The reason statements appear after a summary of each code proposal. The "Committee Action" shows the result of the committee’s voting at the hearings. "Assembly Action" shows the result of a hand vote (which is rarely requested) of ICC members present in the hearing room. Assembly action is generally requested when someone (usually the proponent) thinks that the ICC members are in disagreement with the code development committee. If a floor vote was taken, the result is shown as "Assembly Action."

What Next?
The Public Comment Period is now open until January 24, 2007. During this time, using the proper form, anyone can comment on the proposals. The comments are basically letters showing support or opposition to the proposal or the committee’s action. Before the Final Action Hearings in May, the comments will all be published for review. In May, anyone present at the hearings who is an ICC member can vote on any proposal.

If you would like to express your opinion on any proposal, please use the links immediately below for instructions.

• To submit a public comment, visit:
  http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes/publicforms.html
  
  
• For the full 06/07 Code Development Schedule:
  http://www.hydrogenandfuelcellsafety.info/hipoc/keyDates.asp
  

International Fire Code

F53-06/07
"Lithium Metal Polymer batteries" [download PDF]
Proponent: Ronald Marts, Telcordia Technologies, representing AT&T, SBC, Ameritech, PacBell, Cincinnati Bell, Qwest, Southern New England Telephone

Summary: This proposed change simply adds Lithium Metal Polymer (LMP) batteries to the following sections of the International Fire Code:
Chapter 6: Building services and systems
Section 602: Definitions
Section 608: Stationary storage battery systems

Interested parties should also take a look at F54 "Required attendant for battery storage ventilation systems" for any potential impact on this code proposal.

Committee Action: Disapproved
Committee Reason: The proposal would exclude other Lithium Metal Polymer technologies, such as magnesium dioxide cathodes, and the hazards of thermal runaway have not been addressed. Also, the proposed definition includes text that is essentially commentary.
Assembly Action: None


[Return to List of Proposals]


F54-06/07
"Required automatic status monitoring of lead acid battery room ventilation systems" [download PDF]
Proponent: Lynne M. Kilpatrick, Fire Department, City of Seattle, WA

Summary: This code change is a new section proposed for 608.6 of the International Fire Code:
Chapter 6: Building services and systems.
Section 608: Stationary storage battery systems
Section 608.6: Ventilation

This change requires that the ventilation systems in 608.6.1 (room ventilation) and 608.6.2 (cabinet ventilation) which are required to insure that the concentration of hydrogen does not exceed 1% or present an explosion hazard. This proposal adds an additional requirement for supervision by an "approved central, proprietary, or remote station service" or the activation of "an audible and visual signal at a constantly attended on-site location." According to a discussion with the proponent, this proposal only applies to stationary lead-acid battery systems with an electrolyte capacity >50 gal. and would require status monitoring of the ventilation system (air flow - no air flow) already required by 608.5. This is typically accomplished with a vane-type paddle in the duct that changes position when there is no airflow and activates a position switch that can be monitored by the fire alarm system. Although this change will increase the cost of new installations, cost may not increase by much since the smoke detectors already required (by 608.8) will make sure a fire alarm system is present and a fire alarm circuit is nearby.

Interested parties should also take a look at F53 "Lithium Metal Polymer batteries" for any potential impact.

Committee Action: Disapproved
Committee Reason: The proposal provides no justification as to why supervision should be required now after many years of battery operated equipment (e.g., golf carts, etc.) charging for prolonged periods. It also does not specify what aspects of the ventilation system are to be supervised.
Assembly Action: Approved as Submitted


[Return to List of Proposals]


F154-06/07
"Vehicle overpressure protection" [download PDF]
Proponent: Thomas Joseph, Chair, Hydrogen Industry Panel on Codes

Summary: This proposal is for Chapter 22 (Motor fuel-dispensing facilities and repair garages) of the International Fire Code.

This proposal suggests the level at which the overpressure system on the dispenser side of the vehicle fueling system should activate to prevent overwhelming the vehicle fuel system. The level was chosen to be consistent with overpressure levels as determined by SAE. SAE has recently tweaked their overpressure level from 140% to 138% to be consistent with other requirements. Safety-wise, this should be a negligible change.

