# Chapter 46 IFC



## khsmith55 (Dec 15, 2010)

I would like to get the opinions from my colleagues in the building services, fire services and other design professional professionals as to the far reaching implications of Chapter 46 of the IFC. Just a few of my concerns are as follows:

	1.	Retroactive, with specific quantitive parameters now, that “shall” be met. The commentary states that “many” of these requirements were in previous codes. After review of the 2000, 2003, 2006 IFC’s I can find no retroactive reference to atriums (4603.4), Table 4604.18.2, vertical opening requirements (4603.3) and no exception for historical buildings, just to name a few.

	2.	Living in a community and county that did not have a building department prior to 1974, it would appear IFC Section 4604.1 requires a life safety evaluation be prepared and all deficiencies be remedied.

	3.	Table 4603.1 and Section 4603.3.4 has specific requirements for existing atriums. For professionals who previously worked under the UBC, this could be problematic since under the UBC an “atrium” was a three story space and not a two story space as defined in all editions of the IBC.

These are just a few of my many concerns. I implore my colleagues to read this chapter carefully, I have’ over a dozen times. Realize the implications.


----------



## AegisFPE (Dec 15, 2010)

As a member of the State of Washington Fire Code (SWFC) Technical Advisory Group, we shared your concern.

Here is some language from the SWFC amendments:



> 4604.1 General. Means of egress in existing buildingsshall comply with Section 1030 and 4604.2 through 4604.23.
> 
> Exception: Means of egress conforming to the requirements of the building code under which they were constructed and Section 1030 shall not be required to comply with 4604.2 through 4604.21.
> 
> 4604.1.1 Evaluation. Existing buildings that were not required to comply with a building code at the time of construction, and that constitute a distinct hazard to life as determined by the fire official, shall comply with the minimum egress requirements when specified in Table 4603.1 as further enumerated in Sections 4604.2 through 4604.23. The fire official shall notify the building owner in writing of the distinct hazard and, in addition shall have the authority to require a life safety evaluation be prepared, consistent with the requirements of Section 104.7.2. The life safety evaluation shall identify any changes to the means of egress that are necessary to provide safe egress to occupants and shall be subject to review and approval by the fire and building code officials. The building shall be modified to comply with the recommendations set forth in the approved evaluation.


----------



## AegisFPE (Dec 15, 2010)

As a member of the State of Washington Fire Code (SWFC) Technical Advisory Group, we shared your concern.

Here is some language from the SWFC amendments:



> 4604.1 General. Means of egress in existing buildingsshall comply with Section 1030 and 4604.2 through 4604.23.
> 
> Exception: Means of egress conforming to the requirements of the building code under which they were constructed and Section 1030 shall not be required to comply with 4604.2 through 4604.21.
> 
> 4604.1.1 Evaluation. Existing buildings that were not required to comply with a building code at the time of construction, and that constitute a distinct hazard to life as determined by the fire official, shall comply with the minimum egress requirements when specified in Table 4603.1 as further enumerated in Sections 4604.2 through 4604.23. The fire official shall notify the building owner in writing of the distinct hazard and, in addition shall have the authority to require a life safety evaluation be prepared, consistent with the requirements of Section 104.7.2. The life safety evaluation shall identify any changes to the means of egress that are necessary to provide safe egress to occupants and shall be subject to review and approval by the fire and building code officials. The building shall be modified to comply with the recommendations set forth in the approved evaluation.


----------



## FM William Burns (Dec 15, 2010)

I like the amendment since not all old buildings should be exposed to ........  wow did I say that.


----------



## Jobsaver (Dec 15, 2010)

That's the Christmas spirit FMWB!


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 15, 2010)

Chapter 46 Construction Requirements for Existing Buildings. Chapter 46 is also a new chapter in the 2009 International Fire Code . This chapter applies to existing buildings constructed prior to the adoption of this code and intends to provide a minimum degree of fire and life safety to persons occupying existing buildings by providing for alterations to such buildings that do not comply with the minimum requirements of the International Building Code . While this chapter is new, its content existed previously in the IFC but in a random manner that was neither efficient nor user-friendly. In the 2007/2008 code development cycle, code change F294-07/08 was approved that consolidated the retroactive elements of IFC/2006 Sections 607, 701, 704, 903, 905, 907 and 2506 and all of Section 1027 into a single chapter for easier and more efficient reference and application to existing buildings. As with other chapters of the International Fire Code , Section 4602 contains definitions applicable to the chapter contents.

