by net area. That leaves the assembly function in the business occupancy with no direction as to what
is intended by the code for calculation of its occupant load.
The question that is constantly raised bby code users is what number should be used and what areas are they applied to? If the 100 sf. per person anticipates
all the functional activities within a business function (stairs, hallways, restrooms, etc., etc.), then does it or doesn't it include the assembly functions? If it
does, then the occupant load is simple to calculate. If it doesn't, then how do you determine what area to ascribe to the assembly space? Do you then
subtract that area from the business space?
Using the simplest example of a 10,000 sf. office floor, with a 600 sf. conference room with no chairs, the occupant load could either be calculated by the gross
number (100) based on the simultaneous use concept. Or should the net area for the assembly function could be deleted from the gross area. Assuming
tables and chairs in the conference room, the occupant load for the space for that function would be 40, and the remaining office occupant load would be 94.
The occupant load for design of the means of egress from the floor would then be 144.
The reason for reorganization: The current organization for this section is random. With this reorganization of Section 1004, Section 1004.2 through 1004.4
would be how spaces worked together, and Section 1004.5 through 1004.7 would be the specifics for calculating the occupant load of each space. This will
also set up this section so that where specific spaces need unique criteria (e.g. the conference room proposal also submitted for consideration) there is a
logical place to locate those sections. The final section, Section 1004.8, is for when that occupant load needs to be posted.
E16
E 8-15
Table 1004.1.2, 1004.1.3 (New); (IFC[BE] Table 1004.1.2, 1004.1.3 (New))
Proponent: David Collins, representing The American Institute of Architects (dcollins@preview-group.com)
means of egress requirements for conference and meeting rooms with fewer than 50 occupants, shall be 100 gross
square feet per person.
Revise as follows:
TABLE 1004.1.2
MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA ALLOWANCES PER OCCUPANT
FUNCTION OF SPACE
Business areas
Conference and meeting rooms
in business areas
E17
E 9-15
Table 1004.1.2, 1004.6 (New); (IFC[BE] Table 1004.1.2, 1004.6 (New))
Proponent: Dave Frable, representing US General Services Administration
FUNCTION OF SPACE
Business area
Concentrated business use
areas
100150 gross
See Section 1004.6
E18
E 10-15
TABLE 1004.1.2; (IFC[BE] TABLE 1004.1.2)
Proponent: Raymond Grill, Arup, representing Arup (ray.grill@arup.com)
FUNCTION OF SPACE
Business areasb
Reason: Incidental uses such as break rooms and conference rooms that are intended to be used by the occupants of the business use should not be loaded
as if they were standalone assembly areas. Speculative office developments have regullarly been designed for egress and plumbing fixtures based on the
gross area of the floor. The increase in build to suit office projects should not increase the occupant loads of a building and require increased egress width and
more plumbing fixtures.
A independant study performed by the Univeristy of Maryland and published by NIST (Evaluation of Survey Procedures for Determining Occupant Load
Factors in Contemporary Office Buildings, Issued September 1996) reported on the evaluation of a broad range of types of office buildings. Quoting from the
study abstract, "Buildings that are primarily composed of open plan office designs are found to have greater occupant load factors than buildings composed of
well-compartmented office designs. County government office buildings are found to be slightly greater occupant load factors than federal government
buildings. Federal government buildings have lesser occupant load factors than private office buildings. The mean occupant load factor found in the study for
all of the buildings is 248 ft2/person."
Designers and reviewers who are unfamiliar with the origin and history of the code often over design or require over design when designing build to suit
projects by counting conference rooms and break rooms to be considered as assembly uses with simutaneous occupancy with the office areas.
This significanlty increases the occupant load. The model codes historically had never been applied in this fashion and the occupant load study referenced
above reinforces that is should not be applied in a manner that inappropriately increases the occupant load of the building.
Over design results in a waste of resources when we are collectively trying to achieve sustainable designs.
E19
E 11-15
TABLE 1004.1.2; (IFC[BE] TABLE 1004.1.2)
Proponent: Stephen Thomas, Colorado Code Consulting, LLC, representing International Association of Building
Officials (sthomas@coloradocode.net)
FUNCTION OF SPACE
Industrial areas
E20
E 12-15
TABLE 1004.1.2; (IFC[BE] TABLE 1004.1.2)
Proponent: Masoud Sabounchi, Representing Colorado Chapter of ICC , representing masoud sabounchi
(masoud@acecode.com)
FUNCTION OF SPACE
50 gross
15 b gross
E21
E 13-15
1004.3; (IFC[BE] 1004.3)
Proponent: William Freer, representing New York State Office of Fire Prevention and Control (wfreer@dhses.ny.gov)
E22
E 14-15
1004.5; (IFC[BE] 1004.5)
Proponent: Timothy Pate, representing Colorado Chapter Code Change Committee, representing City and County of
Broomfield (tpate@broomfield.org)
E 14-15 : 1004.5-PATE4753
E23
E 15-15
Part I:
1005.3.1, 1005.3.2
Part II:
402.6 (New), 403.2 (New), 407.4 (New), 408.3 (New), 704.2 (New), 1005.2 (New), 1012.4.3, 1107 (New),
1107.1 (New), 1203.4 (New), 1401.6.11, Table 1401.6.11(1) (New), 1401.6.11.1
THIS IS A 2 PART CODE CHANGE. PART I AND II WILL BE HEARD BY THE IBC-MEANS OF EGRESS COMMITTEE. SEE THE TENTATIVE HEARING
ORDERS FOR THIS COMMITTEE.
Part I
2015 International Building Code
Revise as follows:
1005.3.1 Stairways. The capacity, in inches, of means of egress stairways shall be calculated by multiplying the occupant load
served by such stairways by a means of egress capacity factor of 0.3 inch (7.6 mm) per occupant. Where stairways serve more
than one story, only the occupant load of each story considered individually shall be used in calculating the required capacity of the
stairways serving that story.
Exceptions:
1. For other than Group H and I-2 occupancies, the capacity, in inches, of means of egress stairways shall be
calculated by multiplying the occupant load served by such stairways by a means of egress capacity factor of 0.2
inch (5.1 mm) per occupant in buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in
accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 and an emergency voice/alarm communication system in
accordance with Section 907.5.2.2.
1. Facilities with smoke-protected assembly seating shall be permitted to use the capacity factors in Table 1029.6.2
indicated for stepped aisles for exit access or exit stairways where the entire path for means of egress from the
seating to the exit discharge is provided with a smoke control system complying with Section 909.
2. Facilities with outdoor smoke-protected assembly seating shall be permitted to the capacity factors in Section
1029.6.3 indicated for stepped aisles for exit access or exit stairways where the entire path for means of egress
from the seating to the exit discharge is open to the outdoors.
1005.3.2 Other egress components. The capacity, in inches, of means of egress components other than stairways shall be
calculated by multiplying the occupant load served by such component by a means of egress capacity factor of 0.2 inch (5.1 mm)
per occupant.
Exceptions:
1. For other than Group H and I-2 occupancies, the capacity, in inches, of means of egress components other than
stairways shall be calculated by multiplying the occupant load served by such component by a means of egress
capacity factor of 0.15 inch (3.8 mm) per occupant in buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler
system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 and an emergency voice/alarm
communication system in accordance with Section 907.5.2.2.
1. Facilities with smoke-protected assembly seating shall be permitted to use the capacity factors in Table 1029.6.2
indicated for level or ramped aisles for means of egress components other than stairways where the entire path
for means of egress from the seating to the exit discharge is provided with a smoke control system complying
with Section 909.
2. Facilities with outdoor smoke-protected assembly seating shall be permitted to the capacity factors in Section
1029.6.3 indicated for level or ramped aisles for means of egress components other than stairways where the
entire path for means of egress from the seating to the exit discharge is open to the outdoors.
Part II
2015 International Existing Building Code
Add new text as follows:
402.6 Means of egress capacity factors. Where an addition is made to an existing building or structure, the existing building or
structure together with its additions shall not be subject to the egress width factors in Sections 1005.3.1and 1005.3.2 of the
International Building Code for new construction in determining the minimum egress widths in an existing building or structure. The
minimum egress widths for the components of the means of egress shall be based on the means of egress width factors in the
building code under which the building was constructed, and shall be considered as complying means of egress for any existing
building together with its additions if, in the opinion of the code official, they do not constitute a distinct hazard to life.
403.2 Means of egress capacity factors Alterations to any existing building shall not be subject to the egress width factors in
ICC COMMITTEE ACTION HEARINGS ::: April, 2015
E24
Sections 1005.3.1and 1005.3.2 of the International Building Code for new construction in determining the minimum egress widths in
an existing building. The minimum egress widths for the components of the means of egress shall be based on the means of egress
width factors in the building code under which the building was constructed, and shall be considered as complying means of egress
for any alteration if, in the opinion of the code official, they do not constitute a distinct hazard to life.
407.4 Means of egress capacity factors An exisiting building undergoing a change of occupancy shall not be subject to the egress
width factors in Sections 1005.3.1and 1005.3.2 of the International Building Code for new construction in determining the minimum
egress widths in an existing building. The minimum egress widths for the components of the means of egress shall be based on the
means of egress width factors in the building code under which the building was constructed, and shall be considered as complying
means of egress for a change of occupancy if, in the opinion of the code official, it does not constitute a distinct hazard to life.
408.3 Means of egress capacity factors A historic building shall not be subject to the egress width factors in Sections 1005.3.1and
1005.3.2 of the International Building Code for new construction in determining the minimum egress widths in an existing building.
The minimum egress widths for the components of the means of egress shall be based on the means of egress width factors in the
building code under which the building was constructed, and shall be considered as complying means of egress for any alteration if,
in the opinion of the code official, they do not constitute a distinct hazard to life.
704.2 Means of egress capacity factors Alterations to any existing building shall not be subject to the egress width factors
in Sections 1005.3.1and 1005.3.2 of the International Building Code for new construction in determining the minimum egress widths
in an existing building. The minimum egress widths for the components of the means of egress shall be based on the means of
egress width factors in the building code under which the building was constructed, and shall be considered as complying means of
egress for any alteration if, in the opinion of the code official, they do not constitute a distinct hazard to life.
1005.2 Means of egress capacity factors An exisitng building undergoing a change of occupancy shall not be subject to the egress
width factors in Sections 1005.3.1and 1005.3.2 of the International Building Code for new construction in determining the minimum
egress widths in an existing building. The minimum egress widths for the components of the means of egress shall be based on the
means of egress width factors in the building code under which the building was constructed, and shall be considered as complying
means of egress for a change of occupancy if, in the opinion of the code official, it does not constitute a distinct hazard to life.
Revise as follows:
1012.4.3 EgressMeans of egress capacity factors. Egress capacity
An exisitng building undergoing a change of occupancy shall meet or exceednot be subject to the occupant load as specifiedegress
width factors in Sections 1005.3.1and 1005.3.2 of the International Building Code for new construction in determining the minimum
egress widths in an existing building. The minimum egress widths for the newcomponents of the means of egress shall be based on
the means of egress width factors in the building code under which the building was constructed, and shall be considered as
complying means of egress for a change of occupancy if, in the opinion of the code official, it does not constitute a distinct hazard
to life.
Add new text as follows:
SECTION1107 MEANS OF EGRESS
1107.1 Means of egress capacity factors. Where an addition is made to an existing building or structure, the existing building or
structure together with its additions shall not be subject to the egress width factors in Sections 1005.3.1and 1005.3.2 of the
International Building Code for new construction in determining the minimum egress widths in an existing building or structure. The
minimum egress widths for the components of the means of egress shall be based on the means of egress width factors in the
building code under which the building was constructed, and shall be considered as complying means of egress for any existing
building together with its additions if, in the opinion of the code official, they do not constitute a distinct hazard to life.
1203.4 Means of egress capacity factors A historic building shall not be subject to the egress width factors in Sections
1005.3.1and 1005.3.2 of the International Building Code for new construction in determining the minimum egress widths in an
existing building. The minimum egress widths for the components of the means of egress shall be based on the means of egress
width factors in the building code under which the building was constructed, and shall be considered as complying means of egress
for any alteration if, in the opinion of the code official, they do not constitute a distinct hazard to life.
Revise as follows:
1401.6.11 Means of egress capacity and number. Evaluate the means of egress capacity and the number of exits available to the
building occupants. In applying this section, the means of egress are required to conform to the following sections of the
International Building Code: 1003.7, 1004, 1005.11005, 1006, 1007, 1016.2, 1025.1, 1028.2, 1028.5, 1029.2, 1029.3, 1029.4 and
1030, except that for existing buildings the minimum width required by this Section can also be determined solely by the width for
the required capacity in accordance with Table 1401.6.11(1). The number of exits credited is the number that is available to each
occupant of the area being evaluated. Existing fire escapes shall be accepted as a component in the means of egress when
conforming to Section 405.
Under the categories and occupancies in Table 1401.6.111401.6.11(2), determine the appropriate value and enter that value into
Table 1401.7 under Safety Parameter 1401.6.11, Means of Egress Capacity, for means of egress and general safety.
Add new table as follows:
TABLE 1401.6.11(1)
EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUPANT SERVED
ICC COMMITTEE ACTION HEARINGS ::: April, 2015
E25
OCCUPANCY
Occupancies other
communication system
communiction systema
Stairways (inches
Stairways (inches
pre occupant)
per occupant)
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.15
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.2
N/A
N/A
0.3
0.2
OCCUPANCY
CATEGORIES
a
-10
10
-3
B, F, S
-1
-3
a. The values indicated are for buildings six stories or less in height. For buildings over six stories above grade plane, add an additional -10
points.
1401.6.11.1 Categories. The categories for means-ofegress capacity and number of exits are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Category aCompliance with the minimum required means-of-egress capacity or number of exits is achieved through
the use of a fire escape in accordance with Section 405.
Category bCapacity of the means of egress complies with Section 10041005 of the International Building Code or
Table 1401.6.11(1), and the number of exits complies with the minimum number required by Section 10211006 of the
International Building Code.
Category cCapacity of the means of egress is equal to or exceeds 125 percent of the required means-of-egress
capacity, the means of egress complies with the minimum required width dimensions specified in the International
Building Code or Table 1401.6.11(1), and the number of exits complies with the minimum number required by Section
1006 of the International Building Code.
Category dThe number of exits provided exceeds the number of exits required by Section 1006 of the International
Building Code. Exits shall be located a distance apart from each other equal to not less than that specified in Section
1015.21007 of the International Building Code.
Category eThe area being evaluated meets both Categories c and d.
Reason: The intent of this code change is to revise the egress capacity factors referenced in Sections 1005.3.1 and 1005.3.2 such that the concept of
determining egress capacity for the components of the means of egress within a building is not a function of whether or not a building is protected by an
automatic fire sprinkler system. Not all building emergencies that necessitate occupant egress either out of the building or within a building to a safe area are
dependent on a fire sprinkler system and a evacuation voice/alarm communication system. In addition, revisions have also been incorporated into the IEBC to
ensure existing buildings utilizing previously approved egress capacity factors are not significantly impacted by this code change.
The geometry of a building, its occupancy and related occupant load, travel distance to exits dictate, in large measure, the location of exits, the number of
exits, the capacity of other egress components, and the capacity of exits and access thereto. As a consequence, the exits themselves influence the plan and
layout of the entire means of egress system. The number of people that the means of egress system can accommodate is determined primarily by the
E26
capacity (i.e., width) of the exits but it also is affected by the number of occupants each component within the exit access and exit discharge can
accommodate. Therefore, exit stair capacity and the capacity factor for "other means of egress" components are stand-alone life safety fundamental concepts
that need to be addressed properly, just as providing sprinkler protection and occupant notification via a voice/alarm communication system in building, to help
ensure a reasonable level of safety in a building.
The number of occupants or occupant load for which a means of egress system must provide egress capacity is calculated. The occupant load is to reflect
the maximum number of occupants anticipated to occupy the building rooms or spaces at any given time under all probable situations. The occupant load must
not be based only on normal occupancy.
Currently, the base requirements in the IBC for determining egress capacity for exit stairways state that the egress capacity for exit stairways and means of
egress components shall be based on a capacity factor of 0.3 inches/occupant and 0.2 inches/occupant respectively. However, the IBC has exceptions that
permit a building that is equipped throughout by an automatic sprinkler system and an emergency alarm communication system to use a capacity factor of 0.2
inches/occupant for exit stairways and 0.15 inches/occupant for other means of egress components. The resulting action of these 2 exceptions can be
demonstrated in the four scenarios described below:
Scenario 1; if the egress capacity of a 44 inch wide exit stair uses a capacity factor of 0.3 inches width/occupant, it would equate to 146 occupants for that
stair. Therefore, if a floor has 2 similar configured exit stairways as stated above, Scenario 1 will limit the maximum allowable number of occupants on the floor
to 292 occupants
Scenario 2; if the egress capacity of a 44 inch wide exit stair uses a capacity factor of 0.2 inches width/occupant, it would equate to 220 occupants for that
stair. Therefore, if a floor has 2 similar configured exit stairways as stated above, Scenario 2 will limit the maximum allowable number of occupants on the floor
to 440 occupants.
Scenario 3; if the egress capacity of a 36-inch door uses a capacity factor of 0.2 inches width/occupant, it would equate to 180 occupants egressing through
that door.
Scenario 4; if the egress capacity of a 36-inch wide door uses a capacity factor of 0.15 inches width/occupant, it would equate to 240 occupants egressing
through that door.
However, we strongly believe the exceptions permitted in the IBC do not take into account other types of life safety events not related to fire that have a
comparable impact on occupants evacuating a building. For example, non-related fire emergencies such as, but not limited to, hazardous substance spills and
leaks, suspicious packages, natural disasters, medical emergencies, etc. may necessitate all occupants, including those with mobility impairments, to take
immediate action to evacuate a building in an efficient manner where evacuation time may be a critical factor in ensuring occupant safety. Therefore, reducing
the exit stair capacity factor to 0.2 inches/occupant and reducing the capacity factor for "other egress components" to 0.15 inches/occupant may increase the
overall occupant evacuation times which may impact occupant safety in these critical situations. In addition, reducing these core fundamental capacity factors
in the means of egress may also impact occupant safety if the needed automatic sprinkler system and/or emergency voice/alarm communication system fails
to operate.
Therefore, based on our substantiation, we believe the respective 2 exceptions should be deleted since in our opinion the current exceptions do not present
any clear and substantial justification to reduce the exit stair capacity factor from 0.3 inches/occupant to 0.2 inches/occupant and the "other egress
components" from 0.2 inches/occupant to 0.15 inches/occupant.
Cost Impact:
Part I: Will increase the cost of construction
This code change will probbaly increase constrcution costs to meet the new requirements but will enhance overall building safety during a building evacution.
Howeevr, there should be no cost impact on exisiting buildings.
Part II: Will increase the cost of construction
This code change will probbaly increase constrcution costs to meet the new requirements but will enhance overall building safety during a building evacution.
Howeevr, there should be no cost impact on exisiting buildings.
E 15-15 : 1005.3.1-FRABLE5123
E27
E 16-15
1006.2.1, 1006.3; (IFC[BE] 1006.2.1, 1006.3)
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
2.
3.
The number of exits from foyers, lobbies, vestibules or similar spaces need not be based on cumulative occupant
loads for areas discharging through such spaces, but the capacity of the exits from such spaces shall be based on
applicable cumulative occupant loads.
In Group R-2 and R-3 occupancies, one means of egress is permitted within and from individual dwelling units with
a maximum occupant load of 20 where the dwelling unit is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system
in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 and the common path of egress travel does not exceed 125 feet
(38 100 mm).
Care suites in Group I-2 occupancies complying with Section 407.4.
1006.3 Egress from stories or occupied roofs. The means of egress system serving any story or occupied roof shall be provided
with the number of exits or access to exits based on the aggregate occupant load served in accordance with this section. The path
of egress travel to an exit shall not pass through more than one adjacent story. Where stairways serve more that one story, only the
occupant load of each story considered individually shall be used in caculating the required number of exits or access to exits
serving that story.
Exception: Where the only access to requried exits from a mezzanines is through and adjacent story, the entire occupant load
of such mezzanines shall be added to the load of the adjacent story.
Reason: This public proposal is submitted by the ICC Building Code Action Committee (BCAC). The BCAC was established by the ICC Board of Directors to
pursue opportunities to improve and enhance an assigned International Code or portion thereof. This includes both the technical aspects of the codes as well
as the code content in terms of scope and application of referenced standards. Since its inception in July, 2011, the BCAC has held 13 open meetings and
numerous workgroup calls which included members of the BCAC as well as any interested party to discuss and debate the proposed changes and the public
comments. Related documentation and reports are posted on the BCAC website at: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/BCAC/Pages/default.aspx.
Cumulative occupant load provisions were clarified in the 2015 IBC. There were several proposals initially submitted to address these provisions. For the final
action hearings, proponents agreed to support one proposal: E15-12. E15 addressed the concerns by modifying Section 1004.1, Cumulative occupant loads.
This proposal is intended to enhance the functionality of these requirements by placing them in context with the applicable means of egress design
requirements. For example, Section 1004.1.1.1 states, "Design of egress path capacity shall be based on the cumulative portion of the occupant loads of all
rooms, areas or spaces to that point along the path of egress travel." This proposal places the same requirement at Section 1006.2.1 in the context of using
capacity to determine the required number of exits or access to exits.
A new Exception 1 to Section 1006.2.1 has been added. This language was contained in proposal E16-12 and was lost in the consolidation. Nevertheless, it is
a logical concern. Literally interpreted, a building with an occupant load of 4,000 and having four required exits with one of those exits having a foyer, lobby,
vestibule or similar space would require four exits from such space based on the cumulative occupant load of 1,000. The number of exits from such space
would be based on the occupant load of the space; however, the capacity of that exit(s) would be based on the cumulative occupant load served.
Perhaps the most important feature of the 2015 code change was that it clarified that cumulative occupant loads are not considered when calculating the
required number of exits or access to exits serving an adjacent story. An exception clarifies that occupant loads from isolated mezzanines will be considered
in determining the number of required exits from the adjacent story.
Some seasoned practitioners consult a specific code provision without reviewing the applicable general requirements when researching a given design
condition. If for instance, a design professional or plans examiner is verifying the procedure for the determination of the required number of exits or access to
exits, he or she will likely consult Section1006 although many other general provisions potentially apply to the situation, to include Section 1004. This proposal
is intended to be user friendly in that it restates important cumulative occupant load provisions in technical context without providing a generic cross-reference.
Approval of this proposal will improve the consistency in the determination and application of fundamental IBC means of egress provisions.
Staff note: Section 1006.3 has a published errata. The proposal includes the errata as existing text.
E 16-15 : 1006.2.1-KULIK3684
E28
E 17-15
1006.2.1, TABLE 1006.2.1; (IFC[BE] 1006.2.1, TABLE 1006.2.1)
Proponent: Lee Kranz, City of Bellevue, Washington, representing Washington Association of Building Officials
Technical Code Development Committee
OCCUPANCY
MAXIMUM
OCCUPANT
(feet)
With Sprinkler System
LOAD OF SPACE
Occupant Load
(feet)
OL 30
OL 30
Ac , E, M
49
75
75
75 a
49
100
75
100 a
49
75
75
100 a
NP
NP
25 b
H-4, H-5
10
NP
NP
75 b
10
NP
NP
75 a
I-3
10
NP
NP
100 a
R-1
10
NP
NP
75 a
R-2
10 20
NP
NP
125 a
R-3 e
1020
NP
NP
125 a
R-4 e
1020
75
75
125 a
Sf
29
100
75
100 a
49
100
75
75 a
E29
E30
E 18-15
TABLE 1006.2.1; (IFC[BE] TABLE 1006.2.1)
Proponent: Victor Cuevas, representing City of Los Angeles
OCCUPANCY
MAXIMUM
OCCUPANT
(feet)
With Sprinkler System
LOAD OF SPACE
Occupant Load
(feet)
OL 30
OL>30
Ac , E, M
49
75
75
75 a
49
100
75
100 a
49
75
75
100 a
NP
NP
25 b
H-4, H-5
10
NP
NP
75 b
10
NP
NP
75 a
I-3
10
NP
NP
100 a
R-1
10
NP75
NP75
75 a
R-2
10
NP75
NP75
125 a
R-3 e
10
NP75
NP75
125 a
R-4 e
10
75
75
125 a
Sf
29
100
75
100 a
49
100
75
75 a
E31
e. The length of common path of egress travel distance in a Group R-3 occupancy located in a mixed occupancy building or within a Group
R-3 or R-4 congregate living facility.
f. The length of common path of egress travel distance in a Group S-2 open parking garage shall be not more than 100 feet.
Reason: The purpose of this proposal is to allow a maximum common path of egress travel distance to be 75' for Group R-1, R-2 and R-3. Without this
change, any addition to an existing non-sprinklered building would require two exits from any room without any allowance for the common path of egress travle
distance. This travel distance is the same as what was permitted in the code before all Group R was required to be sprinklered.
Cost Impact: Will not increase the cost of construction
There is not change in requirements.
E 18-15 : T1006.2.1-CUEVAS4824
E32
E 19-15
TABLE 1006.2.1; (IFC[BE] TABLE 1006.2.1)
Proponent: Kathleen Petrie, representing City of Seattle, Department of Planning and Development
(kathleen.petrie@seattle.gov)
OCCUPANCY
MAXIMUM
OCCUPANT
(feet)
With Sprinkler System
LOAD OF SPACE
Occupant Load
(feet)
OL 30
OL >30
Ac , E, M
49
75
75
75 a
49
100
75
100 a
49
75
75
100 a
NP
NP
25 b
H-4, H-5
10
NP
NP
75 b
10
NP
NP
75 a
I-3
10
NP
NP
100 a
R-1
10
NP
NP
75 a
R-2
10
NP
NP
125 a
R-3 e
10
NP
NP
125 a
R-4 e
10
75
75
125 a
Sf
29
100
75
100 a
49
100
75
75 a
E33
e. The length of common path of egress travel distance in a Group R-3 occupancy located in a mixed occupancy building or within a Group
R-3 or R-4 congregate living facility.
f. The length of common path of egress travel distance in a Group S-2 open parking garage shall be not more than 100 feet.
Reason: This proposal deletes footnote 'f' in Table 1006.2.1 because it is unnecessary and adds confusion. Footnote 'f' currently limits the maximum common
path of egress travel distance to 100 feet for open parking garages with an S-2 Occupancy. However, 100 feet is the maximum distance for any S
Occupancy, so it is unnecessary to single out open parking garages. This footnote may also result in prompting the user to unnecessarily search for a
requirement applying to enclosed parking garages.
Cost Impact: Will not increase the cost of construction
This proposal is a clarification of the requirement so there is no impact to the cost of construction
E 19-15 : T1006.2.1-PETRIE4005
E34
E 20-15
1006.2.2.1, 1006.2.2.2 (New), 1006.2.2.2, 1010.1.10; (IFC[BE] 1006.2.2.1, 1006.2.2.2 (New), 1006.2.2.2,
1010.1.10)
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
E35
of the building will include the requirements that are already required elsewhere in this code.
E 20-15 : 1006.2.2.2 (NEW)-KULIK3668
E36
E 21-15
1006.2.2.2 (New); (IFC[BE] 1006.2.2.2 (New))
Proponent: Lee Kranz, City of Bellevue, WA, representing Washington Association of Building Officials Technical
Code Development Committee
E37
E 22-15
1006.2.2.2; (IFC[BE] 1006.2.2.2)
Proponent: Jeffrey Shapiro, International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration, representing International Institute of
Ammonia Refrigeration (jeff.shapiro@intlcodeconsultants.com)
E38
E 23-15
1006.2.2.4, Table 1017.2, Table 1020.1; (IFC[BE] 1006.2.2.4, Table 1017.2, Table 1020.1)
Proponent: Carl Baldassarra, P.E., FSFPE, Chair, ICC Code Technology Committee, representing Code Technology
Committee (CTC@iccsafe.org)
WITHOUT
OCCUPANCY
SPRINKLER
SYSTEM
(feet)
A, E, F-1, M, R, S-
WITH SPRINKLER
SYSTEM
(feet)
200
250 b
I-1
Not Permitted
250 b
200
300 c
F-2, S-2, U
300
400 c
H-1
Not Permitted
75 d
H-2
Not Permitted
100 d
H-3
Not Permitted
150 d
H-4
Not Permitted
175 d
H-5
Not Permitted
200 c
Not Permitted
200 c
I-4
150
200 c
E39
Section 1017.2.2: For increased distance limitation in Groups F-1 and S-1.
Section 1029.7: For increased limitation in assembly seating.
Section 3103.4: For temporary structures.
Section 3104.9: For pedestrian walkways.
b. Buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2. See Section 903
for occupancies where automatic sprinkler systems are permitted in accordance with Section 903.3.1.2.
c. Buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1.
d. Group H occupancies equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.2.5.1.
TABLE 1020.1
CORRIDOR FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING
REQUIRED FIRE-RESISTANCE
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANCY
RATING (hours)
LOAD SERVED
BY CORRIDOR
Without sprinkler
system
All
Not Permitted
H-4, H-5
Greater than 30
Not Permitted
A, B, E, F, M, S, U
Greater than 30
Greater than 10
Not Permitted
0.5
I-2 a , I-4
All
Not Permitted
I-4
All
I-1, I-3
All
Not Permitted
1b
a. For requirements for occupancies in Group I-2, see Sections 407.2 and 407.3.
b. For a reduction in the fire-resistance rating for occupancies in Group I-3, see Section 408.8.
c. Buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 where allowed.
Reason:
Section 903.2.6 Exception 2 allows for day cares to not be sprinklered and 903.2.6 allows for the building to not be fully sprinklered. This is a historical
provision that has no incidence that would indicate that it should not be permitted. Therefore, there needs to be an option other than NP in travel distance and
corridor ratings in non-sprinklered buildings for Group I-4 day care facilities. The provisions permitted were in past editions of the code.
IBC 308.6.1 Classification as Group E. A child day care facility that provides care for more than five but not more than 100 children 21/2 years or less of age,
where the rooms in which the children are cared for are located on a level of exit discharge serving such rooms and each of these child care rooms has an
exit door directly to the exterior, shall be classified as Group E.
IFC 903.2.6 (IBC [F] 903.2.6) Group I. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout buildings with a Group I fire area.
Exceptions:
1. An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.2 shall be permitted in Group I-1 Condition 1 facilities.
2. An automatic sprinkler system is not required where Group I-4 day care facilities are at the level of exit discharge and where every room where care is
provided has not fewer than one exterior exit door.
3. In buildings where Group I-4 day care is provided on levels other than the level of exit discharge, an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with
Section 903.3.1.1 shall be installed on the entire floor where care is provided, all floors between the level of care and the level of exit discharge, and all floors
below the level of exit discharge other than areas classified as an open parking garage.
The ICC Code Technology Committee (CTC) has just completed its 10th year. The ICC Board has decided to sunset the CTC. The sunset plan includes reassigning many of the CTC Areas of Study to the applicable Code Action Committee (CAC). The two remaining CTC Areas of Study are Care Facilities and
Elevator Lobbies/WTC Elevator issues. This proposal falls under the Care Facilities Area of Study. Information on the CTC, including: the sunset plan;
meeting agendas; minutes; reports; resource documents; presentations; and all other materials developed in conjunction with the CTC effort can be
downloaded from the CTC website at: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/CTC/Pages/default.aspx.
E40
E 23-15 : 1006.2.2.4BALDASSARRA4288
E41
E 24-15
1006.3; (IFC[BE] 1006.3)
Proponent: Stephen Thomas, representing Colorado Chapter (sthomas@coloradocode.net)
Staff note: There is a published errata to Section 1006.3. The errata in indicated in this proposal as existing text.
E 24-15 : 1006.3-THOMAS4557
E42
E 25-15
1006.3, 1006.3.1; (IFC[BE] 1006.3, 1006.3.1)
Proponent: Gregory Keith, Professional heuristic Development, representing The Boeing Company
(grkeith@mac.com); Stephen Thomas (sthomas@coloradocode.net)
Staff note: There is a published errata to Section 1006.3 and 1006.3.1. The errata is incorporated into this proposal as existing text.
E 25-15 : 1006.3-KEITH4704
E43
E 26-15
1006.3; (IFC[BE] 1006.3)
Proponent: Rick Lupton, representing City of Seattle, Dept of Planning & Development (rick.lupton@seattle.gov)
Staff note: There is a published errata to Section 1006.3. The errata is shown in the proposal as existing text.
E 26-15 : 1006.3-LUPTON5540
E44
E 27-15
1006.3, 1006.3.1 (New); (IFC[BE] 1006.3, 1006.3.1 (New))
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
Revise as follows:
1006.3.1 Adjacent story. The path of egress travel to an exit shall not pass through more than one adjacent story.
Exception: The path of egress travel to an exit shall be permitted to pass through more than one adjacent story in any of the
following:
1. In Group R-1, R-2 or R-3 occupancies, exit access stairways and ramps connecting four stories or less serving and
contained within an individual dwelling unit or sleeping unit or live/work unit.
2. Exit access stairways serving and contained within a Group R-3 congregate residence or a Group R-4 facility.
3. Exit access stairways and ramps in open parking garages that serve only the parking garage.
4. Exit access stairways and ramps serving open-air assembly seating complying with the exit access travel distance
requirements of Section 1029.7.