Committee Action: Approved as Submitted
Committee Reason: Based on the proponent’s reason statement. The proposal provides a provision that is already in NFPA 52 to provide protection for vehicle tanks when they are connected for refilling.
Assembly Action: None


[Return to List of Proposals]


F155-06/07
"Indoor fast-fill dispensing" [download PDF]
Proponent: Thomas Joseph, Chair, Hydrogen Industry Panel on Codes

Summary: This proposal suggests new language for Chapter 22 (Motor fuel-dispensing facilities and repair garages) of the International Fire Code. Current provisions of the code do not address the requirements for indoor attended fast fill systems (systems designed to provide a fuel fill rate greater than or equal to 12 Standard Cubic Feet per Minute (SCFM)). According to the proponent, fast fill hydrogen fuel dispensing can be safely accomplished with the requirements added by this new section 2209.5.

Committee Action: Disapproved
Committee Reason: The proponent requested disapproval to work through a number of technical issues with the proposal..
Assembly Action: None

Editor’s Note: This proposal was significantly improved in the minds of many industry companies just before the Code Development Hearings. However, since there were so many changes presented just before the proposal was heard, there was not enough time for the Fire Code Development Committee to review the modifications to the submitted proposal. It is likely that the modifications will be suggested through the Public Comment period.


[Return to List of Proposals]


F156-06/07
"Electrostatic discharge for fueling pads" [download PDF]
Proponent: Thomas Joseph, Chair, Hydrogen Industry Panel on Codes

Summary: This proposal suggests new language for Chapter 22 (Motor fuel-dispensing facilities and repair garages) and Chapter 45 (Referenced standards) of the International Fire Code as well as Chapters 4 (Special Detailed Requirements Based On Use And Occupancy) and 45 of the International Building Code. The current language does not address safety issues associated with electrostatic discharges (ESD). According to the proponent, fueling surfaces for hydrogen powered vehicles should be at least as protective regarding ESD issues as those fueling surfaces used for petroleum powered vehicles. This language is intended to reduce the probability of a static spark by requiring that the pad the vehicle sits on will effectively ground the vehicle. The proposal references a European Standard. Although the European standard (DIN/CEN 1081) was not developed through the American ANSI process (a criterium for ICC Codes), it was developed in a very similar, consensus-based process. Many industry professionals believe that the alternative standard applicable in this instance, ASTM F 150, is inferior because the process described to measure resistivity is not easily repeatable in a consistent fashion.

ICC Staff Note: The following analysis was not in the Code Change Proposal book but was published in the "Errata to the 2006/2007 Proposed Changes to the International Codes and Analysis of Proposed Referenced Standards" provided at the code development hearings: Analysis: Review of the proposed new standard indicated that, in the opinion of ICC staff, the standard did not comply with ICC standards criteria, Sections 3.6.2.11 and 3.6.3.2.

Editor’s Note: It is likely that industry representatives, during the comment period, will suggest modifications that will either show that DIN/CEN 1081 is appropriate for reference in an ICC Code or allow the code user to choose between applicable standards.

PART I — IFC
Committee Action: Disapproved
Committee Reason: In was unclear how the proposed standard for resilient floor coverings would apply to non-coated concrete.
Assembly Action: None

PART II — IBC GENERAL
Committee Action: Disapproved
Committee Reason: The standard proposed for inclusion had not been provided for review by the committee.
Assembly Action: None


[Return to List of Proposals]


F157-06/07
"Consistent 'listing' of lighter-than-air gas detection systems" [download PDF]
Proponent: Greg Rogers, South Kitsap Fire & Rescue, representing ICC Joint Fire Service Review Committee

Summary: This code change proposes modifications to subsections 2211.7.2 and 2211.7.2.1 of the International Fire Code:
Chapter 22: Motor fuel-dispensing facilities and repair garages
Section 2211: Repair garages
Section 2211.7: Repair garages for vehicles fueled by lighter-than-air fuels
Section 2211.7.2: Operation
Section 2211.7.2.1: System design

