# Final Action hearing in Dallas



## beach (Mar 16, 2010)

> 2012 International Residential Code Will Retain Fire Sprinklers for New Homes - No Debate at Dallas ICC Hearing - WASHINGTON, DC - March 16, 2010 The final action hearing agenda for the 2012 International Residential Code (IRC) has been released by the International Code Council (ICC), and there were no public comments challenging code requirements for residential fire sprinklers. Accordingly, under ICC regulations, requirements for residential sprinklers will not be subject to debate at ICC's final action hearing in Dallas in May. Instead, proposals to rescind sprinkler requirements from the IRC will be automatically disapproved, without discussion, as part of a consent agenda.


----------



## cda (Mar 16, 2010)

Re: Final Action hearing in Dallas

What kind of vote is that

*reconciliation*


----------



## fatboy (Mar 16, 2010)

Re: Final Action hearing in Dallas

A code hearing without debating RFS's?   

What the heck are we going to do with ourselves?  :roll:

BTW, where are the public comments? Weren't they supposed to be released yesterday?  :?

EDIT: Friggen ICC, bury the comments back as far as you can, but the whole front page is about their damn green codes......grrrrrr   :x  :x  :x

http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes/Pages/09-10_FAA.aspx


----------



## peach (Mar 20, 2010)

Re: Final Action hearing in Dallas

I guess we've just given up ...  leave it up to the jurisdiction to amend it out.

 :?


----------



## jpranch (Mar 20, 2010)

Re: Final Action hearing in Dallas

And amend we will / have.

Jeff, would it be possible to have a very angry green "smiley" icon added? Or perhaps a "stupid" green smiley icon? Or better yet a green algore?


----------



## fatboy (Mar 21, 2010)

Re: Final Action hearing in Dallas

At the risk of opening up another round of angry debates, and I want to remind everyone, I voted against RFS's in MN, but.........to all of you that are amending RFS's out of your adoptions, what does your legal staff have to say about it? You are amending the adopted code to a lesser standard.

I can't help but think that the first time there is a death by fire, in a home that would have been required to be protected with a RFS, that there will be a boatload of lawsuits against the AHJ, and I'm thinking that it will really be a slamdunk. Again, slim chance of happening.....but it will, eventually. What will be your defense?


----------



## jpranch (Mar 21, 2010)

Re: Final Action hearing in Dallas

fatboy, I don't think so. Code is not madated law until you adopt it. So you can amand anything you want to. Now with that said and considering how the cow has positioned itself with the federal government there may soon come a day when the "code" in total is mandated by the feds. But today is not that day.


----------



## peach (Mar 21, 2010)

Re: Final Action hearing in Dallas

most jurisdictions amend to the "old" stair standard for houses...

could they be sued if someone falls down them?  Sure.. will they lose, probably not...

no doubt, fire sprinklers may save a few lives (if I were building a house, I'd probably install one)... I don't agree with mandating them.

Is the jurisdiction going to lose a lawsuit if them amend them out.. probably not.  JP is right.. it doesn't become law until you adopt it... if you adopt it once, then remove it.. you'd probably lose the lawsuit for THEN reducing the minimum..


----------



## RJJ (Mar 21, 2010)

Re: Final Action hearing in Dallas

That will be on the horizon! Just as soon as they pass the health care bill that we will have to pay for all the others and be selected to who will have treatment! Sad day! Sorry no politics!

Green Now thats a refreshing subject!?????? Any comments?


----------



## Code Neophyte (Mar 21, 2010)

Re: Final Action hearing in Dallas

Here's a really naive question on my part:  How would amending "out" the RFS and attendant trade-offs from the '09 code differ - from a tort immunity standpoint - from taking the '06 code and "amending in" all of the other new requirements of the '09 IRC?  As long as all of the RFS issues are removed (again, including trade-offs, so as not to inadvertently leave any "chinks in the armor"), I don't see negligence in any sense - misfeasance, malfeasance or non-feasance.  Especially when it is considered that many jurisdictions may not ever adopt a newer version and remain on the '03, '00 or even a CABO edition!

Of course, this does not take into account the ISO rating which will certainly be accorded at a much higher number than if adopted; I understand they have formally adopted a position that, if the RFS provisions are amended out, it will automatically result in a score one point higher.  Not that it makes one bit of difference in our area.