5. Exit access stairways and ramps between the balcony, gallery or press box and the main assembly floor in occupancies
such as theaters, places of religious worship, auditoriums and sports facilities.
Reason: The intent of this proposal is to coordinate Section 1006.3 and the allowance for exit access stairways in Section 1019.3. The 2nd sentence of
Section 1006.3 currently says that the required number of exits must be available not more than one story above or below the exit you are on. The first part of
this proposal is to put that requirement in its own section, Section 1006.3.1.
Section 1019.3 Exception 1, allows for open exit access stairways for two story buildings. However, there are several situations where the intent was for open
exit access stairways to be utilized for more than one story, provided that the travel distance is met within a 3 or 4 story dwelling, in atriums, in open air
seating, and from balconies. It is also the intent to allow for open stairways for multiple stories within open parking garages, per Section 1019.3 and Section
1017.3. Exceptions to new Section 1006.3.1 would clarify where this is permitted.
The exceptions here are direct copies of the exceptions in Section 1019.3. If there are revisions to those exceptions in this cycle, there will be a public
comment to revise the language here to be consistent.
Alternatives also discussed where one exception to Section 1006.3.1 with a reference to specific exceptions in the open exit access stairway provisions in
Section 1019.3; or removal of the sentence now in Section 1006.3.1.
In July/2014 the ICC Board decided to sunset the activities of the Code Technology Committee (CTC). This is being accomplished by re-assigning many of the
CTC Areas of Study to the applicable Code Action Committee (CAC). This proposal falls under the CTC Area of Study entitled Unenclosed Exit Stairs.
Information on the CTC, including: the sunset plan; meeting agendas; minutes; reports; resource documents; presentations; and all other materials developed
in conjunction with the CTC effort can be downloaded from the CTC website.http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/CTC/Pages/default.aspx
This public proposal is submitted by the ICC Building Code Action Committee (BCAC). The BCAC was established by the ICC Board of Directors to pursue
opportunities to improve and enhance an assigned International Code or portion thereof. This includes both the technical aspects of the codes as well as the
code content in terms of scope and application of referenced standards. Since its inception in July, 2011, the BCAC has held 13 open meetings and numerous
workgroup calls which included members of the BCAC as well as any interested party to discuss and debate the proposed changes and the public comments.
Related documentation and reports are posted on the BCAC website at:http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/BCAC/Pages/default.aspx .
Staff note: There is a published errata to Section 1006.3. The errata is shown in the proposal as existing text.
E 27-15 : 1006.3-KULIK3645
E45
E 28-15
1006.3.2, Table 1006.3.2(1) and Table 1006.3.2(2); (IFC[BE] 1006.3.2, Table 1006.3.2(1) and Table
1006.3.2(2))
Proponent: Wayne Jewell, Green Oak Charter Township, representing Green Oak Charter Township
(wayne.jewell@twp.green-oak.mi.us); Dave Collins, representing the American Institute of Architects
(dcollins@preview-group.com)
TABLE 1006.3.2(1)
STORIES WITH ONE EXIT OR ACCESS TO ONE EXIT FOR R-2 OCCUPANCIES
STORY
OCCUPANCY
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF
DWELLING UNITS
R-2 a, b
4 dwelling units
125 feet
NP
NA
NA
STORY
OCCUPANCY
A, Bb , E Fb , M, U
MAXIMUM OCCUPANT
LOAD PER STORY
49
E46
H-2, H-3
25
10
75
Sb,d
29
75
B, F, M, Sd
29
75
NP
NA
NA
plane
Staff note: There is an errata to Section 1006.3.2 Item 1. This errata in incorporated into the code change as existing text.
E 28-15 : 1006.3.2-JEWELL5394
E47
E 29-15
Table 1006.3.2, 1030.1 (IFC[BE] Table 1006.3.2, 1030.1)
Proponent: Carl Baldassarra, P.E., FSFPE, Chair, ICC Code Technology Committee, representing Code Technology
Committee (CTC@iccsafe.org)
2015 International Building Code
Revise as follows:
1006.3.2 Single exits. A single exit or access to a single exit shall be permitted from any story or occupied roof where one of the
following conditions exists:
1. The occupant load, number of dwelling units and common path of egress travel distance does not exceed the values in Table
1006.3.2(1) or 1006.3.2(2).
2. Rooms, areas and spaces complying with Section 1006.2.1 with exits that discharge directly to the exterior at the level of exit
discharge, are permitted to have one exit or access to a single exit.
3. Parking garages where vehicles are mechanically parked shall be permitted to have one exit or access to a single exit.
4. Group R-3 and R-4 occupancies shall be permitted to have one exit or access to a single exit.
5. Individual single-story or multistory dwelling units shall be permitted to have a single exit or access to a single exit from the
dwelling unit provided that both of the following criteria are met:
1. The dwelling unit complies with Section 1006.2.1 as a space with one means of egress.
2. Either the exit from the dwelling unit discharges directly to the exterior at the level of exit discharge, or the exit access
outside the dwelling unit's entrance door provides access to not less than two approved independent exits.
TABLE 1006.3.2
STORIES WITH ONE EXIT OR ACCESS TO ONE EXIT FOR OTHER OCCUPANCIES
STORY
OCCUPANCY
MAXIMUM OCCUPANT
OF EGRESS TRAVEL
DISTANCE (feet)
A, Bb , E Fb , M, U
49
75
H-2, H-3
25
10
75
Sb,d
29
75
B, F, M, Sd
29
75
NP
NA
NA
1030.1 General.
In addition to the means of egress required by this chapter, provisions shall be made for emergency escape and rescue openings in
Group R-2 occupancies in accordance with Tables 1006.3.2(1) and 1006.3.2(2) and Group R-3 and R-4 occupancies. Basements and
sleeping rooms below the fourth story above grade plane shall have at least one exterior emergency escape and rescue opening in
ICC COMMITTEE ACTION HEARINGS ::: April, 2015
E48
accordance with this section. Where basements contain one or more sleeping rooms, emergency escape and rescue openings shall
be required in each sleeping room, but shall not be required in adjoining areas of the basement. Such openings shall open directly
into a public way or to a yard or court that opens to a public way.
Exceptions:
1. Basements with a ceiling height of less than 80 inches (2032 mm) shall not be required to have emergency
escape and rescue openings.
2. Emergency escape and rescue openings are not required from basements or sleeping rooms that have an
exit door or exit access door that opens directly into a public way or to a yard, court or exterior exit
balcony that opens to a public way.
3.
Basements without habitable spaces and having not more than 200 square feet (18.6 m2) in floor area shall
not be required to have emergency escape and rescue openings.
Reason: There is a conflict between Section 1006.3.2 Item 4 and Table 1006.3.2(2) due to multiple changes on the same section during the last cycle. Group
R-4 are permitted to have multiple stories with one exit in the text, but limited to one story and 10 occupants in the table. Open exit access stairways are
permitted in Group R-3 and R-4 in Section 1019.3 Item 3.
This will not negate the requirement for all bedrooms/sleeping units to have emergency escape windows in Section 1030.1. While Group R-4 should follow
Group R-3 provisions, it is proposed to be added here to make sure it is applied.
The ICC Code Technology Committee (CTC) has just completed its 10th year. The ICC Board has decided to sunset the CTC. The sunset plan includes reassigning many of the CTC Areas of Study to the applicable Code Action Committee (CAC). The two remaining CTC Areas of Study are Care Facilities and
Elevator Lobbies/WTC Elevator issues. This proposal falls under the Care Facilities Area of Study. Information on the CTC, including: the sunset plan;
meeting agendas; minutes; reports; resource documents; presentations; and all other materials developed in conjunction with the CTC effort can be
downloaded from the CTC website at: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/CTC/Pages/default.aspx.
Staff note: There is an errata to Section 1006.3.2 Item 1. This errata in incorporated into the code change as existing text.
E 29-15 : T1006.3.2BALDASSARRA4277
E49
E 30-15
1008.2; (IFC[BE] 1008.2)
Proponent: David Kulina, representing Engel Architects (david@engelarch.com)
E 30-15 : 1008.2-KULINA4552
E50
E 31-15
202(New), 1008.2.1.1(New), 1008.3, 1008.3.1, 1008.3.4, 1013.6.3, 1025.5; (IFC[BE] 1008.2.1.1(New),
1008.3, 1008.3.1, 1008.3.4, 1013.6.3, 1025.5)
Proponent: Charles Barlow, representing EverGlow NA, Inc. (cvbarlow@everglow.us)
The daylight responsive controls, occupant sensor controls and time switch controls are listed and evaluated to
automatically energize the controlled lights upon device failure or loss of normal power.
For occupant sensor controls, the control is activated by any occupant movement in the area served by the controlled
lights and illumination timers are set for a durations of 15 minutes minimum.
A daylight responsive control or occupant sensor control does not control lights required as a charging source for
photoluminescent egress path markings in accordance with Section 1025.
A daylight responsive controls, occupant sensor controls or time switch controls does not control electrical power to, or
illumination for exit signs in accordance with Section 1013.
A daylight responsive controls, occupant sensor controls or time switch controls does not control emergency egress
lighting required in Section 1008.3.
Revise as follows:
1008.2.11008.2.2 Illumination level under normal power. The means of egress illumination level shall be not less than 1
footcandle (11 lux) at the walking surface.
Exception: For auditoriums, theaters, concert or opera halls and similar assembly occupancies, the illumination at the
walking surface is permitted to be reduced during performances by one of the following methods provided that the required
illumination is automatically restored upon activation of a premises' fire alarm system:
ICC COMMITTEE ACTION HEARINGS ::: April, 2015
E51
1.
2.
Externally illuminated walking surfaces shall be permitted to be illuminated to not less than 0.2 footcandle (2.15
lux).
Steps, landings and the sides of ramps shall be permitted to be marked with self-luminous materials in
accordance with Sections 1025.2.1, 1025.2.2 and 1025.2.4 by systems listed in accordance with UL 1994.
1008.2.21008.2.3 Exit discharge. In Group I-2 occupancies where two or more exits are required, on the exterior landings required
by Section 1010.6.1, means of egress illumination levels for the exit discharge shall be provided such that failure of any single
lighting unit shall not reduce the illumination level on that landing to less than 1 footcandle (11 lux).
1008.3.11008.3 GeneralIllumination of the means of egress under emergency power. In the event of power supply failure in
rooms and spaces that require two or more means of egress, an emergency electrical system shall automatically illuminate all of the
following areas:
1.
2.
3.
Aisles.
Corridors.
Exit access stairways and ramps.
1008.3.21008.3.1 Buildings. In the event of power supply failure in buildings that require two or more means of egress, an
emergency electrical system shall automatically illuminate all of the following areas:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1008.3.31008.3.2 Rooms and spaces. In the event of power supply failure, an emergency electrical system shall automatically
illuminate all of the following areas:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Public restrooms with an area greater than 300 square feet (27.87 m2).
1008.3.41008.3.3 Duration and controls. The emergency power system shall provide power for a duration of not less than 90
minutes and shall consist of storage batteries, unit equipment or an on-site generator. Lights for the emergency illumination of the
means of egress shall not be controlled by daylight responsive controls, occupant sensor controls or time switch controls. The
installation of the emergency power system shall be in accordance with Section 2702.
1008.3.51008.3.4 Illumination level under emergency power. Emergency lighting facilities shall be arranged to provide initial
illumination that is not less than an average of 1 footcandle (11 lux) and a minimum at any point of 0.1 footcandle (1 lux) measured
along the path of egress at floor level. Illumination levels shall be permitted to decline to 0.6 footcandle (6 lux) average and a
minimum at any point of 0.06 footcandle (0.6 lux) at the end of the emergency lighting time duration. A maximum-to-minimum
illumination uniformity ratio of 40 to 1 shall not be exceeded. In Group I-2 occupancies, failure of any single lighting unit shall not
reduce the illumination level to less than 0.2 foot-candle (2.2 lux).
SECTION 1013 EXIT SIGNS
1013.6.3 Power source. Exit signs shall be illuminated at all times. Lights for the illumination of exit signs and the electrical power
to the exit signs shall not be controlled by daylight responsive controls, occupant sensor controls or time switch controls. To ensure
continued illumination for a duration of not less than 90 minutes in case of primary power loss, the sign illumination means shall be
connected to an emergency power system provided from storage batteries, unit equipment or an on-site generator. The installation
of the emergency power system shall be in accordance with Chapter 27.
Exceptions:
1. Approved exit sign illumination means that provide continuous illumination independent of external power sources
for a duration of not less than 90 minutes, in case of primary power loss, are not required to be connected to an
emergency electrical system.
2. Group I-2 Condition 2 exit sign illumination shall not be provided by unit equipment battery only.
SECTION 1025 LUMINOUS EGRESS PATH MARKINGS
1025.5 Illumination. Where photoluminescent exit path markings are installed, they shall be provided with not less than 1
footcandle (11 lux) of illumination for not less than 60 minutes prior to periods when the building is occupied and continuously during
occupancy. Lighting that is the charging source for photoluminescent egress path markings shall not be controlled by daylight
responsive controls or occupant sensor controls.
Reason: The entire Section 1008 is being shown so that the reorganization for means of egress lighting sections and references are clear. The four
definitions match those currently in the IECC for these types of controls.
The proper operation of (electrical) general lighting used to provide minimum illumination in the means of egress must not be
compromised when operated under normal electrical power. In areas where emergency lighting is installed aisles, corridors, exit access stairways and
E52
ramps the need for reliable (electrical) general lighting and electrical emergency lighting cannot be overestimated. This proposal seeks to impose minimum
listing, testing and performance requirements on lighting controls if they are used in the means of egress in areas where electrical emergency lighting are
required.
The overwhelming majority of emergency evacuations take place when the (electrical) general lighting is operating properly providing a minimum of 1 ft-c of
illumination when measured at floor level. In areas of the means of egress where (electrical) emergency lighting is required to be installed and maintained,
these luminaires provide safe illumination during emergency evacuations. Proper illumination in exit stairs and exit access corridors has been shown to be so
valuable to safe egress during emergency evacuations that code authorities now require (non-electrical) luminous egress path markings in the exit stairs of
high rise buildings. Some local jurisdictions also require luminous egress path markings installed at the perimeter of exit passageways in public buildings,
schools, healthcare facilities and hotels.
Lighting controls daylight responsive controls, occupant sensor controls and time switch controls - currently installed in the areas of the means of egress of
some buildings where electrical emergency lighting is required to be installed and maintained - are being used to reduce illumination levels below 1 footcandle at
the walking surface when normal electrical power is available. If the egress capacity of a specific means of egress is required during periods of reduced or
completely powered off illumination, the building owner is creating an unsafe condition. Worse, if the lighting controls fail to operate properly during an
emergency evacuation, the remaining egress capacity may not be sufficient to safely and quickly evacuate the building.
To meet code requirements, the building owner should maintain minimum illumination levels where electrical emergency lighting is required to be installed and
maintained at all times the specific means of egress is required, or he should use lighting control devices that meet the conditions above. The proper operation
of emergency lighting must not be compromised when operated under normal power. Lighting controls and occupancy sensors currently installed in the means
of egress of some buildings are causing the improper activation of emergency lighting when normal electrical power is still available. Although these lighting
controls are likely improperly installed, there should be specific language in the building and fire codes that this is not allowed. In other facilities, lighting controls
on luminaires used for emergency illumination in the means of egress control illumination levels during operation with normal power. In these buildings, there
should be emergency luminaires in the means of egress without lighting controls or occupancy sensors to provide the minimum illumination levels required
under emergency power.
The Commercial Energy Chapter of the IEC 2015 specifies the use of various lighting controls and interior lighting power allowances for commercial buildings.
Paragraph C405.2 Lighting Controls (Mandatory) states that lighting controls are not required in areas required to be continuously illuminated, interior exit
stairways, interior exit ramps and exit passageways. Yet, lighting controls are increasingly installed in these areas. Additionally, it is commonly thought that the
requirement for these lighting controls is to power off the general lighting in these areas. The IEC allows for the dimming of lights. Minimum illumination levels
required by the IBC 2015 and IFC 2015 in the means of egress can be easily accomplished with dimming controls.
There is NO specific code requirement that prohibits the use of lighting controls on electrical emergency lighting or electrical exit signs. There is NO specific
code requirement the prohibits the use of lighting controls on (electrical) general lighting - where electrical emergency lighting is required to be installed and
maintained - that might affect the normal operation of electrical emergency lighting or electrical exit signs. There is NO specific code requirement in Section
1008 Means of Egress Illumination that qualifies the use of lighting controls used to control general lighting in the means of egress areas such as rooms and
spaces where emergency lighting is required. There is NO specific code requirement for the use of lighting controls used to control (electrical) general lighting
where photoluminescent egress path markings are installed.
E53
E 32-15
1008.2.2, 1008.3.5; (IFC[BE] 1008.2.2, 1008.3.5)
Proponent: John Williams, CBO, CBO, Chair, Adhoc Healthcare Committee, representing Adhoc Health Care
Committee (AHC@iccsafe.org); Carl Baldassarra, P.E., FSFPE, Chair, Code Technology Committee, representing
Code Technology Committee (CTC@iccsafe.org)
E54
E 33-15
1008.2.2, 1008.2.3 (New); (IFC[BE] 1008.2.2, 1008.2.3 (New))
Proponent: Daniel Nichols, New York State Division of Building Standards and Codes, representing New York State
Division of Building Standards and Codes (dnichols@dos.state.ny.us)
The path of exit discharge is illuminated from the exit for a travel distance of 50 feet (15 240 mm) minimum or a distance
of 1.5 times the total building height, whichever is greater.
A dispersal area shall be provided with all the following:
2.1. The dispersal area is illuminate.
2.2. The area is sized to accommodate not less that 5 square feet (0.46 m2) for each person using the exit
discharge and wheelchair spaces in accordance with Section 1009.6.3.
2.3. The dispersal area shall be located on the same lot and located at the end of the illuminated path of exit
discharge.
2.4. The area is permenantly maintained and identified as an illuminated dipersal area.
2.5. The area shall be provided with a safe and unobstructed path of travel from the building.
Reason: The purpose of this code change proposal is to limit the amount of light required for safe exiting from a building. On large parcels and when buildings
are construted on existing private campuses (i.e. business parks, college/university), the need to provide required lighting to the public way can be significant.
In such locations, it is appropriate to provide a termination of illumination requirements (both continuous and emergency) at a safe distance from the building
requiring egress.
IBC Section 1028.5 already permits the use of a safe dispersal area when access to a public way is cannot be provided. This proposal builds off of the same
requirements found in 1028.5 to create a termination point of illumination without the requirement of not having access to a public way. The only two changes to
the safe dispersal area is the addition of the wheelchair spaces to the total termination area sizing (matching the size and ratio of spaces from the area of
refuge requirements) and the addition of a 150% safety factor to address buildings over 35 feet tall.
With an increased concern about energy usage and light pollution in some communities, having appropriate safeguards within the code that address building
occupant safety and ways to minimize required illuminiation is mutually beneficial.
E55
E 34-15
1009.1; (IFC[BE] 1009.1)
Proponent: Gene Boecker, representing Code Consultants, Inc. (geneb@codeconsultants.com)
E56
E 35-15
1009.1 (IFC[BE] 1009.1)
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
E57
E 36-15
1009.2; (IFC[BE] 1009.2)
Proponent: Gene Boecker, representing Code Consultants, Inc. (geneb@codeconsultants.com)
Exception: In existing buildings, the components shall comply with the applicable sections within the International
Existing Building Code.
Reason: The added exception to Section 1009.2 makes it clear that if an acessible means of egress is provieded within an existing building, the components
acceptable for the accessible means of egress are the components acceptable according to the IEBC. For example, the ramp slope is permitted to be steeper
for short rises to meet the access requirements of the IEBC. Thos esame elements should be allowed to be used for the accessible egress. It makes no
sense to allow a slope of 1:8 for a 3 inch vertical rise for access to a space but then requrie a 1:12 slope if that is to be a part of the accessible means of
egress. If the ramp is good for access it should be good for egress.
IEBC 410.8.5 Ramps. Where slopes steeper than allowed by Section 1012.2 of the International Building Code are necessitated by space limitations, the slope
of ramps in or providing access to existing facilities shall comply with Table 410.8.5.
TABLE 410.8.5
RAMPS
SLOPE
MAXIMUM RISE
3 inches
6 inches
E58
E 37-15
1009.2
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
Revise as follows:
1009.2 Continuity and components.
Each required accessible means of egress shall be continuous to a public way. The accessible means of egress shall provide a
path of travel along an accessible route in accordance with Section 1009.2.1 through 1009.2.3. and shall consist of one or more of
the following components:
Accessible routes complying with Section 1104.
Interior exit stairways complying with Sections 1009.3 and 1023.
Exit access stairways complying with Sections 1009.3 and 1019.3 or 1019.4.
Exterior exit stairways complying with Sections 1009.3 and 1027 and serving levels other than the level of exit
discharge.
5. Elevators complying with Section 1009.4.
6. Platform lifts complying with Section 1009.5.
7. Horizontal exits complying with Section 1026.
8. Ramps complying with Section 1012.
9. Areas of refuge complying with Section 1009.6.
10. Exterior areas for assisted rescue complying with Section 1009.7 serving exits at the level of exit discharge.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1009.2.3 Accessible exit discharge. At the level of exit discharge the path of travel for the exit discharge shall be along an accessible route
connecting the exit to the public way.
Exceptions:
1. The accessible route connects to an exterior area for assisted rescue complying with Section 1009.7.
2. The accessible route connects to an area of refuge complying with Section 1009.6.
3. The accessible route connects to a safe dispersal area in accordance with the exception to Section 1028.5.
Reason: This public proposal is submitted by the ICC Building Code Action Committee (BCAC). The BCAC was established by the ICC Board of Directors to
pursue opportunities to improve and enhance an assigned International Code or portion thereof. This includes both the technical aspects of the codes as well
as the code content in terms of scope and application of referenced standards. Since its inception in July, 2011, the BCAC has held 13 open meetings and
numerous workgroup calls which included members of the BCAC as well as any interested party to discuss and debate the proposed changes and the public
comments. Related documentation and reports are posted on the BCAC website at: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/BCAC/Pages/default.aspx.
It is not the intent of this proposal to change the requirements for accessible means of egress, but rather to clarify what is expected. This is also updated with
new terminology for exit access stairways and ramps.
Ideally everyone should be able to self-evacuate to a public way. However, there are many situations where people who cannot use stairways are on upper
floors of buildings; or situations where the slope and size of the site does not allow for an accessible route all the way to a road that is permanently deeded and
dedicated to the public (i.e., public way). The primary safety focus is to allow for an accessible route to a location where persons needing assistance and
emergency responders can connect. These locations are part of the fire and safety evacuation plans and on building signage so both occupants and
emergency responders will be informed.
E59
All the exceptions are in recognition that an accessible route is not possible in some situations. Where a person with mobility impairment gets to a stairway, an
elevator that has gone to fire department recall, or an exit discharge that is not accessible, alternative means of rescue or protection must be available.
Protection and/or assistance is provided at stairways, elevators with standby power, horizontal exits, areas of refuge and exterior areas for assisted rescue.
This is not an exception for access to the public way. This is an exception for an accessible route along the stairway or from the exterior area of assisted
rescue. Elevators will be used with fire-department assistance - and are not permitted for self-evacuation during a fire emergency. Horizontal exits also allow
for a safe place to wait within a facility till the fire department or other emergency responders can assist.
The following is the purpose of each subsection.
1009.2 - All means of egress must be continuous to a public way. If this route is accessible, than this would constitute an accessible means of egress.
1009.2.1 - Exit access is defined as
EXIT ACCESS. That portion of a means of egress system that leads from any occupied portion of a building or structure to an exit.
The exit access is always required to be accessible. The three items listed are in the current text as Items 1, 6 and 8. If a platform lift is utilized, it has to have
battery backup (1009.5) as well as meet the ASME A18.1 safety provisions (1109.7). This route can include exit access ramps. The exception, exit access
stairways are listed in the current text as Item 3. The clarification of the exit access stairways only being allowed as part of the accessible means of egress
when the serve changes in level of a story or from a mezzanine is consistent with Section 1009.3. Exit access steps within the same level are not permitted to
serve as part of the accessible means of egress. Ramps or platform lifts would be required to provide an accessible means of egress.
1009.2.2 - Exit is defined as
EXIT. That portion of a means of egress system between the exit access and the exit discharge or public way. Exit components include exterior exit doors at
the level of exit discharge, interior exit stairways and ramps, exit passageways, exterior exit stairways and ramps and horizontal exits.
Accessible routes along exits could be exit passageways, exit ramps, exterior exit doorways at the level of exit discharge and horizontal exits (current item 7).
Since this list is in the definition, it does not need to be repeated in the text. The exceptions are where people who cannot use the stairways to evacuation can
wait for assistance; exit stairways (interior and exterior) and elevators with standby power. Areas of refuge (Item 9) are not listed because they are a
requirement directly associated with the exit stairway or elevators in Sections 1009.3 and 1009.4. Depending on their location, they could be part of the exit
access or exit. Listing them in both places would be confusing.
1009.2.3 - Exit discharge is defined as
EXIT DISCHARGE. That portion of a means of egress system between the termination of an exit and a public way.
The accessible route at the level of exit discharge is along the exit discharge can include ramped or level surfaces outside the building. If an accessible route
is not possible to the public way, the options are an area of refuge(current item 9), an exterior area of assisted rescue (current Item 10) or a safe dispersal
area (permitted in 1028.5).
This proposal was originally brought up as a point of discussion because the current language for exterior areas of assisted rescue has been incorrectly
interpreted to say asking people to wait 10 feet away from the building is acceptable, and then a separation is not required. Since you are asking persons with
mobility impairments to wait at that location for assistance rather than continually move to the public way, 10 feet is not an acceptable alternative. The 50 feet
with safe dispersal area is a system that has worked for assembly facilities for a number of years.
E60
E 38-15
1009.2.1; (IFC[BE] 1009.2.1)
Proponent: Gene Boecker, representing Code Consultants, Inc. (geneb@codeconsultants.com)
E61
E 39-15
1009.3, 1009.4 (IFC[BE] 1009.3, 1009.4)
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
E62
opportunities to improve and enhance an assigned International Code or portion thereof. This includes both the technical aspects of the codes as well as the
code content in terms of scope and application of referenced standards. Since its inception in July, 2011, the BCAC has held 13 open meetings and numerous
workgroup calls which included members of the BCAC as well as any interested party to discuss and debate the proposed changes and the public comments.
Related documentation and reports are posted on the BCAC website at: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/BCAC/Pages/default.aspx.
The intent of this proposal is for editorial clarification. The current text in Section 1009.3 has exceptions to each of three basic requirements; therefore it is long
and can be confusing. (During the 2012 IBC development cycle the CTC Unenclosed Exit committee proposed adding the last sentence to Section 1009.3 and
exception 1.) Sections 1009.3 and 1009.4 have been subdivided in order to clarify the requirements and when the exceptions are applicable. The exception
for Group R-2 is not relocated. Since all Group R-2 are required to be sprinklered, they can use the sprinkler exception, so it is redundant.
The reference to Section 1029.6.3 was added to clarify that areas of refuge are not needed in assembly seating where the seating is open to the outside air as
well as smoke protection assembly seating that is protected mechanically.
E63
E 40-15
1009.7.2; (IFC[BE] 1009.7.2)
Proponent: Lawrence Lincoln, representing Utah Chapter of ICC (larry.lincoln@slcgov.com)
E64
E 41-15
1009.7.2, 1009.7.4 (IFC[BE] 1009.7.2, 1009.7.4)
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
E65
E 42-15
1009.8; (IFC[BE] 1009.8)
Proponent: Stephen DiGiovanni, Clark County Building Department, representing Southern Nevada Chapter of ICC
(sdigiovanni@clarkcountynv.gov)
E66
E 43-15
1009.8; (IFC[BE] 1009.8)
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
E67
E 44-15
1009.8; (IFC[BE] 1009.8)
Proponent: Masoud Sabounchi, Representing Colorado Chapter of ICC , representing masoud sabounchi
(masoud@acecode.com)
E68
E 45-15
1009.8; (IFC[BE] 1009.8)
Proponent: John Williams, CBO, CBO, Chair Adhoc Healthcare Committee, representing Adhoc Health Care
Committee (AHC@iccsafe.org); Carl Baldassarra, P.E., FSFPE, Chair, Code Technology Committee, representing
Code Technology Committee (CTC@iccsafe.org)
E69
E 46-15
1009.8; (IFC[BE] 1009.8)
Proponent: Robert Davidson, Davidson Code Concepts, LLC, representing Davidson Code Concepts, LLC
(rjd@davidsoncodeconcepts.com)
E70
E 47-15
1010.1.1, 1010.1.1.1; (IFC[BE] 1010.1.1, 1010.1.1.1)
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
Revise as follows:
1010.1.1 Size of doors. The required capacity of each door opening shall be sufficient for the occupant load thereof and shall
provide a minimum clear opening width of 32 inches (813 mm). Clear openings The clear opening width of doorways with swinging
doors shall be measured between the face of the door and the stop, with the door open 90 degrees (1.57 rad). Where this section
requires a minimum clear opening width of 32 inches (813 mm) and a door opening includes two door leaves without a mullion, one
leaf shall provide a minimum clear opening width of 32 inches (813 mm). In Group I-2, doors serving as means of egress doors
where used for the movement of beds shall provide a minimum clear opening width of 411/ 2 inches (1054 mm). The maximum width
of a swinging door leaf shall be 48 inches (1219 mm) nominal. Means of egress doors in a Group I-2 occupancy used for the
movement of beds shall provide a clear width not less than 411/ 2 inches (1054 mm). The minimum clear height of door openings
shall be not less than 80 inches (2032 mm).
Exceptions:
1. In Group R-2 and R-3 dwelling and sleeping units that are not required to be an Accessible unit, Type A unit or
Type B unit, the minimum and maximum width shall not apply to door openings that are not part of the required
means of egress inGroup R-2 and R-3 occupancies.
2. In Group I-3, door openings to resident sleeping units that are not required to be and Accessible units in Group I3 occupancies shall have a minimum clear opening width of not less than 28 inches (711 mm).
3. Door openings to storage closets less than 10 square feet (0.93 m 2) in area shall not be limited by the minimum
clear opening width.
4. Width of door leaves in revolving doors that comply with Section 1010.1.4.1 shall not be limited.
5. Door openings within a dwelling unit or sleeping unit shall be not less than have a minimum clear opening height
of 78 inches (1981 mm) in height.
6. In dwelling and sleeping units that are not required to be Accessible, Type A or Type B units, exterior door
openings in dwelling units and sleeping units, other than the required exit door, shall be not less than have a
minimum clear opening height of 76 inches (1930 mm) in height.
7. In other than Group R-1 occupancies In Groups I-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 occupancies, in dwelling and sleeping units
that are not required to be Accessible, Type A or Type B units, the minimum clear opening widths shall not apply
to interior egress doors within a dwelling unit or sleeping unit that is not required to be an Accessible unit, Type A
unit or Type B unit.
8. Door openings required to be accessible within Type B units intended for user passage shall have a minimum
clear opening width of 31.75 inches (806 mm).
9. Doors to walk-in freezers and coolers less than 1,000 square feet (93 m 2) in area shall have a maximum width of
60 inches (1524 mm) nominal.
10. In Group R-1 dwelling units or sleeping units not required to be Accessible units, The minimum width shall not
apply to doors for non-accessible showers or saunas compartments.
11. The minimum width shall not apply to the doors for non-accessible toilet seats.
1010.1.1.1 Projections into clear width. There shall not be projections into the required clear opening width lower than 34
inches (864 mm) above the floor or ground. Projections into the clear opening width between 34 inches (864 mm) and 80 inches
(2032 mm) above the floor or ground shall not exceed 4 inches (102 mm).
Exception: Door closers and door stops shall be permitted to be 78 inches (1980 mm) minimum above the floor.
Reason: In July/2014 the ICC Board decided to sunset the activities of the Code Technology Committee (CTC). This is being accomplished by re-assigning
many of the CTC Areas of Study to the applicable Code Action Committee (CAC). This proposal falls under the CTC Area of Study entitled IBC Coordination
with the New ADAAG. Information on the CTC, including: the sunset plan; meeting agendas; minutes; reports; resource documents; presentations; and all
other materials developed in conjunction with the CTC effort can be downloaded from the CTC website.
This public proposal is submitted by the ICC Building Code Action Committee (BCAC). The BCAC was established by the ICC Board of Directors to pursue
opportunities to improve and enhance an assigned International Code or portion thereof. This includes both the technical aspects of the codes as well as the
code content in terms of scope and application of referenced standards. Since its inception in July, 2011, the BCAC has held 13 open meetings and numerous
workgroup calls which included members of the BCAC as well as any interested party to discuss and debate the proposed changes and the public comments.
Related documentation and reports are posted on the BCAC website at: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/BCAC/Pages/default.aspx.
The intent of a large portion of this change is consistent use of the terminology (e.g., minimum clear opening width/height) throughout this section. There is
also the intent of putting the modifier first within the specific requirements (Group I-2, ambulatory care) and the exceptions. The maximum door width sentence
is relocated to be after all the minimum door width requirements and to coordinate with the order of requirements in IFC 1104.7.