The code change will change gas detection systems from requiring to be "approved" to requiring that they be "listed or approved." The proponent says this change is needed because similar sections in other parts of Chapter 22 (See 2208.2.2 which deals with natural gas motor fuel dispensing facilities and 2209.2.2 which deals with hydrogen motor fuel-dispensing and generation facilities) require gas detection systems to be "listed." Both 2208 and 2209 require that some types of equipment be "approved," some "listed" and others "listed and labeled." In sections, 2208.2.2 and 2209.2.2, gas detection systems are required to be "listed." This code change would require gas detection systems in repair garages for vehicles fueled by lighter-than-air fuels to be "listed or approved."

Committee Action: Approved as Modified
Modify the proposal as follows:
2211.7.2 Gas detection system. Repair garages used for repair of vehicles fueled by nonodorized gases, such as hydrogen and nonodorized LNG, shall be provided with a flammable gas detection system.

2211.7.2.1 System design. The flammable gas detection system shall be listed or approved and shall be calibrated to the types of fuels or gases used by vehicles to be repaired. The gas detection system shall be designed to activate when the level of flammable gas exceeds 25 percent of the lower flammable limit (LFL). Gas detection shall also be provided in lubrication or chassis repair pits of repair garages used for repairing nonodorized LNG-fueled vehicles.
Committee Reason: The proposal adds consistency to the gas detection system requirements. The modification will provide an alternative approval to listing.
Assembly Action: None


[Return to List of Proposals]


F172-06/07
"Addressing hydrogen cylinders stored in outdoor cabinets" [download PDF]
Proponent: Paul J. Buehler, Jr., Plug Power, Inc.

Summary: This code change has three parts. Part one proposes new sections 3003.7.11 through 3003.7.11.2. Part two proposes new section 3504.2.2. Part three proposes a new reference in Chapter 45. All parts pertain to sections of the International Fire Code.

Part One
Chapter 30: Compressed Gases
Section 3003: General requirements
Section 3003.7: Separation from hazardous conditions
Section 3003.7.11: Exposure to fire

Part Two
Chapter 35: Flammable Gases
Section 3504: Storage
Section 3504.2: Outdoor storage

Part Three
Chapter 45: Referenced standards

According to the proponent, this proposal revises outdated material because current International Fire Code and NFPA 55 sections do not deal with the storage of bottled hydrogen out of doors inside cabinets, but rather only consider "naked" cylinders or indoor gas cabinets per Sections 2703.8.6 "hazardous material gas cabinet construction requirements" and 3006.2.3 "medical gas system cabinets." This amendment pertains directly to the hydrogen storage and appears to facilitate the placement of bottled hydrogen in outdoor cabinets in proximity to low powered electrical equipment. Interested parties should view the actual code change by clicking the F172 link above to note the maximum allowed quantity of hydrogen that can be stored in an outdoor cabinet and separation distances to both combustible waste/vegetation and electrical equipment.

ICC Staff Note: The following analysis was not in the Code Change Proposal book but was published in the "Errata to the 2006/2007 Proposed Changes to the International Codes and Analysis of Proposed Referenced Standards" provided at the code development hearings:
Analysis: Review of the proposed new standard indicated that, in the opinion of ICC staff, the standard did not comply with ICC standards criteria, Sections 3.6.2.11 and 3.6.3.2.