This isn't exactly true because the exception "in the opinion of the fire code official, they do not constitute a distinct hazard to life." is gone


----------



## khsmith55 (Dec 15, 2010)

Mtlogcabin, maybe I’m missing something, could you please direct me to the specific sections in previous Editions of the IFC where quantive requirements were stipulated. If my memory serves me correctly (fading with age) I believe the “concept” of common path of travel did not exist prior to the 1997 UBC (for us western professionals).


----------



## khsmith55 (Dec 15, 2010)

Mtlogcabin, maybe I’m missing something, could you please direct me to the specific sections in previous Editions of the IFC where quantive requirements were stipulated. If my memory serves me correctly (fading with age) I believe the “concept” of common path of travel did not exist prior to the 1997 UBC (for us western professionals).


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 15, 2010)

You are correct the “concept” of common path of travel did not exist in the 1997 UBC (for us western professionals). I believe the exception "in the opinion of the fire code official, they do not constitute a distinct hazard to life." in the 06 codes left it up to the fire official to determine if an improvement had to be made. The 09 does not have this exception and seems to require all buildings to undergo retro to come into compliance however the charging lanqauge is not clear IMHO. The intent and scope are poorly written. IBC Chapter 34 or the IEBC should direct you to IFC Chapter 46 to be used during an alteration or remodel as a means of complying with the I-Codes.


----------



## AegisFPE (Dec 15, 2010)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> IBC Chapter 34 or the IEBC should direct you to IFC Chapter 46 to be used during an alteration or remodel as a means of complying with the I-Codes.


That seems like a reasonable interpretation, but appears inconsistent with a strict reading of the scope and intent of IFC 4601.1 and 4601.2!The intent (4601.2) is to "*provide for alterations*," not "be applied upon alterations," "*to such buildings that do not comply with the minimum requirements of the IBC*," not "to such buildings where the FCO determines a distinct hazard to exist."  In fact, it is not as simple as making these edits, because then you lose the _actual_ retroactive provisions from the '06 Edition that are all mixed in with the other stuff that would not have previously been applied to an existing building in the absence of other improvements.

I agree with your summary of the justification given for the code change MTL, but the text of 46 could _easily_ be interpreted to go beyond applying to an existing building only at the time of alterations.  The exception to 2006 IFC 1027.1 appears to have been deleted in the 2009 Edition.

I think Smith's onto something, that based on 4603.1, it appears that the FD's annual inspection should be applying the "minimum provisions specified in Table 4603.1..." and according to 4604.1, the means of egress shall meet the more restrictive provisions of the building code that applied at the time of construction or the minimum egress provisions in IFC 46, whichever is the most restrictive.

This is quite a tall order for the FD to be responsible for retroactively evaluating all buildings - some may still be working on the retroactive FA provisions limited just to some occupancies (ref. 2006 IFC 907.3), and a tall order for owners of existing buildings to be suddenly subject to the current standards.  Granted, these FA provisions, which in the 2006 Edition specifically stated were retroactive, are still in the 2009 IFC, Section 4603.6, minus the specific retroactive language (because apparently the whole chapter is!).


----------



## AegisFPE (Dec 15, 2010)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> IBC Chapter 34 or the IEBC should direct you to IFC Chapter 46 to be used during an alteration or remodel as a means of complying with the I-Codes.


That seems like a reasonable interpretation, but appears inconsistent with a strict reading of the scope and intent of IFC 4601.1 and 4601.2!The intent (4601.2) is to "*provide for alterations*," not "be applied upon alterations," "*to such buildings that do not comply with the minimum requirements of the IBC*," not "to such buildings where the FCO determines a distinct hazard to exist."  In fact, it is not as simple as making these edits, because then you lose the _actual_ retroactive provisions from the '06 Edition that are all mixed in with the other stuff that would not have previously been applied to an existing building in the absence of other improvements.

I agree with your summary of the justification given for the code change MTL, but the text of 46 could _easily_ be interpreted to go beyond applying to an existing building only at the time of alterations.  The exception to 2006 IFC 1027.1 appears to have been deleted in the 2009 Edition.

I think Smith's onto something, that based on 4603.1, it appears that the FD's annual inspection should be applying the "minimum provisions specified in Table 4603.1..." and according to 4604.1, the means of egress shall meet the more restrictive provisions of the building code that applied at the time of construction or the minimum egress provisions in IFC 46, whichever is the most restrictive.