Exceptions 1, 2, 6 and 7 cannot be used in Accessible, Type A or Type B units; that would conflict with ICC A117.1, ADA and FHA. Also in Exception 7:
dwelling units and sleeping units in Group I-2 and I-3 have specific criteria elsewhere in this section, and the ADA does not allow Group R-1 units to use this
E71
exception, therefore, the more specific limitation to allow this in Group I-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4.
Exception 8 is revised to be consistent with the language used for Type B dwelling units in ICC A117.1.
Code change E52-12 added exception 10 as part of the coordination with ADA 224.1.2. Questions that has risen are: Is the intent to require 32" clear width
shower stall doors in all showers Group I-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 or multi-stall shower rooms? Is the intent to require 32" clear width shower doors in the 2nd
bathrooms in Accessible units that are not required to have clearances? Elimination first part of the sentence would not change the allowances for Accessible
hotel rooms, and would eliminate the question.
Exception 11 is proposed to be added to address a similar question for doors on toilet stalls. The width of 32" is especially a problem with IPC since the stall is
only required to be 30" wide.
The ICC Fire Code Action Committee supports this proposal and will be submitting a Group B a correlative language change proposed to IFC Section 1104.7.
E72
E 48-15
1010.1.1; (IFC[BE] 1010.1.1)
Proponent: John Woestman, representing Builders Hardware Manufacturers Association (BHMA)
(jwoestman@kellencompany.com)
Door openings to storage closets less than 10 square feet (0.93 m 2) in area shall not be limited by the minimum
width.
Width of door leaves in revolving doors that comply with Section 1010.1.4.1 shall not be limited.
Door openings within a dwelling unit or sleeping unit shall be not less than 78 inches (1981 mm) in height.
Exterior door openings in dwelling units and sleeping units, other than the required exit door, shall be not less than
76 inches (1930 mm) in height.
In other than Group R-1 occupancies, the minimum widths shall not apply to interior egress doors within a
dwelling unit or sleeping unit that is not required to be an Accessible unit, Type A unit or Type B unit.
Door openings required to be accessible within Type B units shall have a minimum clear width of 31.75 inches
(806 mm).
Doors to walk-in freezers and coolers less than 1,000 square feet (93 m 2) in area shall have a maximum width of
60 inches (1524 mm).
In Group R-1 dwelling units or sleeping units not required to be Accessible units, the minimum width shall not
apply to doors for showers or saunas.
Reason: This proposal deletes the maximum width requirement for swinging doors.
From the 2012 IBC Commentary: The maximum width for a means of egress (swinging) door leaf in a swinging door is 48 inches (1219 mm) because larger
doors are difficult to handle and are of sizes that typically are not fire tested.
We somewhat agree with this statement in the 2012 IBC Commentary. However, it is the width plus the height and the construction of the door (i.e. weight)
which results in a door which may be difficult to open and / or close. Our perspective is the performance requirements in IBC Section 1010.1.3 and the Chapter
11 Accessibility requirements effectively result in the design and installation of appropriately- sized doors.
Regarding fire tested (i.e. fire-rated) doors the solution is simple install fire-rated doors which meet the previously mentioned performance requirements.
From a different perspective, NFPA 101 has not had a requirement for maximum swinging door leaf width since the 1997 edition, stating there is insufficient
reason to limit the maximum width of a door leaf provided the door is maintained in good working order.
Also proposing to delete the 4th exception to this section, as this exception would no longer be need or appropriate.
E73
E 49-15
1010.1.1 (IFC [BE] 1010.1.1)
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
Door openings to storage closets less than 10 square feet (0.93 m 2) in area shall not be limited by the minimum
width.
WidthThe width of door leaves in revolving doors that comply with Section 1010.1.4.1 shall not be limited.
The width of door leaves in bi-parting power-operated doors that comply with Section 1010.1.4.2 shall not be
limited
Door openings within a dwelling unit or sleeping unit shall be not less than 78 inches (1981 mm) in height.
Exterior door openings in dwelling units and sleeping units, other than the required exit door, shall be not less than
76 inches (1930 mm) in height.
In other than Group R-1 occupancies, the minimum widths shall not apply to interior egress doors within a
dwelling unit or sleeping unit that is not required to be an Accessible unit, Type A unit or Type B unit.
Door openings required to be accessible within Type B units shall have a minimum clear width of 31.75 inches
(806 mm).
10. Doors to walk-in freezers and coolers less than 1,000 square feet (93 m 2) in area shall have a maximum width of
60 inches (1524 mm).
11. In Group R-1 dwelling units or sleeping units not required to be Accessible units, the minimum width shall not
apply to doors for showers or saunas.
Reason: The proposed revisions are intended to improve clarity and consistency of the language of these sections of the code, and appear to be essentially
editorial. The maximum width of power-operated doors which comply with IBC Section 1010.1.4.2 should not be limited as these doors are either fully automatic
or power-assisted, and must comply with all the requirements of Section 1010.1.4.2 including the safety requirements incorporated in the BHMA standards
referenced in 1010.1.4.2. This revision addresses a potential conflict between the IBC and the relatively few power-operated swinging doors currently being
installed which exceed 48" inches in width.
This public proposal is submitted by the ICC Building Code Action Committee (BCAC). The BCAC was established by the ICC Board of Directors to pursue
opportunities to improve and enhance an assigned International Code or portion thereof. This includes both the technical aspects of the codes as well as the
code content in terms of scope and application of referenced standards. Since its inception in July, 2011, the BCAC has held 13 open meetings and numerous
workgroup calls which included members of the BCAC as well as any interested party to discuss and debate the proposed changes and the public comments.
Related documentation and reports are posted on the BCAC website at: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/BCAC/Pages/default.aspx.
E74
E 50-15
1010.1.1; (IFC[BE] 1010.1.1)
Proponent: Barry Greive, representing Target Corporation (barry.greive@target.com)
Door openings to storage closets less than 10 square feet (0.93 m 2) in area shall not be limited by the minimum
width.
Width of door leaves in revolving doors that comply with Section 1010.1.4.1 shall not be limited.
Door openings within a dwelling unit or sleeping unit shall be not less than 78 inches (1981 mm) in height.
Exterior door openings in dwelling units and sleeping units, other than the required exit door, shall be not less than
76 inches (1930 mm) in height.
In other than Group R-1 occupancies, the minimum widths shall not apply to interior egress doors within a
dwelling unit or sleeping unit that is not required to be an Accessible unit, Type A unit or Type B unit.
Door openings required to be accessible within Type B units shall have a minimum clear width of 31.75 inches
(806 mm).
Doors to walk-in freezers and coolers less than 1,000 square feet (93 m 2) in area shall have a maximum width of
60 inches (1524 mm).
10. In Group R-1 dwelling units or sleeping units not required to be Accessible units, the minimum width shall not
apply to doors for showers or saunas.
11. Where a pair of double acting doors without a latch, mullion or stop is installed, both leaves shall be considered to
determine the minimum clear opening width of 32 inches (813 mm).
9.
Reason: This code change is necessary to address the issue of double acting / impact / saloon and traffic doors being regulated as double doors with a
manually operated edge or surface-mounted bolts for locking. Double acting doors are used in many applications from Retail, Warehouses, Factories and
Restaurants. These doors do not have a latch, closer or mullion that could impede the function of the doors. Any person who needs to utilize the full 32 inches
of clear width required in the code can easily push through both doors simultaneously which will provide the proper clearance needed. These types of doors in
no way impact egress or accessibility, therefore they do not need to meet the provision of "at least one leaf being 32 inches". In many situations these doors
are installed in 4 or 5 foot openings. This also allows for more architectural flexibility in the design of buildings.
Cost Impact: Will not increase the cost of construction
This will not increase the cost of construction, it could actually save money since specialty doors are not needed nor would the size of the opening need to be
altered.
E 50-15 : 1010.1.1-GREIVE4937
E75
E 51-15
1010.1.2.1; (IFC[BE] 1010.1.2.1)
Proponent: Chadley Root, Park City Utah, representing Utah Chapter ICC (chad.root@parkcity.org)
Bibliography: Flores GE, Bates ST, Knights D, Lauber CL, Stombaugh J, et al. (2011)Microbial Biogeography of Public Restroom Surfaces.PLoS ONE6(11):
e28132. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028132
http://www.webmd.com/news/20111021/bacteria-hard-to-avoid-in-public-bathrooms
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/11/23/142720314/scientists-bag-small-game-in-bathroom-germ-safari
Flores GE, Bates ST, Knights D, Lauber CL, Stombaugh J, et al. (2011)Microbial Biogeography of Public Restroom Surfaces.PLoS ONE6(11): e28132.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028132
E76
E 52-15
1010.1.4.1.1, 1010.1.4.1.2; (IFC[BE] 1010.1.4.1.1, 1010.1.4.1.2)
Proponent: Dale Gigandet, Boon Edam Inc., representing Boon Edam Inc. (dgt@boonedam.us)
3.
Revolving doors shall not be given credit for more than 50 percent of the minimum width or required egress capacity.
Each revolving door shall be credited with a an egress capacity based on not more than a 50-person occupant load or,
where 9 feet (2745 mm) in diameter or greater, a revolving door assembly shall be credited with an egress capacity
based on the clear opening width provided when collapsed or situated into an egress position.
Each revolving door shall provide for egress in accordance with BHMA A156.27 withwhen a breakout force of not more
than 130 pounds (578 N) is applied to the wings within 3 inches (75 mm) of the outer edge.
1010.1.4.1.2 Other than egress component. A revolving door used as other than a component of a means of egress shall comply
with Section 1010.1.4.1. The breakout force of a revolving door not used as a component of a means of egress shall not be more
than 180 pounds (801 N) applied to the wings within 3 inches (75 mm) of the outer edge.
Exception: A breakout force in excess of 180 pounds (801 N) is permitted if the collapsing force is reduced to not more than
130 pounds (578 N) when not less than one of the following conditions is satisfied:
1. There is a power failure or power is removed to the device holding the door wings in position.
2. There is an actuation of the automatic sprinkler system where such system is provided.
3. There is an actuation of a smoke detection system that is installed in accordance with Section 907 to provide
coverage in areas within the building that are within 75 feet (22 860 mm) of the revolving doors.
4. There is an actuation of a manual control switch, in an approved location and clearly identified, that reduces the
breakout force to not more than 130 pounds (578 N).
Reason: The proposed change reflects NFPA 101, Life Safety Code (2015 Ed.) and current accepted practice for calculating egress capacity, and gives
credit for larger door opening that provide clear unobstructed width for emergency egress.
Bibliography: Reference NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (2015 ed.), Sections 7.2.1.10.2 and 7.2.1.10.3.
Cost Impact: Will not increase the cost of construction
No material or labor costs increases will occur as the result of the proposed changes. The changes reflect the text included in the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code
(2015 edition).
E 52-15 : 1010.1.4.1.1-GIGANDET3468
E77
E 53-15
1010.1.4.1.2; (IFC[BE] 1010.1.4.1.2)
Proponent: John Woestman, Kellen Company, representing Builders Hardware Manufacturers Association (BHMA)
(jwoestman@kellencompany.com)
E78
E 54-15
202, 1010.1.4.2; (IFC[BE] 1010.1.4.2), Chapter 35
Proponent: John Woestman, Kellen Company, representing Builders Hardware Manufacturers Association (BHMA)
(jwoestman@kellencompany.com)
Reason: The Builders Hardware Manufacturers Association (BHMA), an ANSI accredited standard development organization, received ANSI approval last
year of A156.38-2014 Low Energy Power Operated Sliding and Folding Doors. This new standard has mandatory performance and safety requirements for
low energy power operated sliding and folding doors, and "rounds out" this section of the IBC to now include most types of power operated doors. The
standards currently referenced in this section are BHMA A156.10 Power Operated Pedestrian Doors (for swinging, sliding, and folding doors) and BHMA
A156.19 Standard for Power Assist and Low Energy Operated Doors (for swinging doors).
The proposed deletion of "swinging" in IBC Section 1010.1.4.2 considers the configurations of power-operated doors, as they may be swinging, sliding, or
folding.
E79
E 55-15
709.5, 1010.1.4.2; (IFC[BE] 1010.1.4.2)
Proponent: John Woestman, Kellen Company, representing Builders Hardware Manufacturers Association (BHMA)
(jwoestman@kellencompany.com)
2.
jamb stops, and astragals or rabbets at meeting edges. Where permitted by the door manufacturer's listing,
positive-latching devices are not required.
In Group I-1 Condition 2, Group I-2 and ambulatory care facilities, special purpose horizontal sliding, accordion or
folding doors installed in accordance with Section 1010.1.4.3 and protected in accordance with Section 716.
1010.1.4.2 Power-operated doors. Where means of egress doors are operated or assisted by power, the design shall be such that
in the event of power failure, the door is capable of being opened manually to permit means of egress travel or closed where
necessary to safeguard means of egress. The forces required to open these doors manually shall not exceed those specified in
Section 1010.1.3, except that the force to set the door in motion shall not exceed 50 pounds (220 N). The door shall be capable of
swinging open from any position to the full width of the opening in which such door is installed when a force is applied to the door on
the side from which egress is made. Power-operated swinging doors, power-operated sliding doors and power-operated folding doors
shall comply with BHMA A156.10. Power-assisted swinging doors and low-energy power-operated swinging doors shall comply with
BHMA A156.19.
Exceptions:
1. Occupancies in Group I-3.
2. HorizontalSpecial purpose horizontal sliding, accordion or folding doors complying with Section 1010.1.4.3.
3. For a biparting door in the emergency breakout mode, a door leaf located within a multiple-leaf opening shall be
exempt from the minimum 32-inch (813 mm) single-leaf requirement of Section 1010.1.1, provided a minimum 32inch (813 mm) clear opening is provided when the two biparting leaves meeting in the center are broken out.
Reason: This proposal updates references to IBC 1010.1.4.3. Special purpose horizontal sliding, accordion or folding doors as the name of this section and
related text were revised for the 2015 IBC and IFC. Most of the references to 1010.1.4.3 were updated for the 2015 IBC and IFC. These were not.
Cost Impact: Will not increase the cost of construction
No technical changes.
E 55-15 : 1010.1.4.2-WOESTMAN5512
E80
E 56-15
202 (New), 1010.1.4.4 (New); (IFC[BE] 1010.1.4.4 (New))
Proponent: John Woestman, Kellen Company, representing Builders Hardware Manufacturers Association (BHMA)
(jwoestman@kellencompany.com)
E81
E 57-15
Part I:
202 (New), 1010.1.4.4 (New), 1010.1.4.4.1 (New); (IFC[BE] 1010.1.4.4 (New), 1010.1.4.4.1 (New))
Part II:
202 (New), 406 (New), 406.1 (New), 406.2 (New), 406.2.1 (New), 704.2 (New), 704.2.1 (New)
THIS IS A 2 PART CODE CHANGE. PART I WILL BE HEARD BY THE IBC-MEANS OF EGRESS COMMITTEE. PART II WILL BE HEARD BY THE IEBC
COMMITTEE. SEE THE TENTATIVE HEARING ORDERS FOR THESE COMMITTEES.
Proponent: John Woestman, Kellen Company, representing Builders Hardware Manufacturers Association (BHMA)
(jwoestman@kellencompany.com)
Part I
2015 International Building Code
Add new definition as follows:
SECTION 202 DEFINITIONS
CREDENTIAL. A tangible object, knowledge, or human physical characteristic required for locking and unlocking. A key to operate a
lock cylinder; a magnetic card to swipe in a magnetic card reader; knowledge of a specific code for keypad operations; and a
fingerprint for a fingerprint scanner; are examples of credentials, and their potential uses.
Add new text as follows:
1010.1.4.4 Group E classrooms. In Group E occupancies, classroom doors shall be lockable from within the classroom without
opening the classroom door. All the following conditions shall apply:
1.
2.
The classroom door shall be unlockable and openable from within the classroom and shall comply with Section 1010.1.9.
The classroom door shall be unlockable and openable from outside the classroom by the use of a key or other
credential.
1010.1.4.4.1 Remote operation of locks. Remote operation of locks complying with Section 1010.1.4.4 shall be permitted.
Part II
2015 International Existing Building Code
Add new definition as follows:
SECTION 202 DEFINITIONS
CREDENTIAL. A tangible object, knowledge, or human physical characteristic required for locking or unlocking. A key to operate a
lock cylinder; a magnetic card to swipe in a magnetic card reader; knowledge of a specific code for keypad operations; and a
fingerprint for a fingerprint scanner; are examples of credentials, and their potential uses.
Add new text as follows:
SECTION406 MEANS OF EGRESS
406.1 General. Alterations shall be such that the existing building or structure is no less conforming to the provisions of the
International Building Code than the existing building or structure was prior to the alteration.
406.2 Existing occupany Group E classrooms. In Group E occupancies, existing classroom doors shall be lockable from within
the classroom without opening the classroom door. All the following conditions shall apply:
1.
2.
The classroom door shall be unlockable and openable from within the classroom and shall comply with Section 1010.1.9.
of the International Building Code.
The classroom door shall be unlockable and openable from outside the classroom by the use of a key or other
credential.
406.2.1 Remote operation of locks. Remote operation of locks complying with 406.2 shall be permitted.
704.2 Group E occupancy classroom. In Group E occupancies, classroom doors shall be lockable from within the classroom
without opening the classroom door. All the following conditions shall apply:
1.
2.
The classroom door shall be unlockable and openable from within the classroom and shall comply with Section 1010.1.9.
of the International Building Code.
The classroom door shall be unlockable and openable from outside the classroom by the use of a key or other
credential.
ICC COMMITTEE ACTION HEARINGS ::: April, 2015
E82
704.2.1 Remote operation of locks. Remote operation of locks complying with 704.2 shall be permitted.
Reason:
Part I: Many jurisdictions have taken measures to address the high priority concern of safety of occupants in K-12 classrooms in the event of a threatening
situation. While well-intended and likely to have a degree of positive impact, these actions create disparate requirements from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and
some actions may inadvertently compromise certain aspects of life safety while attempting to address others.
This proposal for the IBC provides requirements which balance the challenges of providing protection for students and teachers in the classroom with that of
free and immediate egress at all times without use of keys, tools, or special knowledge.
In addition to the security concerns, classroom doors are required to meet accessibility requirements which include door operating hardware configuration and
location, door hardware operational forces, and a smooth surface of the bottom 10" of the push side of the door.
Door locksets with "classroom security function" are readily available today at the same cost as traditionally-used "classroom function" door locksets. The
most common configuration of a classroom security function lockset is the ability to lock the door from inside the classroom with a key preventing entry to the
classroom; and for egress, the door may be unlatched and opened from inside the classroom without a key by rotating the lever handle. On the outside of the
classroom, consistent with tradition, the door may be locked with a key, and unlocked and opened with a key.
This code change proposal will require all Group E classroom doors to be lockable from the inside of the classroom preventing entry to the classroom, without
the need to open the door. This proposal does not prescribe specifically how the door is to be lockable from inside the classroom.
Additional requirements are the door is to be unlockable and readily openable inside the classroom without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort, as
required in IBC Section 1010.1.9. Subsections of 1010.1.9 include requirements for hardware height (between 34 and 48 inches above the floor), and for
hardware configuration (for doors required to be accessible, which would be almost all classroom doors, the door operating hardware shall not require tight
grasping, tight pinching or twisting of the wrist to operate). An additional requirement of this proposal is the classroom door is to be unlockable and openable
from outside the classroom by a key or other lock credential.
Part II: Many jurisdictions have taken measures to address the high priority concern of safety of occupants in K-12 classrooms in the event of a threatening
situation. While well-intended and likely to have a degree of positive impact, these actions create disparate requirements from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and
some actions may inadvertently compromise certain aspects of life safety while attempting to address others.
This proposal for the IEBC provides guidance which balances the challenges of providing protection for students and teachers in the classroom with that of
free and immediate egress at all times without use of keys, tools, or special knowledge.
In addition to the relatively recent demand to protect students and teachers from outside-the-classroom threats, many classroom doors are required to
function as fire-rated doors (opening protectives); and fire-rated doors are required to be always self-latching when closed to ensure the doors perform its fire
protection function in the event of a fire. Additionally, classroom doors are required to meet accessibility requirements which include door operating hardware
configuration and location, door hardware operational forces, and a smooth surface of the bottom 10" of the push side of the door.
This code change proposal will not require existing Group E classroom doors to be lockable from the inside of the classroom without the need to open the
door. This proposal does provide guidance if modifications are made to the door in an effort to control access to the classroom.
This proposal does not prescribe specifically how the door is to be lockable from inside the classroom.
Additional requirements are the door is to be unlockable and readily openable inside the classroom without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort, as
required in IBC Section 1010.1.9. Subsections of IBC 1010.1.9 include requirements for hardware height (between 34 and 48 inches above the floor), and for
hardware configuration (for doors required to be accessible, which would be almost all classroom doors, the door operating hardware shall not require tight
grasping, tight pinching or twisting of the wrist to operate). An additional requirement of this proposal is the classroom door is to be unlockable and openable
from outside the classroom by a key or other lock credential.
If the door locking hardware is under consideration for replacement, door locksets with "classroom security function" are readily available today at essentially
the same cost as traditionally-used "classroom function" door locksets. The most common configuration of a classroom security function lockset is the ability
to lock the door from inside the classroom with a key preventing entry to the classroom; and for egress, the door may be unlatched and opened from inside the
classroom without a key by rotating the lever handle. On the outside of the classroom, consistent with tradition, the door may be locked with a key, and
unlocked and opened with a key.
Cost Impact:
Part I: Will not increase the cost of construction
No cost impact. Door locksets with the classroom security function are the same cost as traditionally specified door hardware locksets (with the classroom
function).
Part II: Will not increase the cost of construction
This proposal does not require retrofitting of existing doors with new hardware. IF door locking hardware replacement is being considered, the requirements of
this proposal provide guidance.
E 57-15 : 1010.1.4.4 (New)WOESTMAN5537
E83
E 58-15
202(New), 1010.1.2, 1010.1.4.5 (New); (IFC[BE] 1010.1.2, 1010.1.4.5 (New))
Proponent: Joseph Hetzel, representing Door & Access Systems Manufacturers Association
(Jhetzel@thomasamc.com)
The door shall be openable by a simple method from either side of the opening without special knowledge or effort. The
force required to operate the door shall not exceed 30 pounds (133 N) to set the door in motion.
The door assembly shall have an integrated standby power supply, shall be electrically supervised, and shall open to a
minimum height of 80 inches (2.03 m) within 10 seconds after activation of the operating device.
The door panels shall be capable of being broken out manually in the event of power failure by a simple method from
both sides without special knowledge or effort. A minimum 32-inch (813 mm) wide by 80-inch (2.03 m) high opening shall
be capable of being provided when the door panels are broken out. The force required to break out the door panels shall
not exceed 30 pounds (133 N).
Revise as follows:
1010.1.2 Door swing. Egress doors shall be of the pivoted or side-hinged swinging type.
Exceptions:
1. Private garages, office areas, factory and storage areas with an occupant load of 10 or less.
2. Group I-3 occupancies used as a place of detention.
3. Critical or intensive care patient rooms within suites of health care facilities.
4. Doors within or serving a single dwelling unit in Groups R-2 and R-3.
5. In other than Group H occupancies, revolving doors complying with Section 1010.1.4.1.
6. In other than Group H occupancies, special purpose horizontal sliding, accordion or folding door assemblies
complying with Section 1010.1.4.3.
7. Power-operated doors in accordance with Section 1010.1.4.2.
8. Doors serving a bathroom within an individual sleeping unit in Group R-1.
9. In other than Group H occupancies, manually operated horizontal sliding doors are permitted in a means of egress
from spaces with an occupant load of 10 or less.
10. In other than Group A, E and H occupancies, high speed doors complying with Section 1010.1.4.5.
Reason: High speed doors, typically designed as nonswinging doors, have been successfully installed as egress doors. They are often used in locations
where pivoted or side-hinged swinging doors are not present.
In order to be found compliant with the IBC other than using the Alternative Methods provisions, high speed doors should be included as an Exception to sidehinged or swinging doors. The exclusion from Groups A, E and H is consistent with the limitation currently applied to using delayed egress locking systems.
The definition proposed for the term "high speed door" is similar in description of action to the definition of the term as contained in the International Energy
Conservation Code.
The three options are commonly and successfully used by the high speed door industry where such doors are a component of a means of egress. The
requirements in each option are similar to those listed in Section 1010.1.4.3 for special purpose horizontal sliding, accordion and folding door assemblies. Each
option is viable in itself, but only one is needed from a cost/benefit standpoint.
E84
E 59-15
1010.1.4.5 (New), 1030.4; (IFC[BE] 1010.1.4.5 (New), 1030.4)
Proponent: Jeffrey Stone, Retired, representing self (JStone7@tampabay.rr.com)
E85
E 60-15
1010.1.9.3 (New); (IFC[BE] 1010.1.9.3 (New))
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
E86
E 61-15
1010.1.9.3 (New); (IFC[BE] 1010.1.9.3 (New))
Proponent: John Woestman, Kellen Company, representing Builders Hardware Manufacturers Association (BHMA)
(jwoestman@kellencompany.com)
E87
E 62-15
1010.1.9.3; (IFC[BE] 1010.1.9.3)
Proponent: John Woestman, Kellen Company, representing Builders Hardware Manufacturers Association (BHMA)
(jwoestman@kellencompany.com)
3.
4.
5.
6.
Reason: Questions are being asked of BHMA members as to what is allowed and / or required for locking of doors to roofs not intended to be occupied. This
proposal attempts to address these questions.
The intent of this proposal is to allow doors to roofs not intended to be occupied to be locked preventing access into the building from the roof, especially for
security reasons. However, in an effort to prevent locking out an authorized person who goes to the roof from inside the building, this proposal includes a
requirement for the door to not automatically lock behind this person.
This proposal does not address locking of doors preventing access to the roof. Also, egress from occupied roofs is addressed in Section 1006.3.
E88
E 63-15
1010.1.9.3; (IFC[BE] 1010.1.9.3)
Proponent: Lee Kranz, City of Bellevue, WA, representing The City of Bellevue Washington
3.
4.
5.
6.
Reason: All outdoor areas that are accessible to and usable by the building occupants, where people must use one or more required exits or exit access
doors to re-enter the building, are considered for means of egress purposes to be the same as any occupied room in the building and therefor be provided with
free egress at all times. Doors serving outdoor areas must remain unlocked at all times to permit safe egress. To insure security for their building or tenant
space, owners and tenants typically want to have locks to be installed on required egress doors serving outdoor areas, even on levels above and below the
level of exit discharge. This proposal adresses the issue by allowing these required egress doors to be locked for security purposes as long as all of the listed
conditions are met. The proposed code change will apply to all outdoor areas where occupants must egress through the building, including those located at
the level of exit dischare and those above or below the level of exit discharge. Group R occupancies are not required to provide distinguishable locks or interior
signage as required for all other occupancies.
Important required elements include:
1. a vision panel that would allow someone on the inside of the building to see if there are people using the outside area to reduce the potential for doors
serving outdoor areas to be locked,
2. signage on the interior side indicating that the door(s) must remain unlocked when people are using the outdoor area, and
3. the requirement to use door hardware that will prevent the door from accedently locking when someone goes outside.
E89
E 64-15
1010.1.9.5.1 (IFC[BE] 1010.1.9.5.1)
Proponent: Carl Baldassarra, P.E., FSFPE, Chair, ICC Code Technology Committee, representing Code Technology
Committee (CTC@iccsafe.org)
E90
E 65-15
1010.1.9.6; (IFC[BE] 1010.1.9.6)
Proponent: Johnna Grizzard, Chesterfield County (Virginia) Department of Building Inspection, representing Virginia
Building and Code Officials Association (grizzardj@chesterfield.gov)
E91
means of egress. This new provision assures that the power to the lock must be removed without requiring any dependency on "request to exit" digital
programming or input signal processing. The provision permitting the use of a keyed switch maintains occupant security and safety directly under the control
of trained staff. Where installed correctly to "direct interruption of power to the lockindependent of the control system electronics," the reliability of this
circuitry exceeds all other integrated circuit configurations such as digitally-controlled fire alarm system interface.
Revised Item 2: This provision requires egress-controlled locks to be "fail safe." The locking system could be provided with standby power such as a UPS or
generator circuit. Hospitals and larger I-1 facilities utilize a generator(s) to power life safety systems, and the locking systems could be integrated into the
emergency standby power circuits.
"System" is included in "loss of power to the locking system," because by definition loss of power to a "fail safe" locking mechanism shall release the lock. The
important issue is actually loss of power to the locking system. If the lock was tied without power the system may not perform digitally programmed inputoutput release functions. This language is consistent with Item 2 of "Sensor Release of Electrically Locked Egress Doors," Section 1010.1.9.8 and Item 4 of
"Electromagnetically Locked Egress Doors," Section 1010.1.9.9.
Revised Item 3: This provision is significantly different than Item 1, because this item permits the use of a "request to exit" device that is dependent upon
digital programming or input signal processing. While a digital device requires system power and programmed input-output logic to perform unlocking functions,
which does not meet the definition of "fail safe," this provision provides greater flexibility without requiring a continuous power circuit. Specific areas immediately
affected by the hazard could be released while other non-affected areas requiring security or occupant containment could be maintained. This circuit
configuration is consistent with typical installations found in special locking systems installed in I-1/I-2 occupancies under current and previous code editions.
Delete Exception 1: This is sufficiently addressed under application provisions "clinical needs of persons receiving care require their containment."
The qualifying conditions to utilize the referenced locking provisions should be sufficient to strictly limit application of restricted egress-only hardware to areas
requiring high priority for occupant safety and security.
This exception greatly reduces life safety by omitting the requirement for controlled egress arrangements in areas such as memory care wings from meeting
the performance criteria in Items 1-7. With the proposed Items 1-7, means of egress and security can be achieved.
Delete Exception 2: This is relocated to the code section above to be included in the application provisions: "where there exists a risk of child abduction
from nursery and obstetric areas."
This exception greatly reduces life safety by omitting the requirement for controlled egress arrangements in areas such as nursery and obstetric areas from
meeting the performance criteria in Items 1-7. With the proposed Items 1-7, means of egress and security can be achieved.
E92
E 66-15
1010.1.9.7; (IFC[BE] 1010.1.9.7)
Proponent: James Peterkin, representing Self (jpeterki@heery.com)
5.
6.
7.
8.
The delay electronics of the delayed egress locking system shall deactivate upon actuation of the automatic sprinkler
system or automatic fire detection system, allowing immediate, free egress.
The delay electronics of the delayed egress locking system shall deactivate upon loss of power controlling the lock or
lock mechanism, allowing immediate free egress.
The delayed egress locking system shall have the capability of being deactivated at the fire command center and other
approved locations.
An attempt to egress shall initiate an irreversible process that shall allow such egress in not more than 15 seconds when
a physical effort to exit is applied to the egress side door hardware for not more than 3 seconds. Initiation of the
irreversible process shall activate an audible signal in the vicinity of the door. Once the delay electronics have been
deactivated, rearming the delay electronics shall be by manual means only.
Exception: Where approved, a delay of not more than 30 seconds is permitted on a delayed egress door.
The egress path from any point shall not pass through more than one delayed egress locking system.
Exception: In Group I-2 or I-3 occupancies, the egress path from any point in the building shall pass through not
more than two delayed egress locking systems provided the combined delay does not exceed 30 seconds.
A sign shall be provided on the door and shall be located above and within 12 inches (305 mm) of the door exit hardware:
6.1. For doors that swing in the direction of egress, the sign shall read: PUSH UNTIL ALARM SOUNDS. DOOR
CAN BE OPENED IN 15 [30] SECONDS.
6.2. For doors that swing in the opposite direction of egress, the sign shall read: PULL UNTIL ALARM SOUNDS.
DOOR CAN BE OPENED IN 15 [30] SECONDS.
6.3. The sign shall comply with the visual character requirements in ICC A117.1.
Exception: Where approved, in Group I occupancies, the installation of a sign is not required where care
recipients who because of clinical needs require restraint or containment as part of the function of the treatment
area.
Emergency lighting shall be provided on the egress side of the door.
The delayed egress locking system units shall be listed in accordance with UL 294.
Reason: A courthouse is a unique building type that is designed with three separate and distinct circulation systems one for the public, one for the
judiciary/secure staff, and one for in-custody inmates. The three circulation systems are segregated and they only meet in a single location, the courtrooms.
The public enter the courtroom from the public corridor, the judges and court staff enter from the rear secure staff corridor and the prisoners enter from the
holding area at the side. Because these groups must be kept separate for security reasons, it is necessary to lock the doors where these groups interface to
prevent intermixing.
Standard courtroom design provides free egress for the public out the back of the courtroom with enough egress capacity to handle the entire occupant load of
the courtroom. Doors leading to the prisoner interface are locked and fail secure, which is allowed by code. Since the courtrooms have an occupant load
greater than 50 (up to approximately 120), these rooms are considered an "assembly occupancy" and require a second means of egress.
Industry practice has been to utilize the exit in the front of the courtroom as the second means of egress. This egress ogenerally also serves as the
entrance/egress for the judge and court staff. (Please refer to the attached functional diagram).
E93
To maintain the security separation of occupants, it is industry practice to equip this second means of egress with a delayed egress device which prevents
any unauthorized person from gaining access to the secure staff areas.
A courtroom, unlike many other assembly occupancies, is a controlled environment. A bailiff is located within the courtroom when occupied by the public
and/or prisoners. The bailiff, along with other court personnel, is equipped with a security access card that can override the delay.