Committee Action: Disapproved
Committee Reason: Chapter 30 is a general compressed gas chapter. The proposed provisions more appropriately belong in the material-specific chapter for flammable gas, Chapter 35. The proposal would allow telecommunication cabinets to be used as hazardous materials storage cabinets with no apparent approval guidance for the fire code official. The proposed standard does not comply with ICC standards criteria and it is unclear whether it would be suitable if applied to the subject matter of this proposal. The standard discussed hydrogen offgassing in battery charging applications but it is unclear how that relates to cylinder storage.
Assembly Action: None


[Return to List of Proposals]


F175-06/07
"Diking around above ground LH2 storage" [download PDF]
Proponent: John C. Dean, The National Association of State Fire Marshals

Summary: This code change proposes additional language to the drainage subsection of the outdoor storage of cryogenic fluids section (3204.3.1.3) in the International Fire Code.
Chapter 32: Cryogenic Fluids
Section 3204: Storage
Section 3204.3: Outdoor storage
Section 3204.3.1: Stationary containers

According to the proponent:
There has been considerable discussion on the requirement for, or prohibition of, or restriction on, the use of diking around above-ground LH2 storage. The proposed language captures the intent to prevent liquid hydrogen from entering areas not zoned/rated for flammable gas, and to control the ground-level vapor cloud, to the extent possible, to within areas designed to address a flammable mixture.

There are advantages and disadvantages to diking. The disadvantage is that it may increase the resident time of a vapor cloud over the affected area. However, this is also considered a positive, as it reduces the total affected area. This may be particularly important if adjacent property is not properly zoned to address a hydrogen leak. The proposed language serves to minimize the affected area to the extent possible, while still preventing additional hazards from forming.

While the language in the proposal does not directly require diking (it is one option for containment), many industry professionals believe it is unwise to offer diking as an option because it is more likely to cause harm than provide benefits to public safety. One opponent at the Code Development Hearings stated that in a few decades of handling liquid hydrogen and after specific testing designed to determine if liquid hydrogen will pool if spilled, his company never saw pooled liquid hydrogen. The situation diking is designed to prevent, in their opinion, is non-existent due to the specific properties of liquid hydrogen.

Committee Action: Disapproved
Committee Reason: The scope of the proposal exceeds the nature of the LH2 hazard since it would take an extremely large and rapid leak to get a pool of LH2 large enough to warrant such site work.
Assembly Action: None


[Return to List of Proposals]


F191-06/07
"Movement of LH2 language and new LH2 tank requirements from CGA" [download PDF]
Proponent: Larry Fluer, Fluer, Inc., representing Compressed Gas Association

Summary: This code change proposal has several parts to it. In general, it appears to try to keep Chapter 32 (Cryogenic Fluids) as a general chapter (not specific to any particular cryogenic liquid). As a result, the proponent is proposing to change the title of Chapter 35 (currently Flammable Gases) to become "Flammable Gases and Flammable Cryogenic Fluids" This simple change could have a potential impact on F175 (Dean/NASFM-see above) which proposes hydrogen-specific changes to the general chapter 32.

Other new language proposed in 3501.1 suggests that above ground hydrogen storage systems shall be in accordance with Chapter 22 (Motor fuel-dispensing facilities and repair garages). This modification could have an impact on F172 (Buehler/Plug-see above) which deals with above ground storage of outdoor hydrogen cabinets.

Part 1. NFPA 55 contains material specific provisions for "bulk" hydrogen systems. The term "bulk" has been added to direct the user to the applicable sections of the Standard. Two new definitions have been added to define "bulk liquefied" and "bulk compressed" gas systems where specific details surrounding such installations can be found.

Part 2. Chapter 32 was intended to be a generic chapter for all cryogenic fluids. Hazards relating to specific cryogenic fluids (like liquid hydrogen) were to be placed into the appropriate chapter based on the nature of the material. A code change was introduced into the last code cycle (F216-04/05 Fluer, representing CGA) to relocate the requirements for liquid hydrogen tanks to Chapter 35, however, the necessary correlating changes and references were overlooked and the code change was rejected at the request of the proponent.

The provisions for liquid hydrogen have now been proposed to be relocated without change to the language from Chapter 32 (cryogenic fluids) to Chapter 35 (Flammable Gases and Flammable Cryogenic Fluids) in the specific section 3506. Section 3506 is the only section in the chapter intended to apply to cryogenic fluids, and hydrogen is the sole cryogenic fluid provided for at this time.

