# 2009 IBC and Section 906



## jar546 (Oct 17, 2009)

What took so long to get this added to the IBC?  What are the pros and cons of having this in the IBC?  I am happy to see it in there.


----------



## hazmatpoobah (Oct 17, 2009)

Re: 2009 IBC and Section 906

Most building officials felt like the portable fire extinguisher provisions would be dealt with the local FD. The problem with that logic was in many areas the building code official is the only regulatory official who deals with buildings. The code official has to master many codes. As a result, a code changes was submitted by either a NY or NJ code official that added the reference to IFC Section 906.


----------



## mueller (Oct 18, 2009)

Re: 2009 IBC and Section 906

poobah-

great link    Now i'm glad the planning board shot down the walmart.


----------



## JBI (Oct 19, 2009)

Re: 2009 IBC and Section 906

haz - TOO funny!  :lol:

We do have a Wal-Mart, and the folks who frequent are an 'interesting' bunch...  :roll:

On topic: I'm a little confused by the OP. I just checked the I-codes on-line (still works BTW) and 906 has read the same since the 2000 IBC.  :?

Edit: OK, I'm a dumba$$! Just checked the 2009 and understand the OP now...


----------



## TJacobs (Oct 21, 2009)

Re: 2009 IBC and Section 906

I didn't think it was necessary, but I guess it beats having to look in the IFC.  God forbid a BO opens the fire code...


----------



## JBI (Oct 21, 2009)

Re: 2009 IBC and Section 906

Jake - "God forbid a BO opens the fire code..."

Do I detect a note of cynicism there?


----------