As a precedant, all United States Federal courthouses are designed in this manner because the General Services Administration (the federal organization
responsible for federal buildings/courthouses) has ruled that the Life Safety Code takes precedence over the building code with regards to egress
requirements.
Another Assembly where it is common to see the use of delayed egress, even though prohibited by code, is airport terminals. Airport terminals are considered
an Assembly Occupancy like the courtrooms, but the use of delayed egress devices are common in these buildings also because of security concerns.
E94
E 67-15
1010.1.9.7; (IFC[BE] 1010.1.9.7)
Proponent: John Woestman, Kellen Company, representing Builders Hardware Manufacturers Association (BHMA)
(jwoestman@kellencompany.com)
5.
6.
7.
8.
The delay electronics of the delayed egress locking system shall deactivate upon actuation of the automatic sprinkler
system or automatic fire detection system, allowing immediate, free egress.
The delay electronics of the delayed egress locking system shall deactivate upon loss of power controlling the lock or
lock mechanism, allowing immediate free egress.
The delayed egress locking system shall have the capability of being deactivated at the fire command center and other
approved locations.
An attempt to egress shall initiate an irreversible process that shall allow such egress in not more than 15 seconds when
a physical effort to exit is applied to the egress side door hardware for not more than 3 seconds. Initiation of the
irreversible process shall activate an audible signal in the vicinity of the door. Once the delay electronics have been
deactivated, rearming the delay electronics shall be by manual means only.
Exception: Where approved, a delay of not more than 30 seconds is permitted on a delayed egress door.
The egress path from any point shall not pass through more than one delayed egress locking system.
Exception: In Group I-2 or I-3 occupancies, the egress path from any point in the building shall pass through not
more than two delayed egress locking systems provided the combined delay does not exceed 30 seconds.
A sign shall be provided on the door and shall be located above and within 12 inches (305 mm) of the door exit hardware:
6.1. For doors that swing in the direction of egress, the sign shall read: PUSH UNTIL ALARM SOUNDS. DOOR
CAN BE OPENED IN 15 [30] SECONDS.
6.2. For doors that swing in the opposite direction of egress, the sign shall read: PULL UNTIL ALARM SOUNDS.
DOOR CAN BE OPENED IN 15 [30] SECONDS.
6.3. The sign shall comply with the visual character requirements in ICC A117.1.
Exception: Where approved, in Group I occupancies, the installation of a sign is not required where care
recipients who because of clinical needs require restraint or containment as part of the function of the treatment
area.
Emergency lighting shall be provided on the egress side of the door.
The delayed egress locking system units shall be listed in accordance with UL 294.
Reason: Several requests to address the needs of small educational occupancies to help prevent wandering / elopement, especially for the very young, and
for special needs students. This BHMA proposal is an alternate to the BCAC approach to addressing this need for small educational occupancies via a new
exception versus a modification to existing language.
The BHMA members, while conducting a final review of the Building Code Action Committee (BCAC) proposal on the same topic realized an alternative
approach to allowing Group E occupancies to use delayed egress locking systems may be worth considering. We apologize for not offering this suggestion to
the BCAC during one of the BCAC meetings.
E95
E 68-15
1010.1.9.7; (IFC[BE] 1010.1.9.7)
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
Revise as follows:
1010.1.9.7 Delayed egress. Delayed egress locking systems shall be permitted to be installed on doors serving any occupancy
except Group A, E and H Groups B, F, I, M, R, S and U occupancies in buildings that are equipped throughout with an automatic
sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or an approvedautomatic smoke or heat detection system installed in
accordance with Section 907.
Exception:Delayed egress locking systems shall be permitted to be installed on doors serving Group E occupancies that have
an occupant load of 10 or fewer and that are in buildings that are equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in
accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or an approved automatic smoke or heat detection system installed in accordance with
Section 907..
1010.1.9.7.1 Delayed egress locking system. The delayed egress locking system shall be installed and operated in accordance
with all of the following:
1. The delay electronics of the delayed egress locking system shall deactivate upon actuation of the automatic sprinkler
system or automatic fire detection system, allowing immediate, free egress.
2. The delay electronics of the delayed egress locking system shall deactivate upon loss of power controlling the lock or lock
mechanism, allowing immediate free egress.
3. The delayed egress locking system shall have the capability of being deactivated at the fire command center and other
approved locations.
4. An attempt to egress shall initiate an irreversible process that shall allow such egress in not more than 15 seconds when a
physical effort to exit is applied to the egress side door hardware for not more than 3 seconds. Initiation of the irreversible
process shall activate an audible signal in the vicinity of the door. Once the delay electronics have been deactivated, rearming
the delay electronics shall be by manual means only.
Exception: Where approved, a delay of not more than 30 seconds is permitted on a delayed egress door.
5. The egress path from any point shall not pass through more than one delayed egress locking system.
Exception: In Group I-2 or I-3 occupancies, the egress path from any point in the building shall pass through not more
than two delayed egress locking systems provided the combined delay does not exceed 30 seconds.
6. A sign shall be provided on the door and shall be located above and within 12 inches (305 mm) of the door exit hardware:
6.1 For doors that swing in the direction of egress, the sign shall read: PUSH UNTIL ALARM SOUNDS. DOOR CAN BE
OPENED IN 1530] SECONDS.
6.2 For doors that swing in the opposite direction of egress, the sign shall read: PULL UNTIL ALARM SOUNDS. DOOR
CAN BE OPENED IN 15 [30] SECONDS.
6.3 The sign shall comply with the visual character requirements in ICC A117.1.
Exception: Where approved, in Group I occupancies, the installation of a sign is not required where care recipients
who because of clinical needs require restraint or containment as part of the function of the treatment area.
7. Emergency lighting shall be provided on the egress side of the door.
8. The delayed egress locking system units shall be listed in accordance with UL 294.
Reason: This proposal is in response to several requests to address the needs of small educational occupancies to help prevent wandering / elopement,
especially for the very young, and for special needs students.
This public proposal is submitted by the ICC Building Code Action Committee (BCAC). The BCAC was established by the ICC Board of Directors to pursue
opportunities to improve and enhance an assigned International Code or portion thereof. This includes both the technical aspects of the codes as well as the
code content in terms of scope and application of referenced standards. Since its inception in July, 2011, the BCAC has held 13 open meetings and numerous
workgroup calls which included members of the BCAC as well as any interested party to discuss and debate the proposed changes and the public comments.
Related documentation and reports are posted on the BCAC website at: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/BCAC/Pages/default.aspx.
E96
E 69-15
1010.1.9.7 (IFC[BE] 1010.1.9.7)
Proponent: Carl Baldassarra, P.E., FSFPE, Chair, ICC Code Technology Committee, representing Code Technology
Committee (CTC@iccsafe.org)
5.
6.
7.
8.
The delay electronics of the delayed egress locking system shall deactivate upon actuation of the automatic
sprinkler system or automatic fire detection system, allowing immediate, free egress.
The delay electronics of the delayed egress locking system shall deactivate upon loss of power controlling the lock
or lock mechanism, allowing immediate free egress.
The delayed egress locking system shall have the capability of being deactivated at the fire command center and
other approved locations.
An attempt to egress shall initiate an irreversible process that shall allow such egress in not more than 15 seconds
when a physical effort to exit is applied to the egress side door hardware for not more than 3 seconds. Initiation of
the irreversible process shall activate an audible signal in the vicinity of the door. Once the delay electronics have
been deactivated, rearming the delay electronics shall be by manual means only.
Exception: Where approved, a delay of not more than 30 seconds is permitted on a delayed egress door.
The egress path from any point shall not pass through more than one delayed egress locking system.
Exception Exceptions:
1.In Group I-2 or I-3 occupancies, the egress path from any point in the building shall pass through
not more than two delayed egress locking systems provided the combined delay does not exceed 30
seconds.
2.In Group I-1 or I-4 occupancies, the egress path from any point in the building shall pass through
not more than two delayed egress locking systems provided the combined delay does not exceed 30
seconds and the building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance
with Section 903.3.1.1.
A sign shall be provided on the door and shall be located above and within 12 inches (305 mm) of the door exit
hardware:
6.1. For doors that swing in the direction of egress, the sign shall read: PUSH UNTIL ALARM SOUNDS.
DOOR CAN BE OPENED IN 15 [30] SECONDS.
6.2. For doors that swing in the opposite direction of egress, the sign shall read: PULL UNTIL ALARM
SOUNDS. DOOR CAN BE OPENED IN 15 [30] SECONDS.
6.3. The sign shall comply with the visual character requirements in ICC A117.1.
Exception: Where approved, in Group I occupancies, the installation of a sign is not required where care
recipients who because of clinical needs require restraint or containment as part of the function of the
treatment area.
Emergency lighting shall be provided on the egress side of the door.
The delayed egress locking system units shall be listed in accordance with UL 294.
Reason: In Item 5, the new exception is proposed to be revised to include Group I-1 occupancies to allow up to two delayed egress systems. As in Group I-2,
Group I-1 occupancies may need more than one delayed egress system. For example, if the Group I-1 occupancy is on the 2nd floor, or higher, in a building,
a delayed egress system may be needed on the door to the exit stairway on that floor. And a second delayed egress locking system may be needed at the
door to the exterior on the ground floor. In Group I-1 and I-4 an additional delayed egress locking system may be highly desirable to help reduce wandering or
elopement by occupants.
The ICC Code Technology Committee (CTC) has just completed its 10th year. The ICC Board has decided to sunset the CTC. The sunset plan includes reassigning many of the CTC Areas of Study to the applicable Code Action Committee (CAC). The two remaining CTC Areas of Study are Care Facilities and
Elevator Lobbies/WTC Elevator issues. This proposal falls under the Care Facilities Area of Study. Information on the CTC, including: the sunset plan;
meeting agendas; minutes; reports; resource documents; presentations; and all other materials developed in conjunction with the CTC effort can be
downloaded from the CTC website at: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/CTC/Pages/default.aspx.
E97
E 70-15
1010.1.9.8; (IFC[BE] 1010.1.9.8)
Proponent: John Woestman, Kellen Company, representing Builders Hardware Manufacturers Association (BHMA)
(jwoestman@kellencompany.com)
4.
5.
6.
The sensor shall be installed on the egress side, arranged to detect an occupant approaching the doors. The doors shall
be arranged to unlock by a signal from or loss of power to the sensor.
Loss of power to the lock or locking system shall automatically unlock the doors.
The doors shall be arranged to unlock from a manual unlocking device located 40 inches to 48 inches (1016 mm to 1219
mm) vertically above the floor and within 5 feet (1524 mm) of the secured doors. Ready access shall be provided to the
manual unlocking device and the device shall be clearly identified by a sign that reads "PUSH TO EXIT." When
operated, the manual unlocking device shall result in direct interruption of power to the lockindependent of other
electronicsand the doors shall remain unlocked for not less than 30 seconds.
Activation of the building fire alarm system, where provided, shall automatically unlock the doors, and the doors shall
remain unlocked until the fire alarm system has been reset.
Activation of the building automatic sprinkler system or fire detection system, where provided, shall automatically unlock
the doors. The doors shall remain unlocked until the fire alarm system has been reset.
The door locking system units shall be listed in accordance with UL 294.
Reason: This proposal revises the occupancy groups to allow this locking arrangement to be used in all occupancies except occupancy Group H. Code
officials and specifiers have asked why this door locking option is allowed in only the currently listed occupancy groups. No reason is known other than the
current allowed occupancies in Section 1010.1.9.8 are consistent with those in Section 1010.1.9.9, which a separate proposal revises.
Just a reminder, this locking arrangement facilitates immediate egress by sensing the approaching occupant and unlocking the electric lock on the door. In
many applications, the occupant is unaware the door is electrically locked as the electrical locks unlock prior to the occupant reaching the door.
E98
E 71-15
1010.1.9.8 (IFC[BE] 1010.1.9.8)
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
5.
6.
7.
The sensor shall be installed on the egress side, arranged to detect an occupant approaching the doors, and shall cause
the electric locking system to unlock.
The doorselectric locks shall be arranged to unlock by a signal from or loss of power to the sensor.
Loss of power to the lock or locking system shall automatically unlock the doorselectiric lock.
The doors shall be arranged to unlock from a manual unlocking device located 40 inches to 48 inches (1016 mm to 1219
mm) vertically above the floor and within 5 feet (1524 mm) of the secured doors. Ready access shall be provided to the
manual unlocking device and the device shall be clearly identified by a sign that reads "PUSH TO EXIT." When
operated, the manual unlocking device shall result in direct interruption of power to the electric lockindependent of
other electronicsand the doorselectric lock shall remain unlocked for not less than 30 seconds.
Activation of the building fire alarm system, where provided, shall automatically unlock the doorselectric lock, and the
doorselectric lock shall remain unlocked until the fire alarm system has been reset.
Activation of the building automatic sprinkler system or fire detection system, where provided, shall automatically unlock
the doorselectric lock. The doorselectric lock shall remain unlocked until the fire alarm system has been reset.
The door locking system units shall be listed in accordance with UL 294.
Reason: Update 1010.1.9.8 to improve clarity and consistency in the language. The charging language is proposed to eliminate redundancy in this section.
With revisions to the first sentence, text late in that sentence is redundant as entrance doors to tenant spaces are commonly in the means of egress. It is
uncommon that tenant doors are not in the means of egress.
The revisions to the numbered items is to clarify the required functions of the electric locking system. In Item 1, the added text describes what the sensor is
required to do upon detecting an approaching occupant. The revisions in the other items clarify requirements for this electrical locking system.
This public proposal is submitted by the ICC Building Code Action Committee (BCAC). The BCAC was established by the ICC Board of Directors to pursue
opportunities to improve and enhance an assigned International Code or portion thereof. This includes both the technical aspects of the codes as well as the
code content in terms of scope and application of referenced standards. Since its inception in July, 2011, the BCAC has held 13 open meetings and numerous
workgroup calls which included members of the BCAC as well as any interested party to discuss and debate the proposed changes and the public comments.
Related documentation and reports are posted on the BCAC website at: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/BCAC/Pages/default.aspx.
E99
E 72-15
1010.1.9.9, 1010.1.10; (IFC [BE] 1010.1.9.9, 1010.1.10)
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
The door hardware that is affixed to the door leaf has an obvious method of operation that is readily operated under all
lighting conditions.
The door hardware is capable of being operated with one hand and shall comply with Section 1010.1.9.5.
Operation of the door hardware directly interrupts the power to the electromagnetic lock and unlocks the door
immediately.
Loss of power to the electric locking system automatically unlocks the door.
Where panic or fire exit hardware is required by Section 1010.1.10, operation of the panic or fire exit hardware also
releases the electromagneticelectric lock.
The locking system units shall be listed in accordance with UL 294.
1010.1.10 Panic and fire exit hardware. Doors serving a Group H occupancy and doors serving rooms or spaces with an occupant
load of 50 or more in a Group A or E occupancy shall not be provided with a latch or lock other than panic hardware or fire exit
hardware.
Exceptions:
1. A main exit of a Group A occupancy shall be permitted to be locking in accordance with Section 1010.1.9.3, Item
2.
2. Doors serving a Group A or E occupancy shall be permitted to be electromagnetically electronically locked in
accordance with Section 1010.1.9.9.
Electrical rooms with equipment rated 1,200 amperes or more and over 6 feet (1829 mm) wide, and that contain overcurrent
devices, switching devices or control devices with exit or exit access doors, shall be equipped with panic hardware or fire exit
hardware. The doors shall swing in the direction of egress travel.
Reason: This public proposal is submitted by the ICC Building Code Action Committee (BCAC). The BCAC was established by the ICC Board of Directors to
pursue opportunities to improve and enhance an assigned International Code or portion thereof. This includes both the technical aspects of the codes as well
as the code content in terms of scope and application of referenced standards. Since its inception in July, 2011, the BCAC has held 13 open meetings and
numerous workgroup calls which included members of the BCAC as well as any interested party to discuss and debate the proposed changes and the public
comments. Related documentation and reports are posted on the BCAC website at: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/BCAC/Pages/default.aspx.
This "special locking arrangement" allows for immediate egress with one-handed operation of the door hardware. Code officials and specifiers have asked why
this option is allowed in only these occupancies. No reason is known other than the current allowed occupancies in Section 1010.1.9.9 match those in Section
1010.1.9.8.
Further, revisions clarify this section of the code to address required functions of all types of electrical locking systems which are operated (i.e. unlocked) by
operation of the door hardware such as panic hardware, fire exit hardware, or door knobs or levers (where panic or fire exit hardware is not required or not
utilized). Electromagnetic locks are the most common type of electrical locks, but not the only type of electric locking hardware which may be selected by the
designer, specifier, and / or building owner or occupant.
Regardless of the type of electrical locking system, this section permits and requires the door hardware to be device which causes the electrical lock to unlock
immediately, allowing egress.
E100
E 73-15
1010.1.9.10 (IFC[BE] 1010.1.9.10)
Proponent: Carl Baldassarra, P.E., FSFPE, Chair, ICC Code Technology Committee, representing Code Technology
Committee (CTC@iccsafe.org); Edward Kulik, Chair, Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
Reason: This section was brought to the attention of the CTC Care committee because Group I-1 services are provided in jails, however, they were not in this
list of locking arrangements for correctional facilities. Rather than add Group I-1 to this growing list, it seems more appropriate to state that this type of locking
should be allowed in all portions of a correctional facility. In addition, this list of Groups is inconsistent with how correctional facilities is defined in Section 308.5.
If this system should not be allowed in certain types of jails, it should be regulated by the Condition, not a list of possible uses.
The ICC Code Technology Committee (CTC) has just completed its 10th year. The ICC Board has decided to sunset the CTC. The sunset plan includes reassigning many of the CTC Areas of Study to the applicable Code Action Committee (CAC). The two remaining CTC Areas of Study are Care Facilities and
Elevator Lobbies/WTC Elevator issues. This proposal falls under the Care Facilities Area of Study. Information on the CTC, including: the sunset plan;
meeting agendas; minutes; reports; resource documents; presentations; and all other materials developed in conjunction with the CTC effort can be
downloaded from the CTC website at: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/CTC/Pages/default.aspx.
The BCAC was established by the ICC Board of Directors to pursue opportunities to improve and enhance an assigned International Code or portion thereof.
This includes both the technical aspects of the codes as well as the code content in terms of scope and application of referenced standards. Since its inception
in July, 2011, the BCAC has held 13 open meetings and numerous workgroup calls which included members of the BCAC as well as any interested party to
discuss and debate the proposed changes and the public comments. Related documentation and reports are posted on the BCAC website at:
http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/BCAC/Pages/default.aspx.
E101
E 74-15
1010.1.9.11; (IFC[BE] 1010.1.9.11)
Proponent: John Terry, State of New Jersey- DCA, representing State of New Jersey - Department of Community
Affairs- Division of Codes and Standards (jterry@dca.nj.gov)
4.
5.
Stairway discharge doors shall be openable from the egress side and shall only be locked from the
opposite side.
This section shall not apply to doors arranged in accordance with Section 403.5.3.
In stairways serving not more than four stories,Stairway exit doors are permitted to be locked from the
side opposite the egress side, provided they are openable from the egress side and capable of being
unlocked simultaneously without unlatching upon a signal from the fire command center , if present, or
a signal by emergency personnel from a single location inside the main entrance to the building.
Stairway exit doors shall be openable from the egress side and shall only be locked from the opposite
side in Group B, F, M and S occupancies where the only interior access to the tenant space is from a
single exit stairway where permitted in Section 1006.3.2.
Stairway exit doors shall be openable from the egress side and shall only be locked from the opposite
side in Group R-2 occupancies where the only interior access to the dwelling unit is from a single exit
stairway where permitted in Section 1006.3.2.
Reason: As currently written, the 2015 IBC allows stairway doors to be locked from the side opposite egress on stories one through four in Exception 3 of
Section 1010.1.9.11 and in high rise buildings (typically seven stories and higher) in Section 403.5.3. By deleting the limitation on the the number of stories in
this section, stair doors on the fifth and sixth stories would be allowed to be locked from the non-egress side consistent with doors on all other floors.
Cost Impact: Will not increase the cost of construction
This proposal will have no impact on the cost of construction.
E 74-15 : 1010.1.9.11-TERRY3401
E102
E 75-15
1010.1.9.11; (IFC[BE] 1010.1.9.11)
Proponent: John Woestman, Kellen Company, representing Builders Hardware Manufacturers Association (BHMA)
(jwoestman@kellencompany.com)
E103
E 76-15
1008.3.3, 1010.1.9.12 (New); (IFC[BE] 1008.3.3, 1010.1.9.12 (New))
Proponent: Lee Kranz, representing Washington Association of Building Officials Technical Code Development
Committee
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Revise as follows:
1008.3.3 Rooms and spaces. In the event of power supply failure, an emergency electrical system shall automatically illuminate
all of the following areas:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Public restrooms with an area greater than 300 square feet (27.87 m2).
Secured elevator lobbies where exit access doors are locked with an electronic device in accordance with Section
1010.1.9.12.
Reason: In order to maintain adequate security in office buildings, access to required exits may be limited by securing doors to some areas of the building.
With the increasing need for office building security we are seeing the growing use of electronic locking devices on doors along the exit pathway. Many of
these installations are being done without a permit and are later discovered by Fire Prevention Officers on their annual inspections. The use of electronic
locking devices on elevator lobby exit access doors is a reality that must be addressed in the code for office and technology buildings. To maintain an
unobstructed and undiminished path of exit travel, criteria for acceptance of these locking devices must be established to preserve the level of building safety
intended by the International Building Code.
Cost Impact: Will not increase the cost of construction
Lobby doors locks are being installed without the benefit of a permit. This proposal will legitimize the use of security door locking systems thereby saving
money by eliminating the need for retrofit after the original unpermitted installation.
Staff note: The number of means of egress from an elevator lobby is addressed in Section 3006.4.
E 76-15 : 1010.1.9.12 (New)KRANZ3765
E104
E 77-15
1010.1.10; (IFC[BE] 1010.1.10)
Proponent: William Koffel, representing WonDoor (wkoffel@koffel.com)
E105
E 78-15
1010.1.10; (IFC[BE] 1010.1.10)
Proponent: John Woestman, Kellen Company, representing Builders Hardware Manufacturers Association (BHMA)
(jwoestman@kellencompany.com)
E106
E 79-15
1010.1.10; (IFC[BE] 1010.1.10)
Proponent: Lee Kranz, City of Bellevue, WA, representing Washington Association of Building Officials Technical
Code Development Committee
A main exit of a Group A occupancy shall be permitted to be locking in accordance with Section 1010.1.9.3, Item
2.
Doors serving a Group A or E occupancy shall be permitted to be electromagnetically locked in accordance with
Section 1010.1.9.9.
Doors serving Group A occupancies with an occupant load of 100 or fewer and accessory to Group B occupancies
are not required to be provided with panic hardware or fire exit hardware.
Electrical rooms with equipment rated 1,200 amperes or more and over 6 feet (1829 mm) wide, and that contain overcurrent
devices, switching devices or control devices with exit or exit access doors, shall be equipped with panic hardware or fire exit
hardware. The doors shall swing in the direction of egress travel.
Reason: The new exception #1 allows smaller Group A occupancies, such as conference rooms, which are accessory to Group B occupancies, such as
office spaces, not to have panic hardware. In these mixed occupancies panic hardware on all doors serving the Group A occupancy, including all doors on
the egress path, is not practical or needed. Typicaly the people using the conference room are the same people who occupy the office spaces.
Cost Impact: Will not increase the cost of construction
The new exception will reduce the cost of construction by exempting panic hardware in some cases. Panic hardware is typically more expensive than regular
door hardware.
E 79-15 : 1010.1.10-KRANZ4315
E107
E 80-15
1010.1.10, 1010.1.10.1(New); (IFC[BE] 1010.1.10, 1010.1.10.1(New))
Proponent: Ross Barrick, representing self (inspections@pldi.net)
Reason: This submittal to 2015 (2018) International Building Code (IBC) 1010.1.10, with proposed additional wording and deletion of existing wording, is
offered to align the 2015 (2018) IBC and the 2014 NFPA 70 National Electrical Code (2014 NEC), and therefore create uniformity.
The additional words "and working spaces" will incorporate other areas of a structure where electrical equipment is installed. Not all electrical equipment is
installed in dedicated rooms, as it may be installed in an area of a room in which other equipment, other than electrical equipment, is installed, and that room
has access to and egress from doors. The 2014 NEC considers twenty-five (25) feet (7.6m) a safe distance from electrical equipment in the event of an
arc-flash, as the concern is to allow an injured worker to safely and quickly exit the room or working space without having to turn knobs or pull doors. This
wording will create uniformity and better clarity between the 2015 (2018) IBC and 2014 NEC.
The additional words "operating at more than 600 volts, nominal, and equipment operating at 600 volts or less, nominal, and" will incorporate the two (2) nominal
voltages listed in 2014 NEC Article 110, Requirements for Electrical Installations. "Over 600 volts, nominal" does not have a minimum ampere rating in the
2014 NEC, unlike "under 600 volts, nominal" with the ampere rating, so the distinction should be made between between the nominal voltages.
The ampere rating has been reduced from 1200 amperes to 800 amperes, for equipment operating under 600 volts, nominal, in 2014 NEC. This change from
1200 amperes to 800 ampres would again create uniformity and clarity between the 2015 (2018) IBC and 2014 NEC.
The words "over 6 feet (1829mm) wide", are not in the 2008 NEC, 2011 NEC, and 2014 NEC. The elimination of these words would create uniformity and
clarity between the 2015 (2018) IBC and 2014 NEC.
The 2014 NEC uses the term "listed panic hardware". The 2015 IBC addresses the "listed" requirement in 1010.1.10.1, so it appears that the "listed
requirement" has been adequately addressed, and therefore no proposed change to 1010.1.10.1 is submitted.
The submitted wording for the code change(s) is consistent with NFPA 70 2014 NEC Handbook sections and commentary as code text. In consideration
of their copyright, all credit for code text pertaining to electrical is given to NFPA. This statement is made in association with my Standard Copyright Form
acceptance/acknowledgement.
(C) Entrance to
www.nfpa.org
E108
E 80-15 : 1010.1.10-BARRICK4996
E109
E 81-15
1010.3, 1010.3.2 (New), 1010.3.1, 1010.3.2; (IFC[BE] 1010.3, 1010.3.2 (New), 1010.3.1, 1010.3.2)
Proponent: Dave Frable, representing US General Services Administration
Each device shall turn free in the direction of egress travel when primary power is lost and on the manual release by an
employee in the area.
Such devices are not given credit for more than 50 percent of the required egress capacity or width.
Each device is not more than 39 inches (991 mm) high.
Each device has not less than 161/ 2 inches (419 mm) clear width at and below a height of 39 inches (991 mm) and not
less than 22 inches (559 mm) clear width at heights above 39 inches (991 mm).
1010.3.1.1 Clear width. Where located as part of an accessible route, turnstiles shall have not less than 36 inches (914 mm) clear
at and below a height of 34 inches (864 mm), not less than 32 inches (813 mm) clear width between 34 inches (864 mm) and 80
inches (2032 mm) and shall consist of a mechanism other than a revolving device.
Add new text as follows:
1010.3.2 Security access turnstiles Security access turnstiles that inhibit travel in the direction of egress utilizing a physical
barrier shall be permitted to be considered as a component of the means of egress, provided that all the following criteria are met:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The building is protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section
903.3.1.1.
Each security access turnstile lane configuration has a minimum clear passage width of 22 inches (560 mm).
Any security access turnstile lane configuration providing a clear passage width of less than 32 inches (810 mm) shall
be credited with a maximum egress capacity of 50 persons.
Any security access turnstile lane configuration providing a clear passage width of 32 in. (810 mm) or more shall be
credited with a maximum egress capacity as calculated in accordance with Section 1005.
Each secured physical barrier shall automatically retract or swing to an unobstructed open position in the direction of
egress, under each of the following conditions:
5.1. Upon loss of power to the turnstile or any part of the access control system that secures the physical barrier.
5.2. Upon actuation of a readily accessible and clearly identified manual release device that results in direct
interruption of power to each secured physical barrier, remains in the open position for not less than 30
seconds.
The manual release decice shall be positioned at one of the following locations:
5.2.1.The manual release device is located on the egress side of each security access turnstile lane.
5.2.2.The manual release device is located at an approved location where it can be actuated by an
employee assigned to the area at all times that the building is occupied.
5.3. Upon actuation of the building fire alarm system, if provided, the physical barrier remains in the open position
until the fire alarm system is manually reset.
Exception: Actuation of a manual fire alarm boxes.
5.4. Upon actuation of the building automatic sprinkler or fire detection system, and for which the physical
barrier remains in the open position until the fire alarm system is manually reset.
Revise as follows:
1010.3.11010.3.3 High turnstile. Turnstiles more than 39 inches (991 mm) high shall meet the requirements for revolving doors or
the requirements of Section 1010.3.2 for security access turnstiles.
1010.3.21010.3.4 Additional door. Where serving an occupant load greater than 300, each turnstile that is not portable shall have a
side-hinged swinging door that conforms to Section 1010.1 within 50 feet (15 240 mm).
Exception: A side-hinged swinging door is not required at security access turnstiles that comply with Section 1010.3.2.
Reason: Manufacturers of turnstile devices have expanded into the security access control market and currently have products that have physical barrier
leaves that restrict access into and out of buildings. These devices can vary in height and sophistication to address building security concerns that may not
meet safety requirements related to the means of egress. Typically, these turnstile devices are located at building entrances and elevator lobbies. The current
requirements for turnstiles apply historically to the "three arm" waist-high turnstiles for entertainment or transportation venues and do not apply to the new
installations. Currently, the building official is left to evaluate these new modern turnstiles to determine compliance with the egress requirements in the IBC.
The intent of the revision is to provide guidance on evaluating these new modern turnstiles. Turnstiles on the market can be as narrow as 22 inches. For
turnstiles that are less than 32 inches, there are additional capacity issues that need to be considered. The fail safe provisions for overriding the turnstile
E110
access restrictions are derived from existing code provisions (e.g., delayed egress locks and forces to open doors).
E111
E 82-15
1011.6; (IFC[BE] 1011.6)
Proponent: Gregory Keeler, representing Self (design_tech@windstream.net)
E112
E 83-15
1011.4; (IFC[BE] 1011.4)
Proponent: David Cooper, representing Stairbuilders and Manufacturers Association (coderep@stairways.org)
E113
E 84-15
1011.10; (IFC[BE] 1011.10)
Proponent: David Cooper, representing Stairbuilders and Manufacturers Association (coderep@stairways.org)
Caption: This standard layout assures accomodation of the required headroom as the stair passes under the typical platform at the top of the stairway.
E114
E115
E 85-15
1011.11, 1014.1; (IFC[BE] 1011.11, 1014.1)
Proponent: David Cooper, representing Stairbuilders and Manufacturers Association (coderep@stairways.org)
E116
E 86-15
1011.16 (IFC[BE] 1011.16)
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
Reason: Section 306.5 of the IMC provides guidance on where ladders can be used to access equipment and for the technical criteria to construct the ladder
(see the reason of the original change for text). The concern is the exact wording of Section 1009.18, Item 6. The list in Section 1011.6 is locations where
ladders can be used. Item 6 is revised to limit the reference to where the ladders are permitted in IMC Section 306.5. How ladders are to be constructed is
moved to the base paragraph so it is clear what technical requirements are to be followed where a ladder is provided in any of the 6 locations.
This public proposal is submitted by the ICC Building Code Action Committee (BCAC). The BCAC was established by the ICC Board of Directors to pursue
opportunities to improve and enhance an assigned International Code or portion thereof. This includes both the technical aspects of the codes as well as the
code content in terms of scope and application of referenced standards. Since its inception in July, 2011, the BCAC has held 13 open meetings and numerous
workgroup calls which included members of the BCAC as well as any interested party to discuss and debate the proposed changes and the public comments.
Related documentation and reports are posted on the BCAC website at: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/BCAC/Pages/default.aspx.
E117
E 87-15
1013.2; (IFC[BE] 1013.2)
Proponent: Stephen DiGiovanni, Clark County Building Department, representing Southern Nevada Chapter of ICC
(sdigiovanni@clarkcountynv.gov)
E118
E 88-15
1013.4, 1111.3; (IFC[BE] 1013.4)
Proponent: Timothy Pate, City and County of Broomfield, representing the Colorado Chapter ICC Code Change
Committee, representing City and County of Broomfield (tpate@broomfield.org)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Each assembly area required to comply with Section 1108.2.7 shall provide a sign notifying patrons of the availability of
assistive listening systems. The sign shall comply with ICC A117.1 requirements for visual characters and include the
International Symbol of Access for Hearing Loss.
Exception: Where ticket offices or windows are provided, signs are not required at each assembly area provided
that signs are displayed at each ticket office or window informing patrons of the availability of assistive listening
systems.
At each door to an area of refuge, an exterior area for assisted rescue, an egressinterior exit stairway or ramp, an
exterior exitstairway or ramp, exit passageway and exit discharge doors where exit signs are required by Section
1013.1, signage shall be provided in accordance with Section 1013.4.
At areas of refuge, signage shall be provided in accordance with Section 1009.11.
At exterior areas for assisted rescue, signage shall be provided in accordance with Section 1009.11.