Sub-section 3506.3 has been added as a new section to address the requirements for tank construction in a more specific manner than that described by Section 2703.2.1. The design criteria are found in newly published CGA Standard H-3-2006 Cryogenic Hydrogen Storage. According to the proponent, the minimum design requirements established by Section 3506.3 coupled with the general requirements of Chapter 32 applicable to all cryogens improve the code resulting in greater consistency and an increase in public safety.

Approval of this code change will help Chapter 32 to remain as a generic chapter applicable to all cryogens while placing material specific requirements into the material specific chapters as desired.

Committee Action: Approved as Modified
Modify the proposal as follows:
3501.1 Scope. The storage and use of flammable gases shall be in accordance with this chapter. Compressed gases shall also comply with Chapter 30 and cryogenic fluids shall also comply with Chapter 32. Bulk hydrogen compressed gas systems and bulk liquefied hydrogen gas systems shall also comply with NFPA 55.

Exceptions:

1. Gases used as refrigerants in refrigeration systems (see Section 606).
   
2. Liquefied petroleum gases and natural gases regulated by Chapter 38.
   
3. Fuel-gas systems and appliances regulated under the International Fuel Gas Code.
   
4. Hydrogen motor fuel-dispensing stations and repair garages and their associated above ground hydrogen storage systems designed and constructed in accordance with Chapter 22.
   
5. Pyrophoric gases in accordance with Chapter 41.
   (Portions of proposal not shown remain unchanged)

Committee Reason: Based on the proponent’s reason statement. The proposal will continue Chapter 32 as the general cryogens chapter while Chapter 35 will continue to develop as the material-specific chapter for flammable gases and cryogenic fluids. Additional correlation of in-code references is also provided along with clearer direction on the application of the referenced standard, NFPA 55, to bulk systems. The modification clarifies that the exception is only applicable to tanks associated with fuel dispensing.
Assembly Action: None


[Return to List of Proposals]


F193-06/07
"Telecomm cabinets and transfer switches near outdoor hydrogen cabinets" [download PDF]
Proponent: Paul J. Buehler, Jr., Plug Power, Inc.

Summary: This code change proposes a modification to Table 3504.2.1 "Flammable gases-Distance from storage to exposures" in:
Chapter 35: Flammable Gases
Section 3504: Storage
Section 3504.2 Outdoor storage

According to the proponent, the purpose of F172 is to clear up some language and to allow the use of NEBS rated fuel cell systems within 5 feet of NEBS rated telephone equipment.

This code change will allow the location of NEBS rated telecommunications cabinets and National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) rated outdoor transfer switches to be located within 5 feet of the outdoor hydrogen cabinets discussed in F172. NEBS is an acronym which stands for Network Equipment Building Systems, and is controlled by a series of Telcordia documents. It is the telephone company equivalent of UL listing, essentially. It is very strict, and requires equipment to stand up to brushfire, gunshot, earthquake and wind-driven rain tests. It also has requirements for radio-frequency shielding and a whole host of other things that are not applicable here.

Also, with this code addition, the disconnect switches will be located between 0 and 4 feet above ground.

Again, according to the proponent:
The disconnect switch is required for personnel protection while working on the circuitry between the fuel cell and the load. It is not a device which is activated for any other purpose. Therefore, the use of fuses in the disconnect switch is not required. Plus, fuses are placed inside the fuel cell and sometimes at the load, making disconnect fuses redundant and also a possible location for electrical faults. Fuses, unless they are potted, are a spark source, so it is best to avoid them in this application.

The disconnect switch would only be activated then by a workman. And, logically, the fuel cell would not be in operation when the switch is thrown for electrical reasons. So, the hazard in using an unfused switch is "close to nil."

Now, that then leads us to the next portion of the question, where should such a switch be located? It needs to be in close proximity to the fuel cell, within 6 feet, depending on how one interprets the National Electric Code. Using certain scientific studies, we know we want this switch to be located someplace where hydrogen gas normally cannot be present - below the ridge vent.