----------



## jpranch (Mar 21, 2010)

Re: Final Action hearing in Dallas

As far as the ISO? Who cares!!! They are a non-player! Sorry, I don't mean to yell but I was baptized by fire into the ISO BS last year. A whole lot of work for absoluty NOTHING! I had a meeting a few weeks ago with most of our insurance underwriters. Our jurisdiction when from a ISO score of 11 (11 means non-participation) to a 4. Again I was told it will not have any impact on the insurance rates.


----------



## Code Neophyte (Mar 21, 2010)

Re: Final Action hearing in Dallas

I agree wholeheartedly, jp.  The only reason I mentioned it is that it's the only conceivable "negative" to amending out / not adopting.  I've had the same experience as you with the ISO, and as with your experience, no insurance agents, underwriters, etc. around here even knew about - let alone factored in - the Building Department's ISO rating.


----------



## jpranch (Mar 21, 2010)

Re: Final Action hearing in DallasA new (or old) green icon forthe cow:

View attachment 94


View attachment 94


/monthly_2010_07/yukgreybkg.jpg.ad27880930a7311a0bb8e32feb0dd93e.jpg


----------



## peach (Mar 21, 2010)

Re: Final Action hearing in Dallas

you shouldn't amend the trade off's, if you amend out the FSS.

Why?  Because passive fire control is really the best way to contain a fire.

Fire sprinkler systems need a certain level of maintenance... failure to do which constitutes an intervening act... someone dies... it's their fault.. they didn't maintain the system...

I worked for a home builder.. it was hard enough to explain maintaining/sealing a granite countertop to them.. how would they possibly catch the importance of maintaining a sprinkler system?


----------



## jpranch (Mar 21, 2010)

Re: Final Action hearing in Dallas

peach, have to disagree with you on this one. If you amend out RFS I would think you would want to amend the separation requirements for townhouses and duplexes to still require the 2 and 1 hour separations. (respectively)


----------



## RJJ (Mar 21, 2010)

Re: Final Action hearing in Dallas

I agree with JP! Need one or the other!

just had to go green!


----------



## packsaddle (Mar 22, 2010)

Re: Final Action hearing in Dallas

Texas SB 1410

SECTION 12

Section 1301.551

Occupations Code

(e)  Notwithstanding any other provision of state law, after January 1, 2009, a municipality may not enact an ordinance, bylaw, order, building code, or rule requiring the installation of a multipurpose residential fire protection sprinkler system or any other fire sprinkler protection system in a new or existing one or two family dwelling.


----------



## beach (Mar 22, 2010)

Re: Final Action hearing in Dallas

Texas should remove "Residential fire protection systems" and change it to "Universal Health Care".... :mrgreen:


----------



## packsaddle (Mar 22, 2010)

Re: Final Action hearing in Dallas

We may just secede instead.


----------



## texas transplant (Mar 22, 2010)

Re: Final Action hearing in Dallas

Amen Pack.

Remember though that sort of talk gets your name right next to mine on the list for non-consensual  transportation to the re-education camps in Area 51!! :mrgreen:  :twisted:  :lol:


----------



## beach (Mar 22, 2010)

Re: Final Action hearing in Dallas



> We may just secede instead.


Hey, that's not a bad option...... maybe we can to that in Cali....


----------



## FM William Burns (Mar 22, 2010)

Re: Final Action hearing in Dallas

I hear there will be jobs created in the "New Health Exchanges" :roll:


----------



## Gene Boecker (Mar 22, 2010)

Re: Final Action hearing in Dallas



			
				packsaddle said:
			
		

> We may just secede instead.


Been there, done that.

Missouri was out of the action in 9 hours after secession.  All the battles fought here were by guerrillas or other armies.

Secede doesn't succeed.


----------



## jpranch (Mar 23, 2010)

Re: Final Action hearing in DallasIs this possible again?

View attachment 96


View attachment 97


View attachment 96


View attachment 97


/monthly_2010_07/base_media.jpg.5ac30c14f5c13391dd373f9ded20d133.jpg

/monthly_2010_07/base_media.jpg.9d2619936f9f514f813ac442d6a8c6c7.jpg


----------



## High Desert (Mar 23, 2010)

Re: Final Action hearing in Dallas

Gene:

let's see........Quantrill, "Bloody Bill" Anderson, the Red Legs, and not to mention the James and Youngers. You had a lot of restless individuals in your parts.


----------