At two-way communication systems, signage shall be provided in accordance with Section 1009.8.2.
In interior exit stairways and ramps, floor level signage shall be provided in accordance with Section 1023.9.
Signs identifying the type of access provided on amusement rides required to be accessible by Section 1110.4.8 shall
be provided at entries to queues and waiting lines. In addition, where accessible unload areas also serve as accessible
load areas, signs indicating the location of the accessible load and unload areas shall be provided at entries to queues
and waiting lines. These directional sign characters shall meet the visual character requirements in accordance with ICC
A117.1.
Reason: I believe that the existing code language requires raised character and braille exit signs installed at every exit discharge door even when only one is
required and regular exit signs are not required. I believe that the intent is to only require the raised character and braille exit signs to be installed at exit
discharge doors when exit signs are requried as per Section 1013.
This proposed change will modify the 2 different sections that have these requirements
I also modified languge in section 1013.4 to clarify that the raised character and braille exit signs are only required at doors into the vertical exit enclosures stairways or ramps.
E 88-15 : 1013.4-PATE4098
E119
E 89-15
1013.4, 1111.3; (IFC[BE] 1013.4)
Proponent: Dominic Marinelli, representing United Spinal Association (DMarinelli@accessibility-services.com)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Each assembly area required to comply with Section 1108.2.7 shall provide a sign notifying patrons of the availability of
assistive listening systems. The sign shall comply with ICC A117.1 requirements for visual characters and include the
International Symbol of Access for Hearing Loss.
Exception: Where ticket offices or windows are provided, signs are not required at each assembly area provided
that signs are displayed at each ticket office or window informing patrons of the availability of assistive listening
systems.
At each door to an area of refuge providing direct access to the stairway, an exterior area for assisted rescue, an egress
exit stairway, exit passageway and exit discharge, signage shall be provided in accordance with Section 1013.4.
At areas of refuge, signage shall be provided in accordance with Section 1009.11.
At exterior areas for assisted rescue, signage shall be provided in accordance with Section 1009.11.
At two-way communication systems, signage shall be provided in accordance with Section 1009.8.2.
In interior exit stairways and ramps, floor level signage shall be provided in accordance with Section 1023.9.
Signs identifying the type of access provided on amusement rides required to be accessible by Section 1110.4.8 shall
be provided at entries to queues and waiting lines. In addition, where accessible unload areas also serve as accessible
load areas, signs indicating the location of the accessible load and unload areas shall be provided at entries to queues
and waiting lines. These directional sign characters shall meet the visual character requirements in accordance with ICC
A117.1.
Reason: The intent is coordination with the a revision to the next edition of the ICC A117.1 standard for tactile exit signage, Section 504.10.
The point of the tactile exit signage is to let a visually impaired person know what door they should enter to exit the building. When a stairway is accessed
through an area of refuge, this signage is appropriate. Where the area of refuge is at the front of an elevator with standby power, this is not appropriate. Many
lobbies have double doors with hold open devices, so there is also the question about where would be the correct location for this signage. This change in
language will effectively not require the tactile exit signage at an elevator lobby.
E120
E 90-15
1013.6.3; (IFC[BE] 1013.6.3)
Proponent: John Williams, CBO, Chair, representing Adhoc Health Care Committee (AHC@iccsafe.org)
E121
E 91-15
1014.9; (IFC[BE] 1014.9)
Proponent: Stephen DiGiovanni, Clark County Building Department, representing Southern Nevada Chapter of ICC
(sdigiovanni@clarkcountynv.gov)
E122
E 92-15
1015.3 (IFC[BE] 1015.3)
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
Exceptions:
1. For occupancies in Group R-3 not more than three stories above grade in height and within individual dwelling
units in occupancies in Group R-2 not more than three stories above grade in height with separate means of
egress , required guards shall be not less than 36 inches (914 mm) in height measured vertically above the
adjacent walking surfaces or adjacent fixed seating.
2. For occupancies in Group R-3, and within individual dwelling units in occupancies in Group R-2, guards on the
open sides of stairs shall have a height not less than 34 inches (864 mm) measured vertically from a line
connecting the leading edges of the treads.
3. For occupancies in Group R-3, and within individual dwelling units in occupancies in Group R-2, where the top
of the guard also serves as a handrail on the open sides of stairs , the top of the guard shall be not less than 34
inches (864 mm) and not more than 38 inches (965 mm) measured vertically from a line connecting the leading
edges of the treads.
4. The guard height in assembly seating areas shall comply with Section 1029.16 as applicable.
5. Along alternating tread devices and ships ladders, guards where the top rail also serves as a handrail shall have
height not less than 30 inches (762 mm) and not more than 34 inches (864 mm), measured vertically from the
leading edge of the device tread nosing .
Reason: The purpose of this proposal is coordination between the IBC and IRC. The phrase 'or adjacent fixed seating' was in exception 1 to coordinate with
the provisions for guard height in the IRC. Previous edition of the IBC and IRC required guards to be placed adjacent to fixed seating that occurs on areas
such as decks where the seat and guard are built integral with the deck. At those locations the guard height was measured from that seat. The requirement to
measure from the fixed seating has been removed from the IBC and IRC.
In July/2014 the ICC Board decided to sunset the activities of the Code Technology Committee (CTC). This is being accomplished by re-assigning many of the
CTC Areas of Study to the applicable Code Action Committee (CAC). This proposal falls under the CTC Area of Study entitled Climbable Guards. Information
on the CTC, including: the sunset plan; meeting agendas; minutes; reports; resource documents; presentations; and all other materials developed in
conjunction with the CTC effort can be downloaded from the CTC website.
This public proposal is submitted by the ICC Building Code Action Committee (BCAC). The BCAC was established by the ICC Board of Directors to pursue
opportunities to improve and enhance an assigned International Code or portion thereof. This includes both the technical aspects of the codes as well as the
code content in terms of scope and application of referenced standards. Since its inception in July, 2011, the BCAC has held 13 open meetings and numerous
workgroup calls which included members of the BCAC as well as any interested party to discuss and debate the proposed changes and the public comments.
Related documentation and reports are posted on the BCAC website at: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/BCAC/Pages/default.aspx.
E123
E 93-15
1015.3; (IFC[BE] 1015.3)
Proponent: Thomas Dalton, representing Self
Exceptions:
1. For occupancies in Group R-3 not more than three stories above grade in height and within and serving individual
dwelling units in occupancies in Group R-2 not more than three stories above grade in height with separate means of
egress, required guards shall be not less than 36 inches (914 mm) in height measured vertically above the adjacent
walking surfaces or adjacent fixed seating.
2. For occupancies in Group R-3, and within and serving individual dwelling units in occupancies in Group R-2, guards on
the open sides of stairs shall have a height not less than 34 inches (864 mm) measured vertically from a line
connecting the leading edges of the treads.
3. For occupancies in Group R-3, and within and serving individual dwelling units in occupancies in Group R-2, where the
top of the guard also serves as a handrail on the open sides of stairs, the top of the guard shall be not less than 34
inches (864 mm) and not more than 38 inches (965 mm) measured vertically from a line connecting the leading edges
of the treads.
4. The guard height in assembly seating areas shall comply with Section 1029.16 as applicable.
5. Along alternating tread devices and ships ladders, guards where the top rail also serves as a handrail shall have height
not less than 30 inches (762 mm) and not more than 34 inches (864 mm), measured vertically from the leading edge of
the device tread nosing.
Reason: Changing this section of the code will treat all types of long term residential occupancies with the same risk factors for falls and accessibility the
same. Treating the exterior staircase serving individual condominium units differently from interior staircases within those units is not consistant in this type of
occupancy.
Cost Impact: Will not increase the cost of construction
This change could decrease the cost of construction by reducing the amount of material and speeding up production by standardizing both the intereior and
exterior guards.
E 93-15 : 1015.3-DALTON3984
E124
E 94-15
1015.3; (IFC[BE] 1015.3)
Proponent: Jay Wallace, The Boeing Company, representing The Boeing Company (jay.s.wallace@boeing.com)
Exceptions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
For occupancies in Group R-3 not more than three stories above grade in height and within individual dwelling units in
occupancies in Group R-2 not more than three stories above grade in height with separate means of egress, required
guards shall be not less than 36 inches (914 mm) in height measured vertically above the adjacent walking surfaces or
adjacent fixed seating.
For occupancies in Group R-3, and within individual dwelling units in occupancies in Group R-2, guards on the open
sides of stairs shall have a height not less than 34 inches (864 mm) measured vertically from a line connecting the
leading edges of the treads.
For occupancies in Group R-3, and within individual dwelling units in occupancies in Group R-2, where the top of the
guard also serves as a handrail on the open sides of stairs, the top of the guard shall be not less than 34 inches (864
mm) and not more than 38 inches (965 mm) measured vertically from a line connecting the leading edges of the treads.
The guard height in assembly seating areas shall comply with Section 1029.16 as applicable.
Along alternating tread devices and ships ladders, guards where the top rail also serves as a handrail shall have height
not less than 30 inches (762 mm) and not more than 34 inches (864 mm), measured vertically from the leading edge of
the device tread nosing.
In Group F occupancies, where exit access stairways serve three stories or less and such stairs are not open to the
public, where the top of the guard also serves as a handrail, the top of the guard shall be not less than 34 inches (864
mm) and not more than 38 inches (965 mm) measured vertically from a line connecting the leading edges of the treads.
Reason: Federal OSHA requirements restrict industrial stairway guard height to a maximum of 34"; it also intends that the top rail will be used as a handrail.
The IBC range for handrails is 34 to 38 inches but also requires a guard at 42". This proposal attempts to find a reasonable middle ground making at least one
solution acceptable to both IBC and OSHA requirements for non-egress stairways in factory type settings.
Factory workers are often required to carry out full range of motion activities and access work areas in tight spaces and sometimes maneuver into awkward
positions. Their work often requires them to be more mobile and more athletic than their office sitting counterparts enabling them to negotiate a set of stairs with
greater agility. They become very familiar with their workplace and like many of us, may spend more time on the job than they do at home.
The IBC recognizes that familiarity is a component of safe stairway design as reduced guard height and the use of the top guard rail as a handrail is already
allowed for Group R-3 and in individual dwelling units of R-2 (see Exception 3 of this same section) where occupants normally experience extended time and
acquire familiarity with stairway construction details in contrast to those in other Group R occupancies where visitors and residents are usually temporary.
Granted, occupants in Group R occupancies may consume alcohol and other substances which could impair their ability to negotiate a set of stairs but such
behavior is typically not allowed in Group F occupancies.
The three floor limit proposed is borrowed from Exception 3 to maintain the same level of safety as has been previously approved for use in the code.
Exception 3 uses the term story stating that the exception is limited to 3 stories in height. This proposal limits floors to three instead of stories because the
term floor in Group F correlates better with stories in Group R. In Group F, stairways could run between stories or within a single story to multiple levels of
mezzanines or platforms located further above the ground floor than intended.
The focus of this proposal is on Factory workers on exit access stairways. These stairs are not intended nor required for emergency egress. They are not
shared with other occupancies such as Group B or Group S which may be associated with a Group F. However, there is the reality that maintenance service
may be required in these factory areas and so this proposal recognizes that maintenance service personnel may use the stairs. This distinct group of users is
also highly accustomed to the facility and able to negotiate such construction details with ease.
This proposed change resolves conflicting requirements between OSHA and the IBC by applying an acceptable solution already approved for other
occupancies where occupants experience similar long term exposure and familiarity.
E125
E 95-15
1015.6 (IFC[BE] 1015.6, IMC[BE] 304.11), 1015.7, (IFC[BE]1015.7, IMC[BE] 304.12 (New))
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
E126
viewed as editorial only. There is no intent to change requirements. There is a companion proposal to revise the exception. If that proposal is approved, the
exception should also be revised from the new IMC Section 304.12.
This public proposal is submitted by the ICC Building Code Action Committee (BCAC). The BCAC was established by the ICC Board of Directors to pursue
opportunities to improve and enhance an assigned International Code or portion thereof. This includes both the technical aspects of the codes as well as the
code content in terms of scope and application of referenced standards. Since its inception in July, 2011, the BCAC has held 13 open meetings and numerous
workgroup calls which included members of the BCAC as well as any interested party to discuss and debate the proposed changes and the public comments.
Related documentation and reports are posted on the BCAC website at: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/BCAC/Pages/default.aspx.
E127
E 96-15
1015.6 (IFC[BE] 1015.6), 1015.7 (IFC[BE] 1015.6), IMC [BE] 304.11
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
E128
E 97-15
1017.2, 1017.2.3 (New); (IFC[BE] 1017.2, 1017.2.3 (New))
Proponent: Vickie Lovell, InterCode Incorporated, representing Fire Safe North America (vickie@intercodeinc.com)
Reason: As hazard events, both naturally-occurring and man-made, are increasing in number and severity in the United States and around the world, the
resilience of communities and the individual buildings within those communities is becoming of vital importance.
A National Institute of Building Sciences Publication (May, 2014) entitled "Moving Forward: Findings and Recommendations", states that "while a long history of
building codes has laid the foundation for addressing the impacts of natural and man-made hazards, changes in the frequency and severity of events have
brought new challenges challenges requiring the engagement and support of policymakers. While building codes serve as the minimum requirements for
life-safety in the building stock, basic life-safety protections do not fully address building performance requirements to achieve resilience."
Mitigation includes, among other things, fortifying buildings so that they are less likely to be severely damaged or completely destroyed during or immediately
after a disaster. It is the key to recovery after a disaster. Mitigation allows individuals and communities to lessen post-disaster disruption and rebuild more
quickly. States and cities have started implementing more stringent requirements in specific geographic areas they have designated as higher-risk. The
purpose of this series of code changes proposed by Fire Safe North America is to encourage the debate in the code development process to identify what
constitutes resilient buildings, and begin to identify issues that will become the basis for "new minimum requirements" for increased building resiliency.
Responding to the challenge of mitigating damage and resilient buildings is an admittedly complex topic. Fire Safe North America proposals are intended to
reduce the total reliance of a community and its firefighters on automatic sprinkler systems in disaster-prone areas of the country where the water supply
and/or power are likely to be interrupted, or are likely to have water supply system operational issues. The proposals, if approved, will fortify the building code
requirements for the most vulnerable buildings to fire - Type IIB, IIIB, and VB construction, which are also classified as Risk Category III and IV in Table
1604.5, and in high-risk, disaster prone regions. The proposals modify the following code requirements in such buildings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
These proposals are intended to be conservative so as to promote community resiliency and disaster mitigation by protecting essential buildings with both
sprinkler protection AND fire resistance rated compartmentation. These proposals may be fairly considered to be the proverbial "belt-and suspenders"
approach, requiring both sprinkler protection and increased fire resistance rated compartmentation in specific buildings in high risk areas for disasters.
Historically, the code has been written using the general assumption that automatic sprinklers will operate satisfactorily and there will be suitable power for
such building operations. Code users design and build assuming that firefighters will be able to respond at their normal efficiencies. In some parts of the
country, buildings impacted by disasters may remain without reliable water and/or power for a considerable period of time, well after the occurrence of the
disaster. History has shown that increased incidents of fires after a disaster can be more destructive to life and property than the disaster itself. Total reliance
on an uninterrupted power and water supply may not be an acceptable risk. It may also be an unacceptable risk to assume that firefighters will be able to
respond at their normal efficiencies.
For example, more than 15% of the U.S. population lives in potential major earthquake areas. 41 states and territories have moderate to high risk. There is a
real likelihood of power and water supplies being interrupted following a major seismic event, along with the potential for multiple simultaneous structure fires
and also building-to-building fire spread. In October 17, 1989, a 7.1 earthquake in Santa Cruz Mountains was responsible for 26 fires in San Francisco, 60
miles from epicenter. There were 67 documented breaks in water mains which effectively eliminated water pressure in the area. On January 19, 1994, a 6.8
earthquake centered in Northridge, CA. There were approximately 100 fire ignitions, 30 to 50 of those were considered significant. The water supply systems
in the area were damaged causing low pressure in water distribution. On January 17, 1995, a 6.8 (approx.) earthquake near Kobe, Japan caused 90 fires to
start within minutes. 85 spread to adjacent buildings and 10 approached or reached conflagration status. 1,700 water line breaks occurred within a couple of
hours. There were 7,000 buildings destroyed by fire alone.
In 1997, the Red River flooded Grand Forks, North Dakota, causing $3.7 billion in flood losses, and displaced thousands of families and businesses. Similar
data of increased fire incidents are available in other flood and hurricane-prone areas.
Undoubtedly, this will increase the cost of construction in these specific buildings. However, a recent FEMA's 2010 report "Mitigation's Value to Society"
statement described how mitigation is an investment that needs to be made. A recent study by the NIBS Multihazard Mitigation Council (MMC) identified that
each dollar spent on mitigation saves an average of $4.00 in disaster recovery.
Links:
http://www.dhses.ny.gov/oem/mitigation/documents/mitigations-value-to-society.pdf
The two-volume NIBS MMC study report is available for free download at:
http://www.nibs.org/index.php/mmc/projects/nhms
E129
E130
E 98-15
1017.2.2 (IFC[BE] 1017.2.2)
Proponent: Joe McELvaney, representing self (mcelvaney@cox.net)
The portion of the building classified as Group F-1 or S-1 is limited to one story in height.
The minimum height from the finished floor to the bottom of the ceiling or roof slab or deck is 24 feet (7315 mm).
The building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1.
High Pile combustible storage areas greater than 500,000 square feet (46,450 square meters) are provided with
additional fire protection in accordance with the International Fire Code, Table 3206.2, footnote g.
Reason: High pile combustible storage have some special fire code requirements that would apply to these type of occupancies where the travel distance is
400 feet. Once the travel distance is above 300 feet the odds increase that the storage area may be over 500,000 sq. ft.. Once the stroage area is greater
than 500,000 sq. ft. the fire code offical can ask for addtional fire protection based on IFC Table 3206.2 footnote g.
By adding this information to the IBC it will alert the design professional that addtional fire protection may be required per IFC Table 3206.2 footnote g., Hence
the design professional should talk with the fire code offical to determine what may be required.
This new text may help in reducing the number of change orders and open a line of communication with the design professional and fire code official for this
large building.
E131
E 99-15
1017.2.3 (New); (IFC[BE] 1017.2.3 (New))
Proponent: Stephen DiGiovanni, Clark County Building Department, representing Southern Nevada Chapter of ICC
(sdigiovanni@clarkcountynv.gov)
E132
E 100-15
202, 1017.3; (IFC[BE[ 1017.3)
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
Staff note: There is a published errata to the definition for Common Path of Egress Travel. The errata is incorporated into the definition as
existing text.
E 100-15 : 1017.3-KULIK3669
E133
E 101-15
1018.6 (New); (IFC[BE] 1018.6 (New))
Proponent: Bryan Romney, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, representing self (bryan.romney@fm.utah.edu)
E134
E 102-15
202, 1006.3, 1006.3.1, 1017.3.1, 1019.2(New), 1019.3, 1019.4, 1023.2; (IFC[BE] 1006.3, 1006.3.1, 1017.3.1,
1019.2(New), 1019.3, 1019.4, 1023.2)
Proponent: Gregory Keith, Professional heuristic Development, representing The Boeing Company
(grkeith@mac.com); Stephen Thomas (sthomas@coloradocode.net) Colorado Code Consulting, LLC, representing
self
5.
6.
7.
8.
Exit access stairways and ramps that serve or atmospherically communicate between only two stories. Such
interconnected stories shall not be open to other stories.
In Group R-1, R-2 or R-3 occupancies, exit accessstairways and ramps connecting four stories or less serving and
contained within an individual dwelling unit or sleeping unit or live/work unit.
Exit access stairways serving and contained within a Group R-3 congregate residence or a Group R-4 facility are not
required to be enclosed.
Exit access stairways and ramps in buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance
with Section 903.3.1.1, where the area of the vertical opening between stories does not exceed twice the horizontal
projected area of the stairway or ramp and the opening is protected by a draft curtain and closely spaced sprinklers in
accordance with NFPA 13. In other than Group B and M occupancies, this provision is limited to openings that do not
connect more than four stories.
Exit access stairways and ramps within an atrium complying with the provisions of Section 404.
Exit access stairways and ramps in open parking garages that serve only the parking garage.
Exit access stairways and ramps serving open-air seating complying with the exit access travel distance requirements
of Section 1029.7.
Exit access stairways and ramps serving the balcony, gallery or press box and the main assembly floor in occupancies
such as theaters, places of religious worship, auditoriums and sports facilities.
1019.41019.5 Group I-2 and I-3 occupancies. In Group I-2 and I-3 occupancies, floor openings between stories containing exit
access stairways or ramps are required to be enclosed with a shaft enclosure constructed in accordance with Section 713.
Exception: In Group I-3 occupancies, exit access stairways or ramps constructed in accordance with Section 408 are not
ICC COMMITTEE ACTION HEARINGS ::: April, 2015
E135
required to be enclosed.
1023.2 Construction. Enclosures for interior exit stairways and ramps shall be constructed as fire barriers in accordance with
Section 707 or horizontal assemblies constructed in accordance with Section 711, or both. Interior exit stairway and ramp
enclosures shall have a fire-resistance rating of not less than 2 hours where connecting four stories or more and not less than 1 hour
where connecting less than four stories. The number of stories connected by the interior exit stairways or ramps shall include any
basements, but not any mezzanines. Interior exit stairways and ramps shall have a fire-resistance rating not less than the floor
assembly penetrated, but need not exceed 2 hours.
ExceptionsException:
1. Interior exit stairways and ramps in Group I-3 occupancies in accordance with the provisions of Section 408.3.8.
2. Interior exit stairways within an atrium enclosed in accordance with Section 404.6.
Reason: Code change proposal E5-09/10 formalized the technical relationship between interior exit stairways and exit access stairways. Previously, the
issue was confused by a number of exceptions to former exit enclosure provisions. This proposal is intended to further clarify the applicable provisions and
accomplish some necessary technical adjustments.
First, the Section 202 definition of exit access stairway has been modified so as to be consistent with the terminology used in the definitions of two other exit
access components: aisles and corridors.
Section 1006.3 has been modified to clarify that combinations of exits or access to exits at other building levels may be used to satisfy multiple exit
requirements. That is, a story may have two exits, two exit access stairways or ramps leading to exits at other building levels (within exit access travel
distance limitations), or one of each. Also, the term "aggregate" occupant loads has been changed to "cumulative" so as to be consistent with the provisions of
Section 1004.1.1. The last sentence of Section 1006.3, which limits exit access travel to only one adjacent story, is deleted. This provision was not a part of
ICC Code Technology Committee proposal E5. This issue goes to the heart of the original intent of E5. Fire and smoke migration limits have been long
identified in the IBC and former legacy codes. They define acceptable atmospheric boundaries under specific design conditions. It is only logical that
horizontal and vertical travel within prescribed limitations should be allowed to include that number of stories permitted by any applicable design condition as
described in Section 1019.3.
2009 IBC exit enclosure provisions contained numerous exceptions that allowed for extended travel on unenclosed stairways. Examples include atriums,
single family residences and open parking garages. The retention of the current adjacent story restriction will simply proliferate exceptions that will return to
the former technical status quo. One such exception has already been approved for inclusion in 2015 IBC Section 1023.2 that addresses the atrium design
condition. A package of exceptions addressing multi-story residential occupancies has been submitted for consideration during this code development cycle.
Approval of this proposal will render that submittal as unnecessary.
It should be noted that removal of the current single adjacent story restriction will not allow for carte blanche multi-story access to exits. The default
requirement at Section 1019.3 is that all exit access stairways be enclosed. That section contains a list of eight conditions where unenclosed exit access
stairways are permitted. The first is the most commonly used and allows for two story open stairways in other than Group I-2 and I-3 occupancies. This
provision inherently complies with the single adjacent story limitation. The remaining seven items are specific in nature and their tenability limits have long been
contained in the IBC. To circumnavigate the adjacent story travel restriction, exceptions have been approved or are proposed for six of the seven design
conditions. So effectively, removal of the provision will have virtually no effect on means of egress design. Elimination of the growing list of exceptions in favor
of a comprehensive base requirement is the preferred method of addressing the design condition.
Section 1006.3.1 has been modified to recognize combinations of exits or access to exits so as to be consistent with Section 1006.3.
An important change has been made to Section 1019, exit access stairways. The technical requirements for interior exit stairways (an exit component) are
easily established. Typically, all interior exit stairways are enclosed with fire resistance-rated construction and they extend to the exterior of the building. With
exit access stairways, there are two issues. One is their purpose as a means of egress component. Also of concern are building fire and smoke migration
limits. Recent IBC editions had clarified that it is permissible to access exits at other building levels by way of exit access stairways or ramps. The general
architectural need is to have an unenclosed exit access stairway(s) within a given portion of the building having common tenancy. Historical fire and smoke
migration limits, however, limit the number of open stories that an unenclosed exit access stairway can serve. Numbers of stories greater than these limits
would require the enclosure of exit access stairways based on shaft protection requirements.
The resultant 2012 IBC system was logical and clarified previous requirements. That said, it overlooked means of egress occupant expectation concerns and
some theoretical technical issues. First, there is no requirement for an enclosed exit access stairway to extend to the exterior of the building. Such a stairway
may terminate at any building level. Additionally, there is no requirement to maintain exit access stairway rating continuity simialr to that required for rated
corridors. It is believed that due to occupant conditioning, that there is the expectation that when a person enters an enclosed stairway, that they are in a
relatively safe area that will lead to the exterior of the building. Another complication is that travel to exits at other building levels is permitted where the exit
access travel distance does not exceed that allowed. An enclosed exit access stairway may allow for acceptable travel limitations; however, remaining
portions of the same enclosure would exceed requirements. The point being that occupants are not aware of when they should leave the exit access stairway
enclosure--an exit access component--so as to meet exit access travel distance requirements.
The original purpose of the exit access stairway concept was to allow for unenclosed, non-rated interior stairways within building spaces so as to allow for
occupant circulation and access to exits at other building levels. To meet occupant expectations and increase fire and life safety, shaft enclosure
requirements are proposed to be replaced by interior exit stairway construction requirements. This also resolves the extended travel within an exit access
component issue because occupants would be entering a formal exit component.
This apparent upgrade is less impactful that might be thought. Construction requirements for interior exit stairways and enclosed exit access stairways are
virtually identical. The primary difference ocurrs with opening and penetration protection requirements. Obviously, interior exit stairway opening and
penetration provisions are better suited to protect occupants in the means of egress as opposed to present utility protection concerns.
Approval of this proposal would add balance to current IBC means of egress provisions and react to likely occupant expectation of enclosed interior stairways.
Approval will result in functional and understandable provisions and increase the level of occupant safely.
E136
Staff note: There is a published errata to Section 1006.3 and 1006.3.1. The errata is incorporated into this proposal as existing text.
E 102-15 : 1006.3-KEITH4635
E137
E 103-15
202, 1019.3; (IFC[BE] 1019.3)
Proponent: Robert Davidson, Davidson Code Concepts, LLC, representing Myself
(rjd@davidsoncodeconcepts.com)
5.
6.
7.
8.
Exit access stairways and ramps that serve or atmospherically communicate between only two stories. Such
interconnected stories shall not be open to other stories.
In Group R-1, R-2 or R-3 occupancies, exit accessstairways and ramps connecting four stories or less serving and
contained within an individual dwelling unit or sleeping unit or live/work unit.
Exit access stairways serving and contained within a Group R-3 congregate residence or a Group R-4 facility are not
required to be enclosed.
Exit access stairways and ramps in buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance
with Section 903.3.1.1, where the area of the vertical opening between stories does not exceed twice the horizontal
projected area of the stairway or ramp and the opening is protected by a draft curtain and closely spaced sprinklers in
accordance with NFPA 13. In other than Group B and M occupancies, thisThis provision is limited to openings that do
not connect more than four stories.
Exit access stairways and ramps within an atrium complying with the provisions of Section 404.
Exit access stairways and ramps in open parking garages that serve only the parking garage.
Exit access stairways and ramps serving open-air seating complying with the exit access travel distance requirements
of Section 1029.7.
Exit access stairways and ramps serving the balcony, gallery or press box and the main assembly floor in occupancies
such as theaters, places of religious worship, auditoriums and sports facilities.
Reason: The purpose of this proposal is to update the definition of atrium to include unenclosed exit access stairways and ramps and to modify the permitted
number of stories an unenclosed exit access stairway or ramp can connect before additional fire protection features must be provided.
Prior to the 2012 edition of the IBC unenclosed exit access stairways were simply called unenclosed stairways and they were only permitted to connect more
than two stories within a building if they were not part of a means of egess system or were located within an atrium. In other words they were restricted to
being an extra stairway. It was not common to have an extra unenclosed stairway other than one located within an atrium.
2009 IBC
708.2 Shaft enclosure required.
Openings through a floor/ceiling assembly shall be protected by a shaft enclosure complying with this section.
Exceptions:
2. A shaft enclosure is not required in a building equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 for
an escalator opening or stairway that is not a portion of the means of egress protected according to Item 2.1 or 2.2.
2.1. Where the area of the floor opening between stories does not exceed twice the horizontal projected area of the escalator or stairway and the
opening is protected by a draft curtain and closely spaced sprinklers in accordance with NFPA 13. In other than Groups B and M, this application
is limited to openings that do not connect more than four stories .
With changes for the 2012 IBC these stairways and ramps became "unenclosed exit access stairways and ramps", part of the egress system. The same
number of stories could be connected, up to 4 stories for all Groups other than B and M which are unlimited, and the unenclosed exit access stairways and
ramps are now part of the egress system. Occupants are expected to use them in evacuating/egressing from the floor or building. That was a major technical
change and one that encourages increased useage in design.
Since the 2006 edition of the IBC the definition of atrium and the allowance for unenclosed stairs has overlapped. (Prior to the 2006 edition of the IBC there
were specific exceptions for smoke control for these types of unenclosed stairways). From a fire protection standpoint they conflict with each other. If applied
together you can have the unenclosed stairway, but if you connect three or more stories you needed smoke control.
What this proposal does is add "unenclosed exit access stairways and ramps that do not connect more than four stories" to the methods of openings in floor
construction not defined as an atrrium and modifying Section 1919.3, Item 4 to limit the unenclosed exit access stairs and ramps to 4 stories. With these
changes the two concepts are coordinated for application of the IBC and to provide for a level of safety for occupants traversing down an unenclosed exit
access stairway or ramp, potentially towards the source of the fire and into the products of combustion.
E138
E139
E 104-15
1019.3 (IFC [BE] 1019.3)
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
5.
6.
7.
8.
Exit access stairways and ramps that serve or atmospherically communicate between only two stories. Such
interconnected stories shall not be open to other stories.
In Group R-1, R-2 or R-3 occupancies, exit accessstairways and ramps connecting four stories or less serving and
contained within an individual dwelling unit or sleeping unit or live/work unit.
Exit access stairways serving and contained within a Group R-3 congregate residence or a Group R-4 facility are not
required to be enclosed.
Exit access stairways and ramps in buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance
with Section 903.3.1.1, where the area of the vertical opening between stories does not exceed twice the horizontal
projected area of the stairway or ramp and the opening is protected by a draft curtain and closely spaced sprinklers in
accordance with NFPA 13. In other than Group B and M occupancies, this provision is limited to openings that do not
connect more than four stories.
Exit access stairways and ramps within an atrium complying with the provisions of Section 404.
Exit access stairways and ramps in open parking garages that serve only the parking garage.
Exit access stairways and ramps serving open-air seating complying with the exit access travel distance requirements
of Section 1029.7.
Exit access stairways and ramps serving between the balcony, gallery or press box and the main assembly floor in
occupancies such as theaters, places of religious worship, auditoriums and sports facilities.
Reason: This exception previously read as follows. "Stairways are permitted to be open between the balcony, gallery or press box and the main assembly
floor in occupancies such as theaters, places of religious worship, auditoriums and sports facilities." The revision last cycle had an unintended consequence.
The current text can be read differently without 'between'. It could be read to allow open stairways serving the main assembly floor to be open exit access
stairways.
In July/2014 the ICC Board decided to sunset the activities of the Code Technology Committee (CTC). This is being accomplished by re-assigning many of the
CTC Areas of Study to the applicable Code Action Committee (CAC). This proposal falls under the CTC Area of Study entitled Unenclosed Exit Stairs.
Information on the CTC, including: the sunset plan; meeting agendas; minutes; reports; resource documents; presentations; and all other materials developed
in conjunction with the CTC effort can be downloaded from the CTC website.http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/CTC/Pages/default.aspx
This public proposal is submitted by the ICC Building Code Action Committee (BCAC). The BCAC was established by the ICC Board of Directors to pursue
opportunities to improve and enhance an assigned International Code or portion thereof. This includes both the technical aspects of the codes as well as the
code content in terms of scope and application of referenced standards. Since its inception in July, 2011, the BCAC has held 13 open meetings and numerous
workgroup calls which included members of the BCAC as well as any interested party to discuss and debate the proposed changes and the public comments.
Related documentation and reports are posted on the BCAC website at: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/BCAC/Pages/default.aspx.
E140
E 105-15
1020.1; (IFC[BE] 1020.1)
Proponent: Vickie Lovell, InterCode Incorporated, representing Fire Safe North America (vickie@intercodeinc.com)
Exceptions:
1. A fire-resistance rating is not required for corridors in an occupancy in Group E where each room that is used for
instruction has not less than one door opening directly to the exterior and rooms for assembly purposes have not less
than one-half of the required means of egress doors opening directly to the exterior. Exterior doors specified in this
exception are required to be at ground level.