This is quite a tall order for the FD to be responsible for retroactively evaluating all buildings - some may still be working on the retroactive FA provisions limited just to some occupancies (ref. 2006 IFC 907.3), and a tall order for owners of existing buildings to be suddenly subject to the current standards.  Granted, these FA provisions, which in the 2006 Edition specifically stated were retroactive, are still in the 2009 IFC, Section 4603.6, minus the specific retroactive language (because apparently the whole chapter is!).


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 16, 2010)

Where in the fire code is the requirement to do annual inspections. Our state requires all "E" occupancies to be inspected annually that's it.

2009 IFC

106.1 Inspection authority.

The fire code official is authorized to enter and examine any building, structure, marine vessel, vehicle or premises in accordance with Section 104.3 for the purpose of enforcing this code.

104.3 Right of entry.

Whenever it is necessary to make an inspection to enforce the provisions of this code, or whenever the fire code official has reasonable cause to believe that there exists in a building or upon any premises any conditions or violations of this code which make the building or premises unsafe, dangerous or hazardous, the fire code official shall have the authority to enter the building or premises at all reasonable times to inspect or to perform the duties imposed upon the fire code official by this code.

So is the FO doing inspections simply tp enforce the entire fire code or does he have a reasonable cause and believe the building is unsafe dangerous or hazardous and Chapter 46 is needed to be enforced to make it safe. For 20 years I have been taught and the codes supported if it met the adopted code at the time of construction it was allowed to remain as is. I like chapter 46 and believe it can be a usefull tool but as the OP was concerned so am I with "the fire code official shall duly notify the owner of the building" Once the FO knows a problem exists in a building and does not take action to correct it is there some liability on the AHJ part?


----------



## hlfireinspector (Dec 16, 2010)

In the State of Mississippi annual fire inspections are required to maintain you insurance rating. Fauilure to enforce code or correct violations can result in lost of your fire rating also. I agree that a building legally constructed under the code that was in place at the time of construction is a legal building except:

1. Presents an life safety issue.

2. Code has a retro active clause.

3. Has to do with certain code sections that are called out in the code as covering existing buildings.

Prime example: If you go in a building that was constructed prior to the requirment for fire extinguishes do they need fire extinguishers?

                    If you are inspecting a hotel that has no single station smoke detectors, must they be installed?

                    If a building has an occupant load that requires two exits and only has one is the second exit required to be installed?


----------



## permitguy (Dec 16, 2010)

Item 1)  Regarding 4603.3 and 4603.3.4, see section 704 of the '06 IFC.  Regarding table 4604.18.2, see table 1027.17.2 of the '06 IFC.

Item 2)  The absence of a building department does not necessarily mean the absence of a code.  It just means inspections may not have been performed.  You'd have to check old ordinances (unless you already know for sure).  Also, the majority of buildings have probably had some level of renovation since then, and could probably be exempted from the analysis by policy.  I know it says "buildings," but when it comes to egress, it is more realistically the individual tenant spaces you'd be concerned with.

Item 3)  The specific provisions for atriums were already there (see above), and I'm not aware of the old v. new definitions causing any issues.  Though the IBC says an atrium connects two or more stories, the reality is that connecting only two doesn't do much from a requirement prospective.

Regarding frequency of inspections, every state is different, and local AHJ's within the same state are often different.  This is driven by legislation other than the fire code.  In Colorado, it's title 32 article 1 part 10 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, and there are no specific intervals given, leaving it to a "reasonable and prudent" interpretation if a lawsuit evolves.  In Colorado, departmental liablility would be limited by a governmental immunity act if actions that caused harm were not "willful or wanton" (title 24, article 10).  Once again, this could be different for every state.


----------



## FM William Burns (Dec 16, 2010)

> Once the FO knows a problem exists in a building and does not take action to correct it is there some liability on the AHJ part?


Plain and simple, YES.  Regarding issues with existing buildings; we have all seen 100 year old buildings where owners have come and gone each adding their own special touch and in some cases (non permit) alterations to said property.  In cases such as this and for that matter all existing occupancies it is important for juristictions to have in place by state law, ordinance or departmental policy some sort of inspection program for existing structures and this typically falls under fire code enforcement and those places who have adopted a property maintenance code.  Personally, I believe in the language "the fire code official (whoever that is) determines the hazard exists".  This gives reasonable latitude to ordering requirements for changes to be made to make the encountered hazard code compliant.

Example: 100+ year old assembly occupancy wanting to use a balcony that was not used for many years.  The structure itself and means to egress may not be adaquate to support the occupancy or safe and timely egress of let's say 150 occupants.  In a case like this, requirements may be necessary to permit the use of this existing potential hazard including a life safety evaluation that could include structural engineering.


----------