But, what if there is a low-pressure leak in the external tubing between cabinets? Could not that hydrogen collect in a bad place? The answer is that if a rupture occurs the excess flow valve in the fuel cell system operates and shuts off the flow of hydrogen from the tanks. Then the volume of expelled gas is essentially just that which is in the low pressure tubing, 6.1 cubic inches, which does not constitute a flammable mixture.

Therefore, this code change proposes that the unfused disconnect switch be allowed to be housed in a general purpose box, at an elevation not to exceed 48 inches above ground. This provides a small factor of safety with reference to the elevation of the ridge vent, 70 inches above ground.

Committee Action: Disapproved
Committee Reason: For consistency with the action on F172-06/07.
Assembly Action: None


[Return to List of Proposals]


F194-06/07
"Guidance for metal hydride systems" [download PDF]
Proponent: Larry Fluer, Fluer, Inc., representing Compressed Gas Association

Summary: This proposal adds new sections 3506 and 3502.1 dealing with metal hydride hydrogen storage systems in:
Chapter 35: Flammable Gases (F191 suggests a change to this chapter's title)
Section 3502: Definitions
Section 3506: Metal hydride storage systems

This proposal adds language relevant to metal hydrides. Part of the language had been a part of the fire code before, and was deleted during the last cycle. The committee approved the deletion of the above text based on the fact that it leads the code official to believe that there are listed systems available when, in fact there were none. In addition, standards for testing and listing of the systems were not yet final. In support of the action to strike the language from the code the committee suggested that until such time as there are listing standards… "it would be better if the code included, in codified form, the safeguards that are currently used by the industry for the systems that are currently in use in the field."

The code change now proposed by the Compressed Gas Association (CGA) is an effort to bring the parties to consensus in a manner that recognizes the presence of these unique systems, and to place fundamental requirements in the code to address their use.

Like the language approved and rejected before, this proposed language (with some additions) still proposes that the metal hydride container be treated as a flammable gas and not with any special treatment to whatever materials may make up the metal hydride mixture. The reason this is consider a safe practice is because the metal hydride tanks are designed to always contain the metal hydride. Since the metal hydride is expected to always remain in its tank, the thought is that only the substance entering and leaving the tank should be regulated-in this case, the flammable gas: hydrogen.

Absence of this language will give the code official no guidance on how to regulate metal hydride systems, but interested parties should look at the specific language proposed to identify any impacts to their business.

Committee Action: Approved as Submitted
Committee Reason: Based on the proponent’s reason statement. The proposal will add needed code provisions on metal hydride storage systems for the absorption and storage of hydrogen.
Assembly Action: None


[Return to List of Proposals]


F229-06/07
"New requirements for indoor hydrogen storage" [download PDF]
Proponent: John C. Dean, The National Association of State Fire Marshals

Summary: This proposal suggests the creation of a new section on indoor hydrogen storage in Chapter 7 of the International Fuel Gas Code.
Chapter 7: Gaseous Hydrogen Systems
Section 706: Location of gaseous hydrogen systems
Section 706.4: Indoor storage of hydrogen

This proposal adds new language to the International Fuel Gas Code providing requirements for indoor storage of hydrogen. Interested parties should compare these requirements with other sections in the International Fire Code (Chapters 27, 30 and 35) for relevance to indoor hydrogen storage. According to the proponent, these additions differ from anything in existing code in that they stipulate pressure limits, not just quantities of hydrogen gas. Ventilation and alarms are required so that should there be a gas leak, it is detected and there is no chance of asphyxiation.

Committee Action: Disapproved
Committee Reason: Should be a subsection in IFGC Section 706.2.
Assembly Action: None


[Return to List of Proposals]


International Mechanical Code

M56-06/07
"Ventilation requirement moved from exhaust to ventilation" [download PDF]
Proponent: Ronald Marts, Telcordia, representing AT&T, SBC, Ameritech, PacBell, Cincinnati Bell, BellSouth, Qwest and Southern New England Telephone

Summary: This proposal moves language from the exhaust section of Chapter 5 of the International Mechanical Code to the ventilation section. It appears that the ventilation requirement for stationary storage battery systems was inadvertently put in the "exhaust" chapter of the IMC instead of the ventilation chapter. Language appears to be unchanged during the relocation.

Chapter 5: Exhaust systems
Section 502: Required systems

Chapter 4: Ventilation Systems
Section 407 (New section): Ventilation of Stationary Storage Battery Systems

Analysis from Fire Code Committee: It is not clear why the proponent did not propose to relocate other sections of 502 that also address ventilation rather than exhaust. The code does not distinguish between ventilation by means of exhaust systems or by means of supply air systems

Committee Action: Disapproved
Committee Reason: The proposal was not considered to be comprehensive enough; there are other sections in the exhaust section that also address ventilation.
Assembly Action: None



[Return to List of Proposals]


International Fuel Gas Code

FG54-06/07
"H2 Piping-Concealed Locations" [download PDF]
Proponent: Guy Tomberlin, Fairfax County, Virginia, representing Virginia Plumbing and Mechanical Inspectors Association (VPMIA) and the Virginia Building Code Officials Association (VBCOA)

Summary: This code proposal suggests the deletion of a couple words in part of the International Fuel Gas Code
Chapter 7: Gaseous hydrogen systems
Section 704: Piping, use and handling
Section 704.1: Applicability
Section 704.1.2: Piping systems
Section 704.1.2.3 Piping design and construction
Section 704.1.2.3.5: Protection against physical damage

In the last cycle, it was approved to not permit hydrogen piping to be located inside in a concealed location. This will maintain clarity in a section affected by the previous decision. The rest of the text is important to remain because piping could potentially be installed that is exposed on one side of a wall ceiling or floor but could still have a covering installed on the other.

Committee Action: Approved as Submitted
Committee Reason: Current code does not permit hydrogen piping to be concealed.
Assembly Action: None


[Return to List of Proposals]


Fire Safety Code of the International Building Code

FS37-06/07
"Fire barrier definition" [download PDF]
Proponent: Philip Brazil, P.E, Reid Middleton, Inc., representing himself

Summary: The definition of fire barrier was revised last cycle from begin a vertical or horizontal assembly to being a wall assembly and by deleting the provisions for horizontal fire barriers. The proposal, however, did not make the necessary revisions to other sections of the International Building Code, which are needed in order for the concept to be fully incorporated into the provisions of the IBC. The purpose of this proposal is to make the necessary revisions to the provisions in those code sections.

This proposal recommends small changes to many different sections of several I-Codes.

Errata: Replace the proposal shown in the monograph with the text in this errata:

FS37-06/07 Errata (99Kb PDF)


PART I — IBC FIRE SAFETY
Committee Action: Approved as Submitted
Committee Reason: The proponent has correctly addressed an inconsistency in the code which has been caused by the changes made by FS2-04/05 in a previous code change cycle. Those changes made the distinction that fire barriers were walls and did not include horizontal assemblies. By going through these sections and making these changes, it provides consistency between the intent of FS2-04/05 and between the sections which were not addressed by that proposal. This action also is consistent with the action taken by the IFC committee earlier.
Assembly Action: None

PART II — IBC GENERAL
Committee Action: Approved as Submitted
Committee Reason: The revisions to add horizontal assemblies in addition to fire barriers are consistent with changes made to other portions of the code in the 2006 edition. This action is also consistent with the action on Part I of the proposal.
Assembly Action: None

PART III — IBC MEANS OF EGRESS
Committee Action: Approved as Submitted
Committee Reason: The revised language in Sections 1021.3 and 1022.2. would provide consistency in the code for the usage of the terms fire barriers and horizontal assemblies.
Assembly Action: None

PART IV — IFC
Committee Action: Approved as Submitted
Committee Reason: The proposal completes a needed correlation effort undertaken in the 2004/2005 cycle to provide consistent terminology and references when referring to fire barrier and horizontal assembly enclosures.
Assembly Action: None


Reference

• Full Report on the Code Development Hearings
  http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes/2006-07cycle/ROH