2. A fire-resistance rating is not required for corridors contained within a dwelling unit or sleeping unit in an occupancy in
Groups I-1 and R.
3. A fire-resistance rating is not required for corridors in open parking garages.
4. A fire-resistance rating is not required for corridors in an occupancy in Group B that is a space requiring only a single
means of egress complying with Section 1006.2.
5. Corridors adjacent to the exterior walls of buildings shall be permitted to have unprotected openings on unrated exterior
walls where unrated walls are permitted by Table 602 and unprotected openings are permitted by Table 705.8.
Reason: As hazard events, both naturally-occurring and man-made, are increasing in number and severity in the United States and around the world, the
resilience of communities and the individual buildings within those communities is becoming of vital importance.
A National Institute of Building Sciences Publication (May, 2014) entitled "Moving Forward: Findings and Recommendations", states that "while a long history of
building codes has laid the foundation for addressing the impacts of natural and man-made hazards, changes in the frequency and severity of events have
brought new challenges challenges requiring the engagement and support of policymakers. While building codes serve as the minimum requirements for
life-safety in the building stock, basic life-safety protections do not fully address building performance requirements to achieve resilience."
Mitigation includes, among other things, fortifying buildings so that they are less likely to be severely damaged or completely destroyed during or immediately
after a disaster. It is the key to recovery after a disaster. Mitigation allows individuals and communities to lessen post-disaster disruption and rebuild more
quickly. States and cities have started implementing more stringent requirements in specific geographic areas they have designated as higher-risk. The
purpose of this series of code changes proposed by Fire Safe North America is to encourage the debate in the code development process to identify what
constitutes resilient buildings, and begin to identify issues that will become the basis for "new minimum requirements" for increased building resiliency.
Responding to the challenge of mitigating damage and resilient buildings is an admittedly complex topic. Fire Safe North America proposals are intended to
reduce the total reliance of a community and its firefighters on automatic sprinkler systems in disaster-prone areas of the country where the water supply
and/or power are likely to be interrupted, or are likely to have water supply system operational issues. The proposals, if approved, will fortify the building code
requirements for the most vulnerable buildings to fire - Type IIB, IIIB, and VB construction, which are also classified as Risk Category III and IV in Table
1604.5, and in high-risk, disaster prone regions. The proposals modify the following code requirements in such buildings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
These proposals are intended to be conservative so as to promote community resiliency and disaster mitigation by protecting essential buildings with both
sprinkler protection AND fire resistance rated compartmentation. These proposals may be fairly considered to be the proverbial "belt-and suspenders"
approach, requiring both sprinkler protection and increased fire resistance rated compartmentation in specific buildings in high risk areas for disasters.
Historically, the code has been written using the general assumption that automatic sprinklers will operate satisfactorily and there will be suitable power for
such building operations. Code users design and build assuming that firefighters will be able to respond at their normal efficiencies. In some parts of the
country, buildings impacted by disasters may remain without reliable water and/or power for a considerable period of time, well after the occurrence of the
disaster. History has shown that increased incidents of fires after a disaster can be more destructive to life and property than the disaster itself. Total reliance
on an uninterrupted power and water supply may not be an acceptable risk. It may also be an unacceptable risk to assume that firefighters will be able to
respond at their normal efficiencies.
For example, more than 15% of the U.S. population lives in potential major earthquake areas. 41 states and territories have moderate to high risk. There is a
real likelihood of power and water supplies being interrupted following a major seismic event, along with the potential for multiple simultaneous structure fires
and also building-to-building fire spread. In October 17, 1989, a 7.1 earthquake in Santa Cruz Mountains was responsible for 26 fires in San Francisco, 60
miles from epicenter. There were 67 documented breaks in water mains which effectively eliminated water pressure in the area. On January 19, 1994, a 6.8
earthquake centered in Northridge, CA. There were approximately 100 fire ignitions, 30 to 50 of those were considered significant. The water supply systems
E141
in the area were damaged causing low pressure in water distribution. On January 17, 1995, a 6.8 (approx.) earthquake near Kobe, Japan caused 90 fires to
start within minutes. 85 spread to adjacent buildings and 10 approached or reached conflagration status. 1,700 water line breaks occurred within a couple of
hours. There were 7,000 buildings destroyed by fire alone.
In 1997, the Red River flooded Grand Forks, North Dakota, causing $3.7 billion in flood losses, and displaced thousands of families and businesses. Similar
data of increased fire incidents are available in other flood and hurricane-prone areas.
Undoubtedly, this will increase the cost of construction in these specific buildings. However, a recent FEMA's 2010 report "Mitigation's Value to Society"
statement described how mitigation is an investment that needs to be made. A recent study by the NIBS Multihazard Mitigation Council (MMC) identified that
each dollar spent on mitigation saves an average of $4.00 in disaster recovery.
Links:
http://www.dhses.ny.gov/oem/mitigation/documents/mitigations-value-to-society.pdf
The two-volume NIBS MMC study report is available for free download at:
http://www.nibs.org/index.php/mmc/projects/nhms
E142
E 106-15
Table 1020.2; (IFC[BE] Table 1020.2)
Proponent: John Williams, CBO, Chair, representing Adhoc Health Care Committee (AHC@iccsafe.org)
WIDTH
(inches)
44
24
systems or equipment
With an occupant load of less than
50
Within a dwelling unit
In Group E with a corridor having an
occupant load of 100 or more
36
36
72
72
96
Staff note: There is a published errata to Table 1020.2. The errata has been incorporated into the table as existing text.
E 106-15 : T1020.2-WILLIAMS4230
E143
E 107-15
1020.4 (IFC[BE] 1020.4)
Proponent: Carl Baldassarra, P.E., FSFPE, Chair, ICC Code Technology Committee, representing Code Technology
Committee (CTC@iccsafe.org)
E144
E 108-15
1020.4; (IFC[BE] 1020.4)
Proponent: Ronald Geren, representing Self (ron@specsandcodes.com)
E145
E 109-15
1021.4; (IFC[BE] 1021.4)
Proponent: Victor Cuevas, representing City of Los Angeles
For the purposes of this section, other portions of the building shall be treated as separate buildings.
Exception: Exterior egress balconies shall be permitted to have a minimum fire separation distance of 5 feet (1524 mm),
where the exterior edge of the egress balcony has openings protected and limited in accordance with Section 705.8
Reason: It is not practical to provide 10' setbacks for buildings. With this exception, balconies will be similar to corridors, which do not have specific fire
separation distance limitations.
Cost Impact: Will not increase the cost of construction
This is a design option.
E 109-15 : 1021.4-CUEVAS4829
E146
E 110-15
1023.3.1; (IFC[BE] 1023.3.1)
Proponent: Raymond Grill, Arup, representing Arup (ray.grill@arup.com)
E147
E 111-15
1023.4; (IFC[BE] 1023.4)
Proponent: Homer Maiel, PE, CBO, representing ICC Tri-Chapter (Peninsula, East Bay, Monterey Bay)
(hmaiel@gmail.com)
E148
E 112-15
1023.5; (IFC[BE] 1023.5)
Proponent: William Koffel, representing Firestop Contractors International Association (wkoffel@koffel.com)
E149
E 113-15
1023.5, 1024.6; (IFC[BE] 1023.5, 1024.6)
Proponent: William King, City of Alexandria, representing Virginia Building Code Officials Association
(william.king@alexandriava.gov)
E150
E 114-15
1023.11; (IFC[BE] 1023.11)
Proponent: Christopher Moran, Jensen Hughes, representing Airport Traffic Control Tower Technical Working Group
(cmoran@jensenhughes.com); Eric Rosenbaum, Jensen Hughes, representing Airport Traffic Control Tower Fire/Life
Safety Technical Working Group (erosenbaum@jensenhughes.com)
E151
E 115-15
1023.12 (New), 1024.8 (New), 1026.5 (New); (IFC[BE] 1023.12 (New), 1024.8 (New), 1026.5 (New))
Proponent: Lee Kranz, City of Bellevue, WA, representing Washington Association of Building Officials Technical
Code Development Committee
E152
E 116-15
403.5.5, 1025; (IFC[BE] 1025)
Proponent: Victor Cuevas, representing City of Los Angeles
E153
E 117-15
1025.1; (IFC[BE] 1025.1)
Proponent: John Williams, CBO, CBO, Chair, Adhoc Healthcare Committee, representing Adhoc Health Care
Committee (AHC@iccsafe.org); Carl Baldassarra, P.E., FSFPE, Chair, Code Technology Committee, representing
Code Technology Committee (CTC@iccsafe.org)
E154
E 118-15
1025.1 (IFC[BE] 1025.1)
Proponent: Carl Baldassarra, P.E., FSFPE, Chair, ICC Code Technology Committee, representing Code Technology
Committee (CTC@iccsafe.org)
E155
E 119-15
1025.1; (IFC[BE] 1025.1)
Proponent: Robert Davidson, Davidson Code Concepts, LLC, representing Davidson Code Concepts, LLC
(rjd@davidsoncodeconcepts.com)
E156
E 120-15
1025.2.5; (IFC[BE] 1025.2.5)
Proponent: Manny Muniz, representing self (Mannymuniz.mm@gmail.com)
E157
E 121-15
1025.4, 1025.4.1(New). 1025.4.1.1(New), 1025.4.1.2(New), 1025.4.1.3(New); (IFC[BE] 1025.4,
1025.4.1(New). 1025.4.1.1(New), 1025.4.1.2(New), 1025.4.1.3(New))
Proponent: Lee Devito, FIREPRO Incorporated, representing FIREPRO Incorporated
(ldevito@fireproincorporated.com)
UL 1994.
ASTM E 2072, except that the charging source shall be 1 footcandle (11 lux) of fluorescent illumination for 60 minutes,
and the minimum luminance shall be 30 milicandelas per square meter at 10 minutes and 5 milicandelas per square
meter after 90 minutes.
E158
photoluminescent exit path markings is rquired to be operational for at least 60 minutes prior to periods when the building is occupied. Electro luminescent exit
path markings would not require this, relieving the energy usage burden on the building.
Electrical systems can be operated at any time since they have available power and they are protected with battery standby support. Therefore, the building
management can utilize the electrical systems when ever there is an alarm activity or other situation in the buildig, whether the building power is available or
not. Selfluminous and photoluminescent materials only provide lighting when the background lighting is limited.
Electrical systems are supervised so the building management will know that there is a problem. Self-luminous materials and photoluminescent materials are
not supervised, so they can be damaged or removed and no one is notified until a manual check is perfomed on the system. Whereas, the path marking
systems are required in some high-rise building , manual inspection will be time consuming and possibly burdonsosme, which may mean that self-luminous or
photoluminescent systems may not be inspected.
The management can utilize the flexibility of the electrical system to provide further information on the availability or disruption of an egress path. Potentially by
not turning on the egress path marking system in an egress path that has been interupted, it can allow the evacuees to change the egress path they are using.
Code Impact: If an adoptive organization does not agree with the use of electroluninescent technology, then through an amendment policy they can delete
those sections that relate to electroluminescent technology. This allows adoptive organizations the opportunity to allow electroluninescent technology.
Bibliography: "NIST Response to the World Trade Center Disaster", Federal; Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, Part
IV - Life safety on April 5, 2005, pages 33 & 34
Cost Impact: Will not increase the cost of construction
The requirement for path marking already exists, therefore there would be no additional cost impact. This approach provides an option that allows building
owners to choose equivalent systems that provide more features for the end user.
E 121-15 : 1025.4-DEVITO3601
E159
E 122-15
1025.4; (IFC[BE] 1025.4)
Proponent: Manny Muniz, representing self (Mannymuniz.mm@gmail.com)
UL 1994.
ASTM E 2072, except that the charging source shall be 1 footcandle (11 lux) of fluorescent illumination for 60 minutes,
and the minimum luminance shall be 30 milicandelas per square meter at 10 minutes and 5 milicandelas per square
meter after 90 minutes.
Reason: Section 1025.4 only requires that materials comply with UL 1994 or ASTM E 2072, not that they actually be listed. When materials are only tested (no
listing) for compliance with a test standard, the test samples can be submitted directly to the test agency by the manufacturer with no follow up Quality Control
inspections, thus making it unclear as to what was actually tested and what is being manufactured and sold.
By contrast, materials that are tested and listed must be randomly selected by the testing lab to insure the integrity of the test results and requires follow up
Quality Control inspections to insure that what is manufactured and sold is what was originally tested.
Underwriters Laboratory confirmed that "As you've noted, a test certificate can be issued without any subsequent product surveillance, leaving open the
question of whether the installed product actually matches the tested product. For many products, an AHJ really has few tools to validate this. Listing programs
are not foolproof but they do provide a pretty significant upgrade in confidence that someone other than a fox is watching the hen house."
E160
E 123-15
1026.4; (IFC[BE] 1026.4)
Proponent: Ronald Geren, RLGA Technical Services, LLC, representing Self (ron@specsandcodes.com)
E161
E 124-15
1026.4.1; (IFC[BE] 1026.4.1)
Proponent: John Williams, CBO, Chair, representing Adhoc Health Care Committee (AHC@iccsafe.org)
E 124-15 : 1026.4.1-WILLIAMS4244
E162
E 125-15
1027.5; (IFC[BE] 1027.5)
Proponent: Victor Cuevas, representing City of Los Angeles
For the purposes of this section, other portions of the building shall be treated as separate buildings.
Exception: Exterior exit stairways and ramps shall be permitted to have a minimum fire separation distance of 5 feet
(1524 mm), where a solid masonry or concrete wall is provided at the adjacent lot line or assumed property line. The wall
shall be a minimum of 6 feet (1830 mm) in height and at least the same width as the exterior exit stairway or ramp.
Reason: It's not practical to provide 10'-0" setback for stairs. The stairs usually come out of the building and exit next to the building. If stairs have to have 10'
setback, the buildings themselves have to have 13'-14' setback. The exception provides equivalent protection.
Cost Impact: Will not increase the cost of construction
This is a design option.
E 125-15 : 1027.5-CUEVAS4831
E163
E 126-15
1027.5, 1027.6; (IFC[BE] 1027.5, 1027.6)
Proponent: Ali Fattah, City of San Diego Development Services Department, representing City of San Diego
(afattah@sandiego.gov)
For the purposes of this section, other portions of the building shall be treated as separate buildings.
Exception: Exterior exit stairways and ramps serving individual dwelling units of Group R-3 shall have a minimum fire
separation distance of 5 feet.
1027.6 Exterior exit stairway and ramp protection. Exterior exit stairways and ramps shall be separated from the interior of the
building as required in Section 1023.2. Openings shall be limited to those necessary for egress from normally occupied spaces.
Where a vertical plane projecting from the edge of an exterior exit stairway or ramp and landings is exposed by other parts of the
building at an angle of less than 180 degrees (3.14 rad), the exterior wall shall be rated in accordance with Section 1023.7.
Exceptions:
1. Separation from the interior of the building is not required for occupancies, other than those in Group R-1 or R-2,
in buildings that are not more than two stories above grade plane where a level of exit discharge serving such
occupancies is the first story above grade plane.
2. Separation from the interior of the building is not required where the exterior exit stairway or ramp is served by an
exterior exitramp or balcony that connects two remote exterior exit stairways or other approved exits with a
perimeter that is not less than 50 percent open. To be considered open, the opening shall be not less than 50
percent of the height of the enclosing wall, with the top of the openings not less than 7 feet (2134 mm) above the
top of the balcony.
3. Separation from the open-ended corridor of the building is not required for exterior exit stairways or ramps,
provided that Items 3.1 through 3.5 are met:
3.1. The building, including open-ended corridors, and stairways and ramps, shall be equipped throughout
with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2.
3.2. The open-ended corridors comply with Section 1020.
3.3. The open-ended corridors are connected on each end to an exterior exit stairway or ramp complying
with Section 1027.
3.4. The exterior walls and openings adjacent to the exterior exit stairway or ramp comply with Section
1023.7.
3.5. At any location in an open-ended corridor where a change of direction exceeding 45 degrees (0.79 rad)
4.
occurs, a clear opening of not less than 35 square feet (3.3 m2) or an exterior stairway or ramp shall
be provided. Where clear openings are provided, they shall be located so as to minimize the
accumulation of smoke or toxic gases.
In Group R-3 occupancies not more than 4 stories in height, exterior exit stairways and ramps serving individual
dwelling units are not required to be separated from the interior of the building where the exterior exit stairway or
ramp discharges directly to grade.
Reason: The proposed code change to Section 1027.5 adds an exception to limit the fire separation distance to 5 ft for an R-3 occupancy. The proposed
exception # 4 to Section 1027.6 exempts an exterior exit stairway on up to a 4 story R-3 from being separated from the interior of a building. A four story R-3
should be the upper limit since the type of construction will have to be increased from type if more than 4 stories in height.
The IBC regulates Group R-3 occupancies, typically one dwelling or two dwellings units located within the same building when the building configuration is not
within the scope of the International Residential Code. So Group R-3 occupancies more than three stories above grade plane andgroup R-3 occupancieswith 2
units using a common means of egress are required to comply with the IBC. Additionally, Townhouses that have a height of more than three stories above
grade plane, and townhouses with only one side open to a pubic way also need to comply with the IBC.
The IBC in many instances exempts R-3 occupancies from means of egress requirements more appropriate for buildings with larger occupant loads and
buildings with multiple tenant spaces/units sharing a common means of egress system.
For example Section 1028.4.2 Exception # 2 exempts exit courts serving Group R-3 occupancies from exterior wall and opening protection
requirements regardless of the occupant load served.
Similarly Section 1019.3 Exception 2 exempts exit access stairways and ramps in Group R-3 occupancies from requirements that include enclosure
requirements. Interior exit stairways within Group R-3 and within individual units classified as R-2 are not classified as exits since they are permitted to
be exit access stairways per Section 1019.
Another example is Section 1027.6 exception # 1 allows the exterior exit stairway not be protected from the interior of the buildings other than Group
E164
E165
E 127-15
1028.1; (IFC[BE] 1028.1)
Proponent: William Koffel, Koffel Associates, Inc., representing Self (wkoffel@koffel.com)
E166
E 128-15
403.5.1, 1028.1, 1028.2; (IFC[BE] 1028.1, 1028.2)
Proponent: Ali Fattah, City of San Diego Development Services Department, representing City of San Diego
E167
an exit access stair and separate exit stair, which begin on the same floor, from termination to close together on the exit discharge floor. This is proposed so
that one localized fire event on the exit discharge floor will not take out the termination of both means of egress components when an exit stair is permitted to
discharge into the building. The 30 feet or diagonal separation distances were based on the 30 feet or diagonal that is specified for separation of interior
stairways in high-rise section 403.5.1."
The ICC Code Technology Committee code change does not address maintaining separation of exits when Section 1028.1 Exception 1 permits more than one
interior exit stairway to discharge through areas of the story on the level of exit discharge. Condition 1.5 is added to exception # 1 to be consistent with the
code's intent that unprotected paths be separated, this condition ensures that the doorways are adequately separated to prevent both from being
compromised, this condition may occur in public assembly buildings where 4 or more exits are required or large buildings where travel distance needs to be
limited with exits. Egress elements can be compromised by more than fire, they can be compromised by falling debris, fire fighting operations, etc..
Section 1028.2 is modified to address separation of the means of in the exit discharge. The exit discharge includes elevated courts on podium style buildings
with multiple buildings atop of a large base, exit courts, and while not called exit discharge ground floor lobbies through which interior exit stairways pas to
reach the public way or exterior exit discharge. While the IBC does not consider multiple fire scenarios egress paths that converge when exterior exit
doorways from an exit passageway or exit enclosure terminate adjacent to an exterior exit doorway. The means of egress requirements in Chapter 10 of the
IBC have their origins in the NFPA 101 life safety. Section 7.7.3.1 of the 2015 Life Safety Code requires that means of egress in the exit discharge be
separated. Without the proposed change to Section 1028.2 the IBC will continue to allow converging paths for example when a rear exit discharges to a rear
yard that accesses a public way on a side opposite the court via a perpendicular exit court and the path converges with the front exit from a building when
arriving at the public way. Another example is where multiple stairways terminate at a ground floor and are served by one group of lobby doors.
Section 1028.2 currently only requires the width be maintained and exterior exit discharge elements are required to be protected from a building and in some
cases from adjacent lot lines. It can be assumed that the IBC does not believe that the exit discharge is as safe as the public way, whether it be within the
ground floor lobby of a high rise building or the 6 ft wide exit court serving 300 occupants from an auditorium or theater. The Life Safety Code recognizes this
omission and addresses exit separation do to the hazards that exist in the exit discharge.
E168
E 129-15
1028.4, 1028.4.1; (IFC[BE] 1028.4, 1028.4.1)
Proponent: Jon Siu, representing City of Seattle Department of Planning & Development (jon.siu@seattle.gov)
E169
Figure 1.A shows an example of how the current code can be interpreted. A stair with the minimum 44-inch width required by the code (capacity = 44/0.3 =
146 occupants) discharges into a 20-foot wide exit court. The exit court has a 36-inch wide gateway at the front property line (capacity = 36/0.2 = 180
occupants). The current code can be interpreted to require the width to be reduced by guards at 30 degrees as shown in the figure. If one interprets the code
to say that the guard must extend from the reduced section (the 36" gateway) to the widest point of the court (20'), and taking into account a 3-foot offset of the
gateway, the result is a guard that extends to a point approximately 24 feet from the front property line.
E170
Figure 1.B shows the results if the designer opts for alternative being proposed. The gateway is now required to be 44 inches wide, but the guard is no longer
required.
E171
Figure 2.A depicts an exit court that reduces in width along its length and opens directly to the public way (no gateway). The same occupant load is being
served by the exit court as in Figure 1.A. In this case, the code dictates a minimum 44 inch width for the exit court. The current code would clearly require the
guards as shown.
E172
Figure 2.B shows that the minimum 44 inch exit court width required by the code would also satisfy the proposed 1.5 times the capacity requirement.
It is notable that a gradual reduction is not required anyplace else, regardless of occupant load, or required capacity. A hotel ballroom or a nightclub can have
sudden changes of width at the doors, but a funnel is not required. It is therefore questionable as to what hazard in an exit court the currently required guards
are addressing, and whether they are needed at all. While we would not object to eliminating the guards entirely, should it be felt there is a hazard being
addressed by the guards, this proposal at least gives designers an option.
E173
E 130-15
1028.4.1; (IFC[BE] 1028.4.1)
Proponent: Lee Kranz, City of Bellevue, Wa, representing Washington Association of Building Officials Technical
Code Development Committee
E174
E 131-15
1028.5; (IFC[BE] 1028.5)
Proponent: Daniel Nichols, New York State Division of Building Standards and Codes, representing New York State
Division of Building Standards and Codes (dnichols@dos.state.ny.us)
The area shall be of a sizeis sized to accommodate not less than 5 square feet (0.46 m2) for each person using
the exit discharge and wheelchair spaces in accordance with Section 1009.6.3.
The area shall be located on the same lot not less thanat a distance of 50 feet (15 240 mm) minimum or a
distance of 1.5 times the total building height, whichever is greater, away from the building requiring egress.
The area shall be permanently maintained and identified as a safe dispersal area.
The area shall be provided with a safe and unobstructed path of travel from the building.
Reason: This proposal is to provide improved protection and availability to a safe dispersal area.
The change in condition #1 is to size the safe dispersal area to address those with physical disabilities. The additional space that is being proposed matches
the same space requirements as found in Section 1009.6.3 for area of refuge. Since the exit discharge needs to consider accessible means of egress when
more than one means of egress is required (1009.1), it is appropriate to size the safe dispersal area accordingly. The addition of "occupant load of the exit
discharge" is to make it clear what the basis of the area size and wheelchair spaces.
The change in condition #2 is to add an additional requirement to the distance a safe dipersal area needs to be away from a building. A 50 foot distance is not
appropriate for taller buildings since falling debris from firefighting operations (such as break out windows for post-fire ventilation required inhi-rise buildings in
Section 403), hazards due to exterior fire spread, and building collapse would not adequately provide a safe area. The proposal adds the requirement of 150%
of the building height to address this safety issue; a number that is used in firefighting operations to determine the collapse zone of a building.
A safe dispersal area is taking a full building exit model and replacing the last portion with a defend-in-place model due to site constraints. This proposal will
provide needed safety features that are currently not addressed in this exception.
E175
E 132-15
202(New), 1005.3.1, 1005.3.2, 1009.3, 1009.4, 1019.3, 1029.6, 1029.6.3, 1029.7, 1029.8, 1029.8.1, 1029.9.5,
1029.12.2.1, Table 1029.12.2.1, 1029.12.2.2 (IFC[BE] 1005.3.1, 1005.3.2, 1009.3, 1009.4, 1019.3, 1029.6,
1029.6.3, 1029.7, 1029.8, 1029.8.1, 1029.9.5, 1029.12.2.1, Table 1029.12.2.1, 1029.12.2.2)
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
E176
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The clear width of 48 inches (1219 mm) between handrails is not required in buildings equipped throughout with an
automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2.
The clear width of 48 inches (1219 mm) between handrails is not required for stairways accessed from a refuge
area in conjunction with a horizontal exit.
Areas of refuge are not required at exit access stairways where two-way communication is provided at the
elevator landing in accordance with Section 1009.8.
Areas of refuge are not required at stairways in buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system
installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2.
Areas ofrefuge are not required at stairways serving open parking garages.
Areas ofrefuge are not required for smoke-protected or open-air assembly seating areas complying with
SectionSections 1029.6.2 and 1029.6.3.
Areas of refuge are not required at stairways in Group R-2 occupancies.
Areas of refuge are not required for stairways accessed from a refuge area in conjunction with a horizontal exit.
1009.4 Elevators. In order to be considered part of an accessible means of egress, an elevator shall comply with the emergency
operation and signaling device requirements of Section 2.27 of ASME A17.1. Standby power shall be provided in accordance with
Chapter 27 and Section 3003. The elevator shall be accessed from an area of refuge complying with Section 1009.6.
Exceptions:
1. Areas of refuge are not required at the elevator in open parking garages.
2. Areas of refuge are not required in buildings and facilities equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system
installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2.
3. Areas of refuge are not required at elevators not required to be located in a shaft in accordance with Section 712.
4. Areas of refuge are not required at elevators serving smoke-protected or open-air assembly seating areas
complying with SectionSections 1029.6.2 and 1029.6.3.
5. Areas of refuge are not required for elevators accessed from a refuge area in conjunction with a horizontal exit.
1019.3 Occupancies other than Groups I-2 and I-3. In other than Group I-2 and I-3 occupancies, floor openings containing exit
access stairways or ramps that do not comply with one of the conditions listed in this section shall be enclosed with a shaft
enclosure constructed in accordance with Section 713.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Exit access stairways and ramps that serve or atmospherically communicate between only two stories. Such
interconnected stories shall not be open to other stories.
In Group R-1, R-2 or R-3 occupancies, exit accessstairways and ramps connecting four stories or less serving and
contained within an individual dwelling unit or sleeping unit or live/work unit.
Exit access stairways serving and contained within a Group R-3 congregate residence or a Group R-4 facility are not
required to be enclosed.
Exit access stairways and ramps in buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance
with Section 903.3.1.1, where the area of the vertical opening between stories does not exceed twice the horizontal
projected area of the stairway or ramp and the opening is protected by a draft curtain and closely spaced sprinklers in
accordance with NFPA 13. In other than Group B and M occupancies, this provision is limited to openings that do not
connect more than four stories.
Exit access stairways and ramps within an atrium complying with the provisions of Section 404.
Exit access stairways and ramps in open parking garages that serve only the parking garage.
Exit access stairways and ramps serving smoke-protected or open-air assembly seating complying with the exit access
travel distance requirements of Section 1029.7.
Exit access stairways and ramps serving the balcony, gallery or press box and the main assembly floor in occupancies
such as theaters, places of religious worship, auditoriums and sports facilities.
1029.6 Capacity of aisle for assembly. The required capacity of aisles shall be not less than that determined in accordance with
Section 1029.6.1 where smoke-protected assembly seating is not provided and with Section 1029.6.2 or 1029.6.3 where smokeprotected assembly seating is provided and with Section 1029.6.3 where open-air assembly seating is provided.
1029.6.3 Outdoor smoke-protectedOpen-air assembly seating. The
In open-air assembly seating the required capacity in inches (mm) of aisles shall be not less than the total occupant load served by
the egress element multiplied by 0.08 (2.0 mm) where egress is by stepped aisle and multiplied by 0.06 (1.52 mm) where egress is
by level aisles and ramped aisles.
Exception: The required capacity in inches (mm) of aisles shall be permitted to comply with Section 1029.6.2 for the number
of seats in the outdooropen-air smoke-protected assembly seating where Section 1029.6.2 permits less capacity.
1029.7 Travel distance. Exits and aisles shall be so located that theThe exit access travel distance to an exit door shall be not
greater than 200 feet (60 960 mm) measured along the line of travel in nonsprinklered buildings. Travel distance shall be not more
than 250 feet (76 200 mm) in sprinklered buildingscomply with Section 1017. Where aisles are provided for seating, the distance
shall be measured along the aisles and aisle accessways without travel over or on the seats.
Exceptions:
E177
1.
In facilties withSmoke-protected smoke-protected assembly seating: The the total exit access travel distance
shall be not greater than 400 feet (122 m). That portion of the total permitted exit access travel distance from
each seat to the nearest entrance to a vomitory or concourse shall not exceed 200 feet (60 960 mm). The portion
of the total permitted exit access travel distance from the entrance to the vomitory or concourse to a stairway,
ramp or walk on the exteriorone of the buildingfollowing shall not exceed 200 feet (60 960 mm):
1.1. The closest riser of an exit access stairway.
1.2. Open-airThe closest slope of an exit access ramp.
1.3. An exit.
2.
In facilities with open-air assembly seating: The of Type III, IV or V construction, the exit access travel distance
from each seat toto one of the building exteriorfollowing shall not exceed 400 feet (122 m):
2.1. The closest riser of an exit access stairway. The
2.2. The closest slope of an exit access ramp.
2.3. An exit.
In facilities with open-air assembly seatin of Type I or II construction, the exit access travel distance shall not be
limited in facilities of Type I or II construction.
3.
1029.8 Common path of egress travel. The common path of egress travel shall not exceed 30 feet (9144 mm) from any seat to a
point where an occupant has a choice of two paths of egress travel to two exits.
Exceptions:
1. For areas serving less than 50 occupants, the common path of egress travel shall not exceed 75 feet (22 860
mm).
2. For smoke-protected or open-air assembly seating, the common path of egress travel shall not exceed 50 feet (15
240 mm).
1029.8.1 Path through adjacent row. Where one of the two paths of travel is across the aisle through a row of seats to another
aisle, there shall be not more than 24 seats between the two aisles, and the minimum clear width between rows for the row between
the two aisles shall be 12 inches (305 mm) plus 0.6 inch (15.2 mm) for each additional seat above seven in the row between aisles.
Exception: For smoke-protectedor open-air assembly seating there shall be not more than 40 seats between the two aisles
and the minimum clear width shall be 12 inches (305 mm) plus 0.3 inch (7.6 mm) for each additional seat.
1029.9.5 Dead end aisles. Each end of an aisle shall be continuous to a cross aisle, foyer, doorway, vomitory, concourse or
stairway in accordance with Section 1029.9.7 having access to an exit.
Exceptions:
1. Dead-end aisles shall be not greater than 20 feet (6096 mm) in length.
2. Dead-end aisles longer than 16 rows are permitted where seats beyond the 16th row dead-end aisle are not more
than 24 seats from another aisle, measured along a row of seats having a minimum clear width of 12 inches (305
mm) plus 0.6 inch (15.2 mm) for each additional seat above seven in the row where seats have backrests or
beyond 10 where seats are without backrests in the row.
3. For smoke-protected or open-air assembly seating, the dead end aisle length of vertical aisles shall not exceed a
distance of 21 rows.
4. For smoke-protectedor open-air assembly seating, a longer dead-end aisle is permitted where seats beyond the
21-row dead-end aisle are not more than 40 seats from another aisle, measured along a row of seats having an
aisle accessway with a minimum clear width of 12 inches (305 mm) plus 0.3 inch (7.6 mm) for each additional
seat above seven in the row where seats have backrests or beyond 10 where seats are without backrests in the
row.
1029.12.2.1 Dual access. For rows of seating served by aisles or doorways at both ends, there shall be not more than 100 seats per
row. The minimum clear width of 12 inches (305 mm) between rows shall be increased by 0.3 inch (7.6 mm) for every additional seat
beyond 14 seats where seats have backrests or beyond 21 where seats are without backrests. The minimum clear width is not
required to exceed 22 inches (559 mm).
Exception: For smoke-protectedor open-air assembly seating, the row length limits for a 12-inch-wide (305 mm) aisle
accessway, beyond which the aisle accessway minimum clear width shall be increased, are in Table 1029.12.2.1.
TABLE 1029.12.2.1
SMOKE-PROTECTED OR OPEN-AIR ASSEMBLY AISLE ACCESSWAYS
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SEATS PER ROW PERMITTED TO HAVE A MINIMUM 12-INCH CLEAR WIDTH
AISLE ACCESSWAY
TOTAL NUMBER OF
E178
Seats without
backrests
Seats without
backrests
14
21
10
4,000
15
22
10
7,000
16
23
11
10,000
17
24
11
13,000
18
25
12
16,000
19
26
12
19,000
20
27
10
13
21
28
11
14
1029.12.2.2 Single access. For rows of seating served by an aisle or doorway at only one end of the row, the minimum clear width
of 12 inches (305 mm) between rows shall be increased by 0.6 inch (15.2 mm) for every additional seat beyond seven seats where
seats have backrests or beyond 10 where seats are without backrests. The minimum clear width is not required to exceed 22 inches
(559 mm).
Exception: For smoke-protectedor open-air assembly seating, the row length limits for a 12-inch-wide (305 mm) aisle
accessway, beyond which the aisle accessway minimum clear width shall be increased, are in Table 1029.12.2.1.
Reason: In July/2014 the ICC Board decided to sunset the activities of the Code Technology Committee (CTC). This is being accomplished by re-assigning
many of the CTC Areas of Study to the applicable Code Action Committee (CAC). This proposal falls under the CTC Area of Study entitled Unenclosed Exit
Stairs. Information on the CTC, including: the sunset plan; meeting agendas; minutes; reports; resource documents; presentations; and all other materials
developed in conjunction with the CTC effort can be downloaded from the CTC website.
This public proposal is submitted by the ICC Building Code Action Committee (BCAC). The BCAC was established by the ICC Board of Directors to pursue
opportunities to improve and enhance an assigned International Code or portion thereof. This includes both the technical aspects of the codes as well as the
code content in terms of scope and application of referenced standards. Since its inception in July, 2011, the BCAC has held 13 open meetings and numerous
workgroup calls which included members of the BCAC as well as any interested party to discuss and debate the proposed changes and the public comments.
Related documentation and reports are posted on the BCAC website at: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/BCAC/Pages/default.aspx.
The intent of this proposal is to provide terminology consistent with the rest of Chapter 10 regarding exit access travel distance (Section 1017) and open-air
and outdoor smoke-protected seating. Currently the term outdoor smoke protected assembly seating and open-air assembly seating appear to be used
interchangeably. Also, sometime smoke-protected assembly seating is used to mean just indoors, and sometimes indoors and outdoors.
There is no intent for any technical changes to the provisions from what was permitted in the 2012 IBC and previous editions.
There are three terms being used:
Smoke protected assembly seating - Section 410.3.5, Table 903.2.11.6, 909.16, 1005.1, 1005.3.2, 1009.3, 1009.4, 1029.6, 1029.6.2, Table 1029.6.2,
1029.6.2.1, 1029.6.2.2, 1029.6.2.3, 1029.7, 1029.8, 1029.8.1, 1029.9.5, 1029.12.2.1, 1029.12.2.1
Outdoor smoke protected assembly seating - 1005.3.1, 1005.3.2, 1029.6.3
Open-air assembly seating - Sections 905.3.2, 1019.1, 1029.7
Definitions: The revisions for 'smoke-protected assembly seating' and the new definition for 'open-air assembly seating' are intended to separate the two types
of systems that provide smoke protection for assembly seating. The definition and the revisions throughout the proposal will coordinate the use of the terms.
Section 1029.6: This scoping section currently used the term smoke-protected to mean both indoor and outdoor.
Sections 1029.6.3 and 1005.3.2: Change outdoor smoke-protected seating to open-air seating. In addition, Section 1029.6.3 only includes the separation in the
title and not the text.
Section 1029.7: In the current text of the main paragraph, the sentence for non-sprinklered building and sprinklered building requirements are confusing and
inconsistent. The 200 and 250 feet exit access travel distances are already in Table 1017.2. The current text only says how to measure the travel distance in
the sentence dealing with non-sprinklered buildings, not sprinklered buildings. Measuring along the natural and unobstructed path of travel is addressed in
Section 1017.3; therefore, only the specific language regarding the seating is needed. A reference back to Section 1017 will allow for consistency over time and
pick up all the technical criteria for exit access travel distance.
The exceptions are reworded for consistency and correct code terminology. In addition, there is a concern over consistent interpretation. The exception's
current text has terminology that could be interpreted as always measuring travel distance to the building exit at grade. Where there are provisions for smoke
protection, or where there are facilities that are open to the exterior, historically these facilities have allowed for open stairway where the means of egress is
E179
E180
E 133-15
1029.6.2; (IFC[BE] 1029.6.2)
Proponent: Daniel Nichols, representing New York State Division of Building Standards and Codes
(dnichols@dos.state.ny.us)
Bibliography: NFPA 101- 2015 edition Section 12.4.1 (as modified by NFPA 101 TIA 15-3)
Cost Impact: Will not increase the cost of construction
This proposal is to remove requirements related to emergency plan filing prior to the issuance of a building permit
E 133-15 : 1029.6.2-NICHOLS5757
E181
E 134-15
1029.9.1 (IFC[BE] 1029.9.1)
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
3.
4.
5.
Forty-eight inches (1219 mm) for stepped aisles having seating on each side.both sides.
Exception: Thirty-six inches (914 mm) where the stepped aisles serve less than 50 seats.
Thirty-six inches (914 mm) for stepped aisles having seating on only one side.
Exception: Twenty-three inches (584 mm) between a stepped aisle handrail and seating where a stepped aisle
does not serve more than five rows on one side.
Twenty-three inches (584 mm) between a stepped aislehandrail or guard and seating where the stepped aisle is
subdivided by a mid-aisle handrail.
Forty-two inches (1067 mm) for level or ramped aisles having seating on both sides.
Exceptions:
1. Thirty-six inches (914 mm) where the aisle serves less than 50 seats.
2. Thirty inches (762 mm) where the aisle serves less than 15 seats and does not serve more than 14
seatsas part of an accessible route.
Thirty-six inches (914 mm) for level or ramped aisles having seating on only one side.
Exception:For other than ramped aisles that serve as part of an accessible route, 30 Thirsty inches (762 mm)
where the ramped aisle serves less than 15 seats and does not serve more than 14 seatsas part of an accessible
route.
Reason: In July/2014 the ICC Board decided to sunset the activities of the Code Technology Committee (CTC). This is being accomplished by re-assigning
many of the CTC Areas of Study to the applicable Code Action Committee (CAC). This proposal falls under the CTC Area of Study entitled IBC Coordination
with the New ADAAG. Information on the CTC, including: the sunset plan; meeting agendas; minutes; reports; resource documents; presentations; and all
other materials developed in conjunction with the CTC effort can be downloaded from the CTC website.http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/CTC/Pages/default.aspx
This public proposal is submitted by the ICC Building Code Action Committee (BCAC). The BCAC was established by the ICC Board of Directors to pursue
opportunities to improve and enhance an assigned International Code or portion thereof. This includes both the technical aspects of the codes as well as the
code content in terms of scope and application of referenced standards. Since its inception in July, 2011, the BCAC has held 13 open meetings and numerous
workgroup calls which included members of the BCAC as well as any interested party to discuss and debate the proposed changes and the public comments.
Related documentation and reports are posted on the BCAC website at: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/BCAC/Pages/default.aspx.
The intent of this proposal is consistency in language. E87-12 added the language as a reminder for the accessible route to the exception for Item 5, but
missed the same concern in Item 4 exception 2. The accessible route provisions require 36" width and are required by Section 1009 and 1104 to the
wheelchair spaces for ingress and egress. The reminder should be in both locations. If it is felt that this is already addressed, it should be removed from the
exception in Item 5.
The strike out of 'ramped' in the exception to item 5 is because this item deals with both ramped and level aisles. The limitation of this option to 'ramped' aisles
was a mistake in E87-12. Level aisles are less hazardous than ramped aisles. Changing the language to 'serve less than 15 seats' instead 'does not serve
more than 14 seats' is not a technical change. It is for consistency with the language in the other exceptions.
There will be a Group B corresponding code change proposal to IFC Section 1104.23 to provide consistency and so that existing requirements are not more
restrictive than new. The ICC Fire Code Action Committee (FCAC) supports this proposal and will be submitting the Group B proposal that follows:
IFC 1104.23 Minimum aisle width. The minimum clear width of aisles shall becomply with one of the following:
1.
Forty-two inches (1067 mm) for aisle stairsstepped aisles having seating on eachboth sides.
Exception: Thirty-six inches (914 mm) where the stepped aisle serves less than 50 seats.
2.
Thirty-six inches (914 mm) for stepped aisles having seating on only one side.
Exceptions:
1.
Thirty inches (760 mm) for catchment areas serving not more than 60 seats.
2. Twenty-three inches (584 mm) between a stepped aisle handrail and seating where a stepped an aisle does not serve more than five
rows on one side.
3.
Twenty inches (508 mm) between a stepped aisle handrail or guard and seating where the aisle is subdivided by the handrail.
4.
Forty-two inches (1067 mm) for level or ramped aisles having seating on both sides.
Exceptions:
1.
Thirty-six inches (914 mm) where the aisle serves less than 50 seats.
2.
Thirty inches (762 mm) where the aisle serves less than 15 seats and does not serve as part of an accessible route.
5.
Thirty-six inches (914 mm) for level or ramped aisles having seating on only one side.
6.
In Group I-2, where aisles are used for movement of patients in beds, aisles shall comply with Section 1105.5.8.
Exception: Thirty inches (760 mm) for catchment areas serving not more than 60 seats and does not serve as part of an accessible route .
E182
E183
E 135-15
1029.10.1, 1029.10.2, 1029.10.2.1, 1029.10.2.2, 1029.10.3; (IFC[BE] 1029.10.1, 1029.10.2, 1029.10.2.1,
1029.10.2.2, 1029.10.3)
Proponent: Ed Roether, representing Ed Roether Consulting (ed@edroetherconsulting.com)
A minimum depth of 22 inches (559 mm) where the treads on the descending side of the transition have greater depth
and.
A minimum depth of 30 inches (762 mm) where the treads on the descending side of the transition have lesser depth.
1029.10.2.2 Stairways and stepped aisles that change direction from stepped aisles. Transitions where the stairway changes
direction from the stepped aisle shall have a minimum depth of 11 inches (280 mm) or the stepped aisle tread depth, whichever is
greater, between the stepped aisle and stairway.
1029.10.3 Transition marking. A distinctive marking stripe shall be provided at each nosing or leading edge adjacent to the
transition. Such stripe shall be not less than a minimum of 1 inch (25 mm), and not more than a maximum of 2 inches (51 mm),
wide. The edge marking stripe shall be distinctively different from the stepped aisle contrasting marking stripe.
Reason: This section was extensively revised last cycle. The intent of this proposal is to provide minor revisions to clarify the language relating to the
transitions between stepped aisle and stairways.
Cost Impact: Will not increase the cost of construction
This is a clarification only.
E 135-15 : 1029.10.1-ROETHER5825
E184
E 136-15
1029.11, 1029.11.1, 1029.11.2, 1029.13, 1029.13.3 (New), 1029.13.3.1 (New), 1029.13.3.2 (New)
Proponent: Gregory Cahanin, Cahanin Fire & Code Consulting (firemc2@tampabay.rr.com)
E185
E186
E187
E188
E 137-15
1029.11(New), 1029.11.1(New), 1029.11.2(New); (IFC[BE] 1029.11(New), 1029.11.1(New),
1029.11.2(New))
Proponent: Ed Roether, representing Ed Roether Consulting (ed@edroetherconsulting.com)
E189
E 138-15
1029.13.2.1; (IFC[BE] 1029.13.2.1)
Proponent: Ronald Geren, RLGA Technial Services, LLC, representing Self (ron@specsandcodes.com)
The tolerance between adjacent treads shall not exceed 3 / 16 inch (4.8 mm).
Where aisle accessways provide access to stepped aisles, the tread depth at the transitions shall be not less than the
required width of aisle accessways. Treads with nonuniform depths shall be indicated with a distinctive marking stripe
on each tread nosing or leading edge adjacent to the nonuniform tread. Such stripe shall be not less than 1 inch (25
mm), and not more than 2 inches (51 mm), wide. The edge marking stripe shall be distinctively different from the
contrasting marking stripe.
Reason: Section 1029.13.2.1 requires treads within a stepped aisle to have a uniform depth; but based on sightlines and row lengths (which affect aisle
accessway widths), the number of risers and a uniform tread depth may place a step within the transition from aisle accessway to aisle. This can cause a
tripping hazard. This proposal ensures that the full width of the required aisle accessway is provided at an aisle and that no steps encroach into this area.
Section 1029.13.2.2 allows nonuniform risers, but allowing the treads to be deeper where aisle accessways enter the aisle may permit more uniform riser
heights. A stair safety study conducted by Cornell University has identified riser height variation as a significant contributing factor to falls on stairs. Variations
in tread depth does not even make the list. Although the study involved residential stairs, stairs are stairs regardless of the building type.
Bibliography: Stair Safety: Causes and Prevention of Residential Stair Injuries, Cornell Cooperative Extension; Department of Design & Environmental
Analysis, Cornell Univeristy, Accessed 1/9/15, Page 2,
http://www.human.cornell.edu/dea/outreach/upload/Stair-Safety-2-2.pdf
Cost Impact: Will not increase the cost of construction
This proposal will only adjust the arrangment of steps within an aisle, but should not affect material or labor costs for installation.
E 138-15 : 1029.13.2.1-GEREN5150
E190
E 139-15
1029.16.3; (IFC[BE] 1029.16.3)
Proponent: Scott Dornfeld, City of Delano, MN, representing Myself (sdornfeld@delano.mn.us)
E 139-15 : 1029.16.3-DORNFELD5569
E191
E 140-15
1030.1; (IFC[BE] 1030.1)
Proponent: Paul Tidwell, representing Utah Chapter ICC (ptidwell@saratogaspringscity.com)
Basements without habitable spaces and having not more than 200 square feet (18.6 m2) in floor area shall not be
required to have emergency escape and rescue openings.
Reason: The requirements of 1030 are driven by the footnotes in tables 1006.3.2(1) and 1006.3.2(2) which is a indirect path. By stating "on stories with a one
exit or access to one exit" in the first sentence of the charging statement the code user can quickly identify the requirements.
Cost Impact: Will not increase the cost of construction
This is a code clarification only, it does not change the requirements.
E 140-15 : 1030.1-TIDWELL4036
E192
E 141-15
1030.1; (IFC[BE] 1030.1)
Proponent: Jeffrey Shapiro, National Multifamily Housing Council, representing National Multifamily Housing Council
Group R-2 occupancies located in accordancestories with only one exit or access to only one exit as permitted
by Tables 1006.3.2(1) and 1006.3.2(2) and
Group R-3 occupancies.
Basements and sleeping rooms below the fourth story above grade plane shall have at least one exterior emergency
escape and rescue opening in accordance with this section. Where basements contain one or more sleeping rooms,
emergency escape and rescue openings shall be required in each sleeping room, but shall not be required in adjoining
areas of the basement. Such openings shall open directly into a public way or to a yard or court that opens to a public
way.
Exceptions:
1.
2.
3.
Basements with a ceiling height of less than 80 inches (2032 mm) shall not be required to have emergency escape and
rescue openings.
Emergency escape and rescue openings are not required from basements or sleeping rooms that have an exit door or
exit access door that opens directly into a public way or to a yard, court or exterior exit balcony that opens to a public
way.
Basements without habitable spaces and having not more than 200 square feet (18.6 m2) in floor area shall not be
required to have emergency escape and rescue openings.
Reason: The proposal is simply a clarification of the current requirements. As currently worded, it is unclear in Section 1030 that emergency escape and
rescue openings are only required for Group R-2 occupancies that are located on stories with a single exit. That is what the references to Tables 1021.2(1)
and 1021.2(2) convey, but forcing the reader to go back to 1021.2 to determine this makes interpreting and applying Section 1030 unnecessarily cumbersome,
given that most R-2 occupancies have 2 exits and are not required to comply with Section 1030.
Cost Impact: Will not increase the cost of construction
The proposal is simply a clarification of current provisions and does not increase the cost of construction.
E 141-15 : 1030.1-SHAPIRO5519
E193
E 142-15
1030.1; (IFC[BE] 1030.1)
Proponent: Stephen Thomas, Colorado Code Consulting, LLC, representing Colorado Chapter
(sthomas@coloradocode.net)
Basements without habitable spaces and having not more than 200 square feet (18.6 m2) in floor area shall not be
required to have emergency escape and rescue openings.
Reason: The revision to this section has created a lot of confusion among code users as to when emergency escape and rescue openings are requried. The
purpose of this revision is to clarify the requirement by rearranging the language and providing a clearer requirement for emergency escape and rescue
openings.
Cost Impact: Will not increase the cost of construction
This change is a clarification of the requirements. There is no cost impact of this change.
E 142-15 : 1030.1-THOMAS4456
E194
E 143-15
1030.1; (IFC[BE] 1030.1)
Proponent: Jay Hyde, representing Sacramento (jhyde@mognot.com)
Basements without habitable spaces and having not more than 200 square feet (18.6 m2) in floor area shall not be
required to have emergency escape and rescue openings.
Reason: Consistency: the 2015 International Residential Code, Section R310.2.4 permits emergency escape and rescue openings under decks and porches.
It also permits restricted height of 36-inches. The restricted height does not appear to be appropriate under multi-family conditions where several units may
require emergency escape and rescue at the same time, therefore the Code Change Proposal specifically incorporates the minimum corridor width specified
for a dwelling unit (Table 1020.2) and the minimum height for a door (Section 1010.1.1.1).
Cost Impact: Will not increase the cost of construction
This is design issue that lermits a perticular design, no construction work is mandated.
E 143-15 : 1030.1-HYDE5280
E195
E 144-15
Table 1006.3.2(2), 1030.1; (IFC[BE] Table 1006.3.2(2), 1030.1)
Proponent: Victor Cuevas, representing City of Los Angeles
Basements without habitable spaces and having not more than 200 square feet (18.6 m2) in floor area shall not be
required to have emergency escape and rescue openings.
TABLE 1006.3.2(2)
STORIES WITH ONE EXIT OR ACCESS TO ONE EXIT FOR OTHER OCCUPANCIES
STORY
OCCUPANCY
MAXIMUM OCCUPANT
LOAD PER STORY
A, Bb , E Fb , M, U
49
75
H-2, H-3
25
10
75
Sb,d
29
75
B, F, M, Sd
29
75
NP
NA
NA
E196
c. This table is used for R-2 occupancies consisting of sleeping units. For R-2 occupancies consisting of dwelling units, use Table
1006.3.2(1).
d. The length of exit access travel distance in a Group S-2 open parking garage shall be not more than 100 feet
Reason: The intent is to at require emergency escape and rescue openings in all Group R occupanies. Exception 1 will exempt Group R-1 and R-2
occupancies except for Type IIIB and Type V construction and Group R-1 and R-2 with one exit. Exception 2 was found in the 2009 IBC. This could be used
by a hotel with balconies that open into an atrium with smoke protection rather than balconies that open to the outside. Group R-3 and Group R-4 would still be
required to have emergency escape and window openings. That would not change.
The change to add emergency escape windows for Group R-1 in Table 1006.3.2(2) for single exit buildings is correllative.
E197
E 145-15
1030.1; (IFC[BE] 1030.1)
Proponent: Jeffrey Shapiro, International Code Consultants, representing International Code Consultants
Basements without habitable spaces and having not more than 200 square feet (18.6 m2) in floor area shall not be
required to have emergency escape and rescue openings.
Within individual dwelling and sleeping units in Groups R-2 and R-3, where the buildings is equipped throughout
with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3,
sleeping rooms in basements shall not be required to have emergency escape and rescue openings provided that
the basement has one of the following:
4.1. One means of egress and one emergency escape and rescue opening
4.2. Two means of egress.
Reason: This Section has very limited application, only applying to Group R-3 and a small number of Group R-2 occupancies that have only one exit per
story. It does not apply to Group R-1 or any Group I occupancy, all of which are permitted to have sleeping rooms in basements and stories of sprinklered
buildings, even those with a single exit per Tables 1006.3.2(1) and 1006.3.2(2). The reason for not applying a similar allowance to Group R-3 and single exit
Group R-2 is not evident considering that other occupancies pose a more significant life-safety risk.
Nevertheless, rather than seeking full equivalency with these other occupancies when sprinklers are provided, this proposal seeks only a partial credit for
basements, with the hope of finding common ground with parties who have previously argued against a general exception for means of escape in fully
sprinklered buildings. This proposal maintains at least one basement escape window or door or an additional means of egress in addition to the primary means
of egress. Plus, it is important to remember that both sprinklers and hard-wired interconnected smoke alarms are required to qualify for the proposed
exception.
This combination of sprinklers and smoke alarms is well established by the NFPA 101 - Life Safety Code as a basis for eliminating all required means of
escape openings from sprinklered one- and two-family dwellings, hotels, motels, apartments and similar uses. In addition, the states of New Hampshire and
Virginia have amended their statewide code adoptions by eliminating all requirement for means of escape openings when sprinklers are provided. Minnesota
adopted a similar amendment, but the allowance was limited to exempting all basement escape windows (these were IRC amendments, but the logic conveys
to the IBC discussion).
There are many reasons for adding this exception to the IBC. First, 16 states have legislatively preempted adoption of residential sprinkler requirements for
one- and two-family dwellings, and in some cases, townhouses. Recognizing that some homes and townhouses may be built under the IBC (perhaps where
IRC height limits are exceeded or where the IRC isn't adopted), it is important to provide code incentives to strongly encourage the installation of sprinkler
systems. It is also fair to offer these incentives to builders and homebuyers in other states. Second, passing this exception in the IBC will remove the question
of IBC-IRC correlation as a basis for arguing against a similar change that will be proposed to the IRC in the Group B code cycle. Third, there is less benefit to
a basement means of escape because the dynamics of a basement fire differ from fires above grade. In a non-sprinklered fire event, it might be possible for
an occupant to be rescued or escape using an above-grade window because the lower portion of the window may initially draw fresh air. However, a
basement window well will quickly fill with smoke and heated gases if there's an uncontrolled fire in the basement, and the importance of fire sprinklers in
providing extra egress time cannot be overstated. Likewise, by the time firefighters arrive, rescuing an occupant from a developed basement fire through a
means of escape window or using such window as an escape route for a firefighter seems highly unlikely. Firefighter safety is far better assured by
sprinklers.
Looking at the value of this incentive, the cost savings associated with eliminating even one basement escape window and the associated ladder and window
well is significant. Combine that with the benefit of eliminating leakage and maintenance issues and tripping/fall hazards that may be associated with window
wells, and the incentive grows. Finally, recognize the enormous benefit that this change will offer for homebuyers, who will gain the option of finishing a roughin basement without the contsraint of laying out sleeping rooms based on existing window locations or having to add windows to an existing basement. This
single incentive might be valuable enough to encourage voluntary sprinkler installations, and still, the level of safety will exceed what is required by the IBC for
similar occupancies and by NFPA 101.
E198
E 146-15
1030.1.1(New), 1030.4; (IFC[BE] 1030.1.1(New), 1030.4)
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
E199
E 147-15
Part I:
1030.4 (IFC[BE]1030.4)
Part II:
406, 406.4 (New), 701.4 (New)
THIS IS A 2 PART CODE CHANGE. PART I WILL BE HEARD BY THE IBC-MEANS OF EGRESS COMMITTEE. PART II WILL BE HEARD BY THE IEBC
COMMITTEE. SEE THE TENTATIVE HEARING ORDERS FOR THESE COMMITTEES.
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
Part I
2015 International Building Code
Revise as follows:
1030.4 Operational constraints. Emergency escape and rescue openings shall be operational from the inside of the room without
the use of keys or tools. Bars, grilles, grates or similar devices are permitted to be placed over emergency escape and rescue
openings provided the minimum net clear opening size complies with Section 1030.2 and such devices shall be releasable or
removable from the inside without the use of a key, tool or force greater than that which is required for normal operation of the
emergency escape and rescue opening. Where such bars, grilles, grates or similar devices are installed in existing buildings, they
shall not reduce the net clear opening of the emergency escape and rescue openings and smoke alarms shall be installed in
accordance with Section 907.2.11 regardless of the valuation of the alteration.
Part II
2015 International Existing Building Code
SECTION 406
GLASS REPLACEMENTWINDOWS AND REPLACEMENT WINDOWSEMERGENCY ESCAPE OPENINGS
Add new text as follows:
406.4 Emeregency escape and rescue openings. Emergency escape and rescue openings shall be operational from the inside of
the room without the use of keys or tools. Bars, grilles, grates or similar devices are permitted to be placed over emergency escape
and rescue openings provided the minimum net clear opening size complies with the code that was in effect at the time of
construction and such devices shall be releasable or removable from the inside without the use of a key, tool or force greater than
that which is required for normal operation of the escape and rescue opening. Where such bars, grilles, grates or similar devices are
installed, they shall not reduce the net clear opening of the emergency escape and rescue openings and smoke alarms shall be
installed in accordance with Section 907.2.11 of the International Building Code regardless of the valuation of the alteration.
701.4 Emergecy escape and rescue openings. Emergency escape and rescue openings shall be operational from the inside of the
room without the use of keys or tools. Bars, grilles, grates or similar devices are permitted to be placed over emergency escape and
rescue openings provided the minimum net clear opening size complies with the code that was in effect at the time of construction
and such devices shall be releasable or removable from the inside without the use of a key, tool or force greater than that which is
required for normal operation of the escape and rescue opening. Where such bars, grilles, grates or similar devices are installed,
they shall not reduce the net clear opening of the emergency escape and rescue openings and smoke alarms shall be installed in
accordance with Section 907.2.11 of the International Building Code regardless of the valuation of the alteration.
Staff note: Emergency escape and rescue openings provisions are also included in Sections 406.3 amd 702.5.
Reason: The emergency escape and rescue provisions within IBC section 1030.4 includes requirements that speak to installations that may take place on an
existing building, yet no such provision is found within the IEBC. It is appropriate to have such a reference within the IEBC.
This public proposal is submitted by the ICC Building Code Action Committee (BCAC). The BCAC was established by the ICC Board of Directors to pursue
opportunities to improve and enhance an assigned International Code or portion thereof. This includes both the technical aspects of the codes as well as the
code content in terms of scope and application of referenced standards. Since its inception in July, 2011, the BCAC has held 13 open meetings and numerous
workgroup calls which included members of the BCAC as well as any interested party to discuss and debate the proposed changes and the public comments.
Related documentation and reports are posted on the BCAC website at: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/BCAC/Pages/default.aspx.
Cost Impact:
Part I: Will not increase the cost of construction
The proposal is coordination with IRC allowances for emergency escape windows and allows for another design option.
Part II: Will not increase the cost of construction
The proposal is coordination with IRC allowances for emergency escape windows and allows for another design option.
E200
E 147-15 : 1030.4-KULIK3667
E201
E 148-15
[BE] 1031.4
Proponent: Stephen DiGiovanni, Clark County Building Department, representing Southern Nevada Chapter of ICC
(sdigiovanni@clarkcountynv.gov)
E202
E 149-15
1103.2.4, 1106.5
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
In agricultural buildings, access is required to paved work areas and areas open to the general public.
PrivateGroup U private garages or carports that contain required accessible parking.
1106.5 Van spaces. For every six or fraction of six accessible parking spaces, at least one shall be a van-accessible parking
space.
Exception: In Group R-2 and R-3 occupancies, van-accessible spaces located within Group U private garages that serve
Type B units shall be permitted to have vehicular routes, entrances, parking spaces and access aisles with a minimum
vertical clearance of 7 feet (2134 mm).
Reason: The definitions and requirements for private garages was revised in the 2015 IBC. This proposal will coordinate Sections 1103.2.4 and 1106.3 with
how the term is used in Section 406.3. This will also help clarify the original intent that these exceptions were intended for small garages, not larger garages
that are for residents only. The latter interpretation would be a conflict with federal accessibility requirements.
In July/2014 the ICC Board decided to sunset the activities of the Code Technology Committee (CTC). This is being accomplished by re-assigning many of the
CTC Areas of Study to the applicable Code Action Committee (CAC). This proposal falls under the CTC Area of Study entitled IBC Coordination with the New
ADAAG. Information on the CTC, including: the sunset plan; meeting agendas; minutes; reports; resource documents; presentations; and all other materials
developed in conjunction with the CTC effort can be downloaded from the CTC website.
This public proposal is submitted by the ICC Building Code Action Committee (BCAC). The BCAC was established by the ICC Board of Directors to pursue
opportunities to improve and enhance an assigned International Code or portion thereof. This includes both the technical aspects of the codes as well as the
code content in terms of scope and application of referenced standards. Since its inception in July, 2011, the BCAC has held 13 open meetings and numerous
workgroup calls which included members of the BCAC as well as any interested party to discuss and debate the proposed changes and the public comments.
Related documentation and reports are posted on the BCAC website at: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/BCAC/Pages/default.aspx.
E203
E 150-15
1103.2.14
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
E204
E 151-15
1104.4
Proponent: Gene Boecker, representing Code Consultants, Inc. (geneb@codeconsultants.com)
2.
3.
4.
not more than 3,000 square feet (278.7 m2) and are located above and below accessible levels.This exception
shall not apply to:
1.1. Multiple tenant facilities of Group M occupancies containing five or more tenant spaces used for the
sales or rental of goods and where at least one such tenant space is located on a floor level above or
below the accessible levels;
1.2. Stories or mezzanines containing offices of health care providers (Group B or I);
1.3. Passenger transportation facilities and airports (Group A-3 or B);or
1.4. Government buildings.
Stories, or mezzanines or occupiable roofs that do not contain accessible elements or other spaces as
determined by Section 1107 or 1108 are not required to be served by an accessible route from an accessible
level.
In air traffic control towers, an accessible route is not required to serve the cab and the floor immediately below
the cab.
Where a two-story building or facility has one story or mezzanine with an occupant load of five or fewer persons
that does not contain public use space, that story or mezzanine shall not be required to be connected by an
accessible route to the story above or below.
Reason: The added phrase "occupiable roof" is proposed. As written, the current text would exclude anything that is not a story or mezzanine. Becasue
"story" is defined as the space between a floor and ceiling/roof above, an occupiable roof of a hotel with a large swimming pool or a roof garden for an
apartment or office would not be included as requiring an accessible route. If these roof areas contain elements which must be acessible, they should be
included in the requirement for access to those levels. Simply becasue a space does not have a roof but otherwise functions as a part of the buidling, it should
not be excluded from access.
During the prior code cycle the term "floor" was changed to "story." consequently, the ability to easily address the occupiable roof was lost. This propsal will
restore the original intent.
E 151-15 : 1104.4-BOECKER5548
E205
E 152-15
1104.4
Proponent: David Kulina, representing Engel Architects (david@engelarch.com)
2.
3.
4.
square feet (278.7 m2) and are located above and below accessible levels. Such aggregate area shall not include
spaces already exempted by Section 1103.2. This exception shall not apply to:
1.1. Multiple tenant facilities of Group M occupancies containing five or more tenant spaces used for the
sales or rental of goods and where at least one such tenant space is located on a floor level above or
below the accessible levels;
1.2. Stories or mezzanines containing offices of health care providers (Group B or I);
1.3. Passenger transportation facilities and airports (Group A-3 or B);or
1.4. Government buildings.
Stories or mezzanines that do not contain accessible elements or other spaces as determined by Section 1107 or
1108 are not required to be served by an accessible route from an accessible level.
In air traffic control towers, an accessible route is not required to serve the cab and the floor immediately below
the cab.
Where a two-story building or facility has one story or mezzanine with an occupant load of five or fewer persons
that does not contain public use space, that story or mezzanine shall not be required to be connected by an
accessible route to the story above or below.
Reason: The intent of the 3000 square foot rule was to grant relief from accessibilitiy requirements for areas of limited size. Frequently, the 3000 square foot
barrier is broken because a building may have 2000 square foot of mechanical space on top of a 1500 square foot mezzanine.
In the case of large
factories and warehouses, the total number of equipment areas may be greater than 3000 square feet by themselves, thus all other spaces would have to be
made accessible.
Cost Impact: Will not increase the cost of construction
This change will result in cost savings by alleviating the need for lifts and elevators to access limited area floor levels.
E 152-15 : 1104.4-KULINA4556
E206
E 153-15
1105.1, 1105.1.1 (New), TABLE 1105.1.1 (New)
Proponent: Joseph Hetzel, representing DASMA (Jhetzel@thomasamc.com)
I-1, I-2
50
300
R-1
300
B, E, M, R-2
500
E207
E 154-15
1106.5
Proponent: Kathleen Petrie, representing City of Seattle, Department of Planning and Development
(kathleen.petrie@seattle.gov)
E208
E 155-15
1107.5.1, 1107.5.1.1, 1107.5.1.2, 1107.6.2.2, 1107.6.2.2.1, 1107.6.2.2.2, 1107.6.2.3, 1107.6.2.3.1,
1107.6.2.3.2
Proponent: Daniel Nichols, New York State Division of Building Standards and Codes, representing New York State
Division of Building Standards and Codes (dnichols@dos.state.ny.us)
1.
2.
Door intended for user passage required to comply with ICC A117.1 Section 1004.5.2 shall also comply with the clear
width and maneuvering clearances required by Sections 404.2.2 and 404.2.3 of ICC A117.1.
At least one toilet and bathing facility in the dwelling or sleeping unit shall be constructed in accordance with the toilet
and bathing facilities requirements of Section 1003.11 of ICC A117.1.
ExceptionExceptions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The number of Type B units is permitted to be reduced in accordance with Section 1107.7.
Maneuvering clearances is not required on the toilet room or bathroom side of the door in toilet rooms and bathrooms not
required to comply with Section 1003.11 of ICC A117.1.
Where exterior space dimensions of balconies are less than the required manuevering clearance, door manuevering
clearances is not required on the exterior side of the door.
Where closets or pantries are 48 inches (1220 mm) maximum in depth, the maneuvering clearance is not required on the
closet side of the door.
1107.6.2.2 Apartment houses, monasteries and convents. Type A units and Type B units shall be provided in apartment houses,
monasteries and convents in accordance with Sections 1107.6.2.2.1 and 1107.6.2.2.2.
Delete without substitution:
1107.6.2.2.1 Type A units. In Group R-2 occupancies containing more than 20 dwelling units or sleeping units, at least 2 percent
but not less than one of the units shall be a Type A unit.All Group R-2 units on a site shall be considered to determine the total
number of units and the required number of Type A units.Type A units shall be dispersed among the various classes of
units.Bedrooms in monasteries and convents shall be counted as sleeping units for the purpose of determining the number of
units.Where the sleeping units are grouped into suites, only one sleeping unit in each suite shall count towards the number of
required Type A units.
Exceptions:
1. The number of Type A units is permitted to be reduced in accordance with Section 1107.7.
2. Existing structures on a site shall not contribute to the total number of units on a site.
Revise as follows:
1107.6.2.2.2 Type B units. Where there are four or more dwelling units or sleeping units intended to be occupied as a residence in
a single structure, every dwelling unit and sleeping unitintended to be occupied as a residence shall be a Type B unit and shall meet
the additional following requirements.
1.
2.
Door intended for user passage required to comply with ICC A117.1 Section 1004.5.2 shall also comply with the clear
width and maneuvering clearances required by Sections 404.2.2 and 404.2.3 of ICC A117.1.
At least one toilet and bathing facility in the dwelling or sleeping unit shall be constructed in accordance with the toilet
and bathing facilities requirements of Section 1003.11 of ICC A117.1.
ExceptionExceptions:
E209
1.
2.
3.
4.
The number of Type B units is permitted to be reduced in accordance with Section 1107.7.
Maneuvering clearances is not required on the toilet room or bathroom side of the door in toilet rooms and bathrooms not
required to comply with Section 1003.11 of ICC A117.1.
Where exterior space dimensions of balconies are less than the required manuevering clearance, door manuevering
clearances is not required on the exterior side of the door.
Where closets or pantries are 48 inches (1220 mm) maximum in depth, the maneuvering clearance is not required on the
closet side of the door.
1107.6.2.3 Group R-2 other than live/work units, apartment houses, monasteries and convents. In Group R-2 occupancies,
other than live/work units, apartment houses, monasteries and convents falling within the scope of Sections 1107.6.2.1 and
1107.6.2.2, Accessibleunits and Type B units shall be provided in accordance with Sections 1107.6.2.3.1 and 1107.6.2.3.2.
Bedrooms within congregate living facilities shall be counted as sleeping units for the purpose of determining the number of units.
Where the sleeping units are grouped into suites, only one sleeping unit in each suite shall be permitted to count towards the number
of required Accessibleunits.
1107.6.2.3.1 Accessible units. Accessibledwelling units and sleeping units shall be provided in accordance with Table 1107.6.1.1.
1107.6.2.3.2 Type B units. Where there are four or more dwelling units or sleeping units intended to be occupied as a residence in
a single structure, every dwelling unit and every sleeping unitintended to be occupied as a residence shall be a Type B unitand shall
meet the additional following requirements.
1.
2.
Door intended for user passage required to comply with ICC A117.1 Section 1004.5.2 shall also comply with the clear
width and maneuvering clearances required by Sections 404.2.2 and 404.2.3 of ICC A117.1.
At least one toilet and bathing facility in the dwelling or sleeping unit shall be constructed in accordance with the toilet
and bathing facilities requirements of Section 1003.11 of ICC A117.1.
ExceptionExceptions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The number of Type B units is permitted to be reduced in accordance with Section 1107.7.
Maneuvering clearances is not required on the toilet room or bathroom side of the door in toilet rooms and bathrooms not
required to comply with Section 1003.11 of ICC A117.1.
Where exterior space dimensions of balconies are less than the required manuevering clearance, door manuevering
clearances is not required on the exterior side of the door.
Where closets or pantries are 48 inches (1220 mm) maximum in depth, the maneuvering clearance is not required on the
closet side of the door.
Reason: The purpose of this code change proposal is to modify the level of accessibility offered in Group I-1 and R-2. The collective use of these residential
occupancies is generally for occupants that are planning a long-term residency in a dwelling or sleeping unit. With that, the availability of choice is important in
selecting a residential unit compared to other residential occupancies.
The language of the proposal has been utilized in New York State for the past 12 years and was developed jointly by accessibility advocates and the building
industry . For Group R-2 apartments, the baseline to the proposal is that the elimination of full Type A unit requirements is offset by the expansion of certain
accessibility features in the remaining units that are being designed as Type B units. The reasoning for this proposal is to offer more choice in these residential
buildings to those with different types of physical disabilities and their respective mobility needs. Further, the proposal will offer more choice of residential
housing to a greater number of those with physical disabilities since the requirements for doorway widths and an accessible bathroom will start at four units,
instead of 20 units that count units throughout a complex.
The proposal requires the initial design of all apartments to have doorways the width as required for a Type A unit as well as one bathroom to be of Type A
design. This provides the additional choice within apartments for either initial use or adaptable changes to other building features (like cabinetry or appliance
access) due to change of occupant or change of occupant's abilities.
E210
E 156-15
1107.5.1.2
Proponent: Margaret Calkins, representing Rothschild Foundation ADA Task Force (mcalkins@ideasinstitute.org)
The number of Type B units is permitted to be reduced in accordance with Section 1107.7.
At the water closet, two installed swing-up grab bars shall be permitted as an alternative to reinforcements for rear and
side grab bars.
Reason: It has long been recognized that most older adults do not have the upper body strength and mobility/range of motion to complete a sliding transfer
onto a toilet. Even individuals who use a wheelchair for mobility needs, if they are capable of bearing weight (fully or partially) use a stand-turn-sit action to
transfer onto and off of the toilet, either independently or with assistance. Recently completed research by Sanford and Calkins has shown that both elders and
care partners prefer bilateral swing up grab bars over the typical side and rear wall grab bar congifuration. Three test conditions included the traditional ADA
congifuration with the toilet 18" from the sidde wall and a wall mounted grab bar; bilateral grab bars located at the ADA specified distances (16-18" from the
center line of the toilet, mounted 34" above the floor); and a user defined configuration that varied between individuals.
From the interum report for the research:
Configuration Preference: Regardless of level of assistance (independent, 1-person assist or 2-person assist) residents overwhelming preferred the
individualized configuration to either the ADA side bar or the bilater fold down grab bars are ADA dimensions. The majority of residents (70% or greater)
preferred the grabbars at 13" from the center line of the toilet. The mean preferred height was 32.8" above the floor. Finally,having the wall located 24" from the
center line of the toilet was felt to be sufficient for caregiver maneuverability over 84% of the time. Among 30 resident who performed independent transfers
86.2% (n=25) preferred the individualized configuration over the ADA (n=2) or bilateral ADA (n=2) grab bar configuration (missing data on 1 resident). Among
22 residents who required a 1-person assist, 78.3% (n=18) preferred the individualized configuration over the ADA (n=0) or bilateral ADA (n=4). Finally, among
23 residents who required a 2-person assist, 82.6% (n=19)preferred the individualized configuration to the ADA (n=3) or bilateral ADA configuration (n=1).
Similar findings were reported by staff for assisted transfers. For those assisting with 1-person assisted transfers, 76.2% (n=16) preferred the individualized
configuration to the ADA (n=1) or the bilateral ADA (n=4). For those assisting with a 2-person assisted trasnfer, 58% (n=14) preferred the individualized
configuration, although 33% preferred the biateral configuration, while only 8.3% (n=2) preferred the ADA side bar.
Mean Rating for Safety: Mean ratings for the location and style of grab bar to help with safe transfers and support staff to provide assistance were also
calculated. On a 5 point scale where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. both residents and staff gave consistently higher ratings to the individualized
configuration (means ranged from 4.0 - 4.7) than to either the standard ADA configuration (means ranged from 3.2 - 3.8) or the bilateral ADA configuration
(means ranged from 3.4 - 3.8).
The timing of this research was such that we were unable to make proposals for changes to ANSI on specifications for either Accessible or Type B units.
Thus, at this time we are only looking to specifically alow bi-lateral fold-up grab bar as an alternative to providing side and back wall blocking in Type B units.
We recognize that fold-up grab bars are not prohibited in Type B units, however, in some states because this option is not specifically defined, AHJs are
relcutant to allow them to be installed during construction. Our goal is to make sure that bilateral fold up grab bars are an option in Group I1 buildings.
Bibliography: [Proposal for additional to accessibility standards for nursing home and assisted living residents in toileting and bathing] [Report/Document #]
[Rothschild ADA Task Force] [2012] [1-58]
[www.IDEASInstitute.org/publications.asp]
[Preliminary final report for phases 1-3] [Report/Document #] [Sanford, Calkins] [unpublished] [Page #]
[Request a copy from info@TheRothschildFoundation.us]
E211
E 157-15
1107.5.2.2
Proponent: Margaret Calkins, representing Rothschild Foundation ADA Task Force (mcalkins@ideasinstitute.org)
The number of Type B units is permitted to be reduced in accordance with Section 1107.7.
At the water closet, two installed swing-up grab bars shall be permitted as an alternative to reinforcements for rear and
side grab bars.
Reason: It has long been recognized that most older adults do not have the upper body strength and mobility/range of motion to complete a sliding transfer
onto a toilet. Even individuals who use a wheelchair for mobility needs, if they are capable of bearing weight (fully or partially) use a stand-turn-sit action to
transfer onto and off of the toilet, either independently or with assistance. Recently completed research by Sanford and Calkins has shown that both elders and
care partners prefer bilateral swing up grab bars over the typical side and rear wall grab bar congifuration. Three test conditions included the traditional ADA
congifuration with the toilet 18" from the sidde wall and a wall mounted grab bar; bilateral grab bars located at the ADA specified distances (16-18" from the
center line of the toilet, mounted 34" above the floor); and a user defined configuration that varied between individuals.
From the interum report for the research:
Configuration Preference: Regardless of level of assistance (independent, 1-person assist or 2-person assist) residents overwhelming preferred the
individualized configuration to either the ADA side bar or the bilater fold down grab bars are ADA dimensions. The majority of residents (70% or greater)
preferred the grabbars at 13" from the center line of the toilet. The mean preferred height was 32.8" above the floor. Finally,having the wall located 24" from the
center line of the toilet was felt to be sufficient for caregiver maneuverability over 84% of the time. Among 30 resident who performed independent transfers
86.2% (n=25) preferred the individualized configuration over the ADA (n=2) or bilateral ADA (n=2) grab bar configuration (missing data on 1 resident). Among
22 residents who required a 1-person assist, 78.3% (n=18) preferred the individualized configuration over the ADA (n=0) or bilateral ADA (n=4). Finally, among
23 residents who required a 2-person assist, 82.6% (n=19)preferred the individualized configuration to the ADA (n=3) or bilateral ADA configuration (n=1).
Similar findings were reported by staff for assisted transfers. For those assisting with 1-person assisted transfers, 76.2% (n=16) preferred the individualized
configuration to the ADA (n=1) or the bilateral ADA (n=4). For those assisting with a 2-person assisted trasnfer, 58% (n=14) preferred the individualized
configuration, although 33% preferred the biateral configuration, while only 8.3% (n=2) preferred the ADA side bar.
Mean Rating for Safety: Mean ratings for the location and style of grab bar to help with safe transfers and support staff to provide assistance were also
calculated. On a 5 point scale where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. both residents and staff gave consistently higher ratings to the individualized
configuration (means ranged from 4.0 - 4.7) than to either the standard ADA configuration (means ranged from 3.2 - 3.8) or the bilateral ADA configuration
(means ranged from 3.4 - 3.8).
The timing of this research was such that we were unable to make proposals for changes to ANSI on specifications for either Accessible or Type B units.
Thus, at this time we are only looking to specifically alow bi-lateral fold-up grab bar as an alternative to providing side and back wall blocking in Type B units.
We recognize that fold-up grab bars are not prohibited in Type B units, however, in some states because this option is not specifically defined, AHJs are
relcutant to allow them to be installed during construction. Our goal is to make sure that bilateral fold up grab bars are an option in Group I2 buildings.
Bibliography: [Proposal for additions to accessibility guidelines for bursing home and assisted living residents in toileting and bathing] [Report/Document #]
[Rothschild Foundation ASA Task Force] [2012] [1-58]
[www.IDEASInstitute.org.publications.asp]
Cost Impact: Will not increase the cost of construction
As an option, this will not have any mandatory cost increase. Owners may choose to install bilater grab bars if they want to better suppport their residents and
caregivers.
E 157-15 : 1107.5.2.2-CALKINS5440
E212
E 158-15
1107.5.3.2
Proponent: Margaret Calkins, representing Rothschild Foundation ADA Task Force (mcalkins@ideasinstitute.org)
The number of Type B units is permitted to be reduced in accordance with Section 1107.7.
At the water closet, two installed swing-up grab bars shall be permitted as an alternative to reinforcements for rear and
side grab bars.
Reason: This same proposal is being included for hospitals for 2 reasons. First, the majority of patient days (roughly 65%) are used by people over the age
of 65. Second, having bilateral grabbars provides better support for anyone who is frail or might have balance issues. The rest of this justification is the
same.
Recently completed research by Sanford and Calkins has shown that both elders and care partners prefer bilateral swing up grab bars over the typical side
and rear wall grab bar congifuration. Three test conditions included the traditional ADA congifuration with the toilet 18" from the sidde wall and a wall mounted
grab bar; bilateral grab bars located at the ADA specified distances (16-18" from the center line of the toilet, mounted 34" above the floor); and a user defined
configuration that varied between individuals.
From the interum report for the research:
Configuration Preference: Regardless of level of assistance (independent, 1-person assist or 2-person assist) residents overwhelming preferred the
individualized configuration to either the ADA side bar or the bilater fold down grab bars are ADA dimensions. The majority of residents (70% or greater)
preferred the grabbars at 13" from the center line of the toilet. The mean preferred height was 32.8" above the floor. Finally,having the wall located 24" from the
center line of the toilet was felt to be sufficient for caregiver maneuverability over 84% of the time. Among 30 resident who performed independent transfers
86.2% (n=25) preferred the individualized configuration over the ADA (n=2) or bilateral ADA (n=2) grab bar configuration (missing data on 1 resident). Among
22 residents who required a 1-person assist, 78.3% (n=18) preferred the individualized configuration over the ADA (n=0) or bilateral ADA (n=4). Finally, among
23 residents who required a 2-person assist, 82.6% (n=19)preferred the individualized configuration to the ADA (n=3) or bilateral ADA configuration (n=1).
Similar findings were reported by staff for assisted transfers. For those assisting with 1-person assisted transfers, 76.2% (n=16) preferred the individualized
configuration to the ADA (n=1) or the bilateral ADA (n=4). For those assisting with a 2-person assisted trasnfer, 58% (n=14) preferred the individualized
configuration, although 33% preferred the biateral configuration, while only 8.3% (n=2) preferred the ADA side bar.
Mean Rating for Safety: Mean ratings for the location and style of grab bar to help with safe transfers and support staff to provide assistance were also
calculated. On a 5 point scale where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. both residents and staff gave consistently higher ratings to the individualized
configuration (means ranged from 4.0 - 4.7) than to either the standard ADA configuration (means ranged from 3.2 - 3.8) or the bilateral ADA configuration
(means ranged from 3.4 - 3.8).
The timing of this research was such that we were unable to make proposals for changes to ANSI on specifications for either Accessible or Type B units.
Thus, at this time we are only looking to specifically alow bi-lateral fold-up grab bar as an alternative to providing side and back wall blocking in Type B units.
We recognize that fold-up grab bars are not prohibited in Type B units, however, in some states because this option is not specifically defined, AHJs are
relcutant to allow them to be installed during construction. Our goal is to make sure that bilateral fold up grab bars are an option in Group I3 buildings.
E213
E 159-15
1107.6.1, 1107.6.1.1
Proponent: Dominic Marinelli, representing United Spinal Association (nroether@accessibility-services.com)
E214
E 160-15
1107.6.2.2, 1107.6.2.2.1, 1107.6.2.3, 1107.6.3, 1107.6.4
Proponent: Carl Baldassarra, P.E., FSFPE, Chair, ICC Code Technology Committee, representing Code Technology
Committee (CTC@iccsafe.org); Adolf Zubia, Chair, Fire Code Action Committee (fcac@iccsafe.org); Edward Kulik,
Chair, Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
Revise as follows:
1107.6.2 Group R-2. Accessibleunits, Type A units and Type B units shall be provided in Group R-2 occupancies in accordance
with Sections 1107.6.2.1 through 1107.6.2.3.
1107.6.2.1 Live/work units. In live/work units constructed in accordance with Section 419, the nonresidential portion is required to
be accessible.In a structure where there are four or more live/work unitsintended to be occupied as a residence, the residential
portion of the live/work unit shall be a Type B unit.
Exception: The number of Type B units is permitted to be reduced in accordance with Section 1107.7.
1107.6.2.2 Apartment houses, monasteries and convents. Type A units and Type B units shall be provided in apartment houses,
monasteries and convents in accordance with Sections 1107.6.2.2.1 and 1107.6.2.2.2.
Bedrooms in monasteries and convents shall be counted as units for the purpose of determining the number of units. Where the
bedrooms are grouped in sleeping units, only one bedroom in each sleeping unit shall count towards the number of required Type A
units.
1107.6.2.2.1 Type A units. In Group R-2 occupancies containing more than 20 dwelling units or sleeping units, at least 2 percent
but not less than one of the units shall be a Type A unit.All Group R-2 units on a site shall be considered to determine the total
number of units and the required number of Type A units.Type A units shall be dispersed among the various classes of units.
Bedrooms in monasteries and convents shall be counted as sleeping units for the purpose of determining the number of units.Where
the sleeping units are grouped into suites, only one sleeping unit in each suite shall count towards the number of required Type A
units.
Exceptions:
1. The number of Type A units is permitted to be reduced in accordance with Section 1107.7.
2. Existing structures on a site shall not contribute to the total number of units on a site.
1107.6.2.2.2 Type B units. Where there are four or more dwelling units or sleeping units intended to be occupied as a residence in a
single structure, every dwelling unit and sleeping unitintended to be occupied as a residence shall be a Type B unit.
Exception: The number of Type B units is permitted to be reduced in accordance with Section 1107.7.
1107.6.2.3 Group R-2 other than live/work units, apartment houses, monasteries and convents.
In Group R-2 occupancies, other than live/work units, apartment houses, monasteries and convents falling within the scope of
Sections 1107.6.2.1 and 1107.6.2.2, Accessibleunits and Type B units shall be provided in accordance with Sections 1107.6.2.3.1
and 1107.6.2.3.2.
Bedrooms within congregate living facilities, dormitories, sororities, fraternities, and boarding houses shall be
counted as sleeping units for the purpose of determining the number of units. Where the sleeping unitsbedrooms are grouped into
suitesdwelling or sleeping units, only one sleeping unitbedroom in each suitedwelling or sleeping units shall be permitted to count
towards the number of required Accessibleunits.
1107.6.2.3.1 Accessible units. Accessibledwelling units and sleeping units shall be provided in accordance with Table 1107.6.1.1.
1107.6.2.3.2 Type B units. Where there are four or more dwelling units or sleeping units intended to be occupied as a residence in a
single structure, every dwelling unit and every sleeping unitintended to be occupied as a residence shall be a Type B unit.
Exception: The number of Type B units is permitted to be reduced in accordance with Section 1107.7.
1107.6.3 Group R-3. In Group R-3 occupancies where there are four or more dwelling units or sleeping units intended to be
occupied as a residence in a single structure, every dwelling unit and sleeping unit intended to be occupied as a residence shall be a
Type B unit.
Bedrooms within congregate living facilities, dormitories, sororities, fraternities, and boarding houses shall be counted as
sleeping units for the purpose of determining the number of units.
Exception: The number of Type B units is permitted to be reduced in accordance with Section 1107.7.
1107.6.4 Group R-4. Accessible units and Type B units shall be provided in Group R-4 occupancies in accordance with Sections
1107.6.4.1 and 1107.6.4.2. Bedrooms in Group R-4 facilities shall be counted as sleeping units for the purpose of determining the
number of units.
1107.6.4.1 Accessible units. In Group R-4 Condition 1, at least one of the sleeping units shall be an Accessible unit. In Group R-4
Condition 2, at least two of the sleeping units shall be an Accessible unit.
ICC COMMITTEE ACTION HEARINGS ::: April, 2015
E215
1107.6.4.2 Type B units. In structures with four or more sleeping units intended to be occupied as a residence, every sleeping
unitintended to be occupied as a residence shall be a Type B unit.
Exception: The number of Type B units is permitted to be reduced in accordance with Section 1107.7.
Reason: ADA and FHA count bedrooms in dormitories and congregate residences when determining the number of units for accessibility requirements. With
the recognition that suite designs can include more than one bedroom in a sleeping unit, the requirements here need to be tweaked to align with these federal
regulations.
This is part of a group of proposals to address this style of design and group homes within single family residences. Changes are proposed for the definition
for sleeping units, the Group classifications in Section 310.4 and 310.5, separation requirements in Section 420, and coordination with accessibility
requirements in Section 1107. Proposals will be put forward as part of Group B for fire and smoke alarm systems. The proposals could work separately.
The ICC Code Technology Committee (CTC) has just completed its 10th year. The ICC Board has decided to sunset the CTC. The sunset plan includes reassigning many of the CTC Areas of Study to the applicable Code Action Committee (CAC). The two remaining CTC Areas of Study are Care Facilities and
Elevator Lobbies/WTC Elevator issues. This proposal falls under the Care Facilities Area of Study. Information on the CTC, including: the sunset plan;
meeting agendas; minutes; reports; resource documents; presentations; and all other materials developed in conjunction with the CTC effort can be
downloaded from the CTC website.http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/CTC/Pages/default.aspx
This proposal is submitted by the ICC Fire Code Action Committee (FCAC). This ICC committee was established by the ICC Board of Directors to pursue
opportunities to improve and enhance assigned International Codes or portions thereof. This includes both the technical aspects of the codes as well as the
code content in terms of scope and application of referenced standards. Since its inception in July, 2011, the Fire-CAC has held 10 open meetings and
numerous Regional Work Group and Task Group meetings and conference calls which included members of the committees as well as any interested party to
discuss and debate the proposed changes. Related documentation and reports are posted on the FAC website at:
http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/CAC/Pages/default.aspx?usertoken={token}&Site=icc
The BCAC was established by the ICC Board of Directors to pursue opportunities to improve and enhance an assigned International Code or portion thereof.
This includes both the technical aspects of the codes as well as the code content in terms of scope and application of referenced standards. Since its inception
in July, 2011, the BCAC has held 13 open meetings and numerous workgroup calls which included members of the BCAC as well as any interested party to
discuss and debate the proposed changes and the public comments. Related documentation and reports are posted on the BCAC website at:
http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/BCAC/Pages/default.aspx.
Staff note: There is published errata for Section 1107.6.4, 1107.6.4.1 and 1107.6.4.2. The errata in incorporated into this proposal as existing
text.
E 160-15 : 1107.6.2.2BALDASSARRA4296
E216
E 161-15
1107.6.3, 1107.6.4, 1107.6.4.1, 1107.6.4.2
Proponent: Carl Baldassarra, P.E., FSFPE, Chair, ICC Code Technology Committee, representing Code Technology
Committee (CTC@iccsafe.org)
Staff note: There is a published errata to Sections 1107.6.4, 1107.6.4.1 and 1107.6.4.2. The errata is incorporated into this proposal as
existing text.
E 161-15 : 1107.6.3BALDASSARRA4280
E217
E 162-15
1107.6.4.2
Proponent: Margaret Calkins, representing Rothschild Foundation ADA Task Force (mcalkins@ideasinstitute.org)
The number of Type B units is permitted to be reduced in accordance with Section 1107.7.
At the water closet, two installed swing up grab bars shall be permitted as an alternative to reinforcement for rear and
side grab bars.
Reason: As with the previous proposals, this proposal just makes to cler to group home operators that if they want to install bilateral grab bars in place of
reinforcement for rear and side grab bars, it is acceptable.
It has long been recognized that most older adults do not have the upper body strength and mobility/range of motion to complete a sliding transfer onto a toilet.
Even individuals who use a wheelchair for mobility needs, if they are capable of bearing weight (fully or partially) use a stand-turn-sit action to transfer onto and
off of the toilet, either independently or with assistance. Recently completed research by Sanford and Calkins has shown that both elders and care partners
prefer bilateral swing up grab bars over the typical side and rear wall grab bar congifuration. Three test conditions included the traditional ADA congifuration
with the toilet 18" from the sidde wall and a wall mounted grab bar; bilateral grab bars located at the ADA specified distances (16-18" from the center line of the
toilet, mounted 34" above the floor); and a user defined configuration that varied between individuals.
From the interum report for the research:
Configuration Preference: Regardless of level of assistance (independent, 1-person assist or 2-person assist) residents overwhelming preferred the
individualized configuration to either the ADA side bar or the bilater fold down grab bars are ADA dimensions. The majority of residents (70% or greater)
preferred the grabbars at 13" from the center line of the toilet. The mean preferred height was 32.8" above the floor. Finally,having the wall located 24" from the
center line of the toilet was felt to be sufficient for caregiver maneuverability over 84% of the time. Among 30 resident who performed independent transfers
86.2% (n=25) preferred the individualized configuration over the ADA (n=2) or bilateral ADA (n=2) grab bar configuration (missing data on 1 resident). Among
22 residents who required a 1-person assist, 78.3% (n=18) preferred the individualized configuration over the ADA (n=0) or bilateral ADA (n=4). Finally, among
23 residents who required a 2-person assist, 82.6% (n=19)preferred the individualized configuration to the ADA (n=3) or bilateral ADA configuration (n=1).
Similar findings were reported by staff for assisted transfers. For those assisting with 1-person assisted transfers, 76.2% (n=16) preferred the individualized
configuration to the ADA (n=1) or the bilateral ADA (n=4). For those assisting with a 2-person assisted trasnfer, 58% (n=14) preferred the individualized
configuration, although 33% preferred the biateral configuration, while only 8.3% (n=2) preferred the ADA side bar.
Mean Rating for Safety: Mean ratings for the location and style of grab bar to help with safe transfers and support staff to provide assistance were also
calculated. On a 5 point scale where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. both residents and staff gave consistently higher ratings to the individualized
configuration (means ranged from 4.0 - 4.7) than to either the standard ADA configuration (means ranged from 3.2 - 3.8) or the bilateral ADA configuration
(means ranged from 3.4 - 3.8).
The timing of this research was such that we were unable to make proposals for changes to ANSI on specifications for either Accessible or Type B units.
Thus, at this time we are only looking to specifically alow bi-lateral fold-up grab bar as an alternative to providing side and back wall blocking in Type B units.
We recognize that fold-up grab bars are not prohibited in Type B units, however, in some states because this option is not specifically defined, AHJs are
relcutant to allow them to be installed during construction. Our goal is to make sure that bilateral fold up grab bars are an option in Group R4 buildings.
E218
E 163-15
1107.7.1.2
Proponent: David Collins, representing The American Institute of Architects (dcollins@preview-group.com)
the undisturbed site measured between the planned entrance and all vehicular or pedestrian arrival
(15 240 mm) of the planned entrance are 10 percent or less, and
the planned finished grade measured between the entrance and all vehicular or pedestrian arrival
(15 240 mm) of the planned entrance are 10 percent or less.
Where no such arrival points are not within 50 feet (15 240 mm) of the entrance, the closest arrival point shall be used to
determine access unless that arrival point serves the story required by Section 1107.7.1.1.
Reason: The contorted language in this section is difficult to follow and should be clarified. The code is trying to make it clear that more than one entrance
may provide access, and each of those entrances may serve other stories. The criteria are then used to determine if the units that are on those other floors
must have Type B units.
Cost Impact: Will not increase the cost of construction
The intent of the code change is to clarify how the various routes into a building are to be considered and does not change the technical requirements, and has
not impact on the cost of construction.
E 163-15 : 1107.7.1.2-COLLINS4476
E219
E 164-15
1109.2
Proponent: David Kulina, representing Engel Architects (david@engelarch.com)
7.
8.
Toilet rooms or bathing rooms accessed only through a private office, not for common or public use and intended for use
by a single occupant, shall be permitted to comply with the specific exceptions in ICC A117.1.
This section is not applicable to toilet and bathing rooms that serve dwelling units or sleeping units that are not required
to be accessible by Section 1107.
Where multiple single-user toilet rooms or bathing rooms are clustered at a single location, at least 50 percent but not
less than one room for each use at each cluster shall be accessible.
Where no more than one urinal is provided in a toilet room or bathing room, the urinal is not required to be accessible.
Toilet rooms or bathing rooms that are part of critical care or intensive care patient sleeping rooms serving Accessible
units are not required to be accessible.
Toilet rooms or bathing rooms designed for bariatrics patients are not required to comply with the toilet room and bathing
room requirement in ICC A117.1.The sleeping units served by bariatrics toilet or bathing rooms shall not count toward
the required number of Accessible sleeping units.
Where toilet facilities are primarily for children's use, required accessible water closets, toilet compartments and
lavatories shall be permitted to comply with children's provision of ICC A117.1.
Toilet rooms or bathing rooms that serve only areas exempted by Section 1103.2 are not required to be accessible.
Reason: Seciton 1103.2 has a list of areas that are exempted from accessibility requirements. Sometimes there are bathrooms provided for those spaces.
For example, a toilet room in farm building (1103.2.4) or a guard tower or fire watch tower (1103.2.6). If the area or building is exempted from accessibility,
then it is not logical to required these bathrooms have accessible features.
Cost Impact: Will not increase the cost of construction
There are no additional construction requirements.
E 164-15 : 1109.2-KULINA4559
E220
E 165-15
1109.2.1.2
Proponent: Yafeng Cao, KTA Group, Peer Review Studio, representing self; Gene Boecker, representing Code
Consultants, Inc. (geneb@codeconsultants.com)
A urinal is permitted to be provided in addition to the water closet in a family or assisted-use toilet room.
An additional child height water closet and child height lavatory is permittted in a family/assisted use toilet room.
Reason: CAO: ADAAG has envoled to include the building elements to cover children's dimensions. Some architects propose providing one adult water close
and one children water closet in the same family or assited-use toilet room for private use but current IBC 1109.2.1.2 does not recognize it as "family or
assisted-use toilet room" by limiting to only one water closet and only one lavatory.
Providing two types of water closets and lavatories, one type for adults and one type for children, in the same family/assisted-use toilet room is a higher level of
accommodation and should be allowed and recognized.
In regard to the private use nature of the family or assited-use toilet rooms, the multiple water closets and lavatories should be counted as one in calculting the
minimum number of plumbing fixture counting as stipulated in IBC 2902.1.
BOECKER: While the family or assisted-use toilet room is required because of the benefits to persons with disabilities and caregivers, the nature of "family" is
that smaller children will also be present. The purpose of the "family" toilet room is to allow the parent the ability to use the facilty as well as the child. It is quite
common to provide child sized fixtures in these rooms for mercantile and assembly occupancies as a benefit for patrons of the facility. The added langauge to
the exception line makes it clear that the intent is to use only one of the two exceptions. Either a urinal can be added or the two child height fixtures can be
added; but, not both.
E 165-15 : 1109.2.1.2-CAO5431
E221
E 166-15
1109.13
Proponent: Lawrence Lincoln, representing Utah Chapter of ICC (larry.lincoln@slcgov.com)
E222
E 167-15
202(New), 1109.15
Proponent: Stephen DiGiovanni, Clark County Building Department, representing Southern Nevada Chapter of ICC
(sdigiovanni@clarkcountynv.gov)
E223
E 168-15
1110.4.13 (New)
Proponent: Edward Kulik, Chair, representing Building Code Action Committee (bcac@iccsafe.org)
E224
E 169-15
1111.1
Proponent: Gene Boecker, representing Code Consultants, Inc. (geneb@codeconsultants.com)
Reason: The code only requires a single lavatory in a group toilet room to be accessible and only five percent (5%) of sinks to be acessible. This means that
one lavatory could be mounted at the proper height with proper toe and knee clearances and compliant pipe protection while the rest might be mounted at the
proper height but without toe and knee clearances; or, more critically, without pipe protection. In some cases, due to the nature of the design, it may not be
possible to know which of these are fully accessible without crawling under the counter to look; an action which is not likely for individuals who use
wheelchairs. This could pose a risk to the unaware individual using the lavatory that does not fully comply. The proposal would provide adeqaute notification
for those who need to know which lavatories and/or sinks are fully compliant.
Cost Impact: Will increase the cost of construction
The additional cost is the minimal cost of a sticker or sign with the International Symbol of Accessibility.
E 169-15 : 1111.1-BOECKER5536
E225
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: