An Internet-based search for “federal commercial building code" and “building code regulations" in the 2003, 2004 and 2005 issues of the Federal Register did not identify any proposed federal regulations pertaining to these topics.
Energy Conservation Requirements
Code of Federal Regulations
The portion of the CFR relating to energy conservation for commercial buildings and facilities is found under
10 CFR 420–State Energy Program. The stated purpose of this regulation is to promote the conservation of energy, to reduce the rate of growth of energy demand, and to reduce dependence on imported oil–through the development and implementation of comprehensive state energy programs. This regulation initially required that each state's energy conservation rules for new buildings be no less stringent than the provisions of the 1989 edition of ASHRAE Standard 90.1,
Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings.
Federal Register
As indicated in the July 15, 2002, Federal Register, the Secretary of the Interior amended the federal energy conservation regulations in 2002 by mandating compliance with the 1999 edition of the ASHRAE 90.1 Standard. The 2006 edition of the IECC energy conservation requirements regarding commercial buildings reflect the 2004 edition of the ASHRAE 90.1 Standard which the proposed rules would adopt by reference.
Accessibility Requirements
Code of Federal Regulations
The portions of the CFR relating to accessibility in commercial buildings and facilities include the following:
1.
28 CFR 35–Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services
2.
28 CFR 36–Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities
3.
24 CFR 1–Final Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines
The purpose of
28 CFR 35 and
28 CFR 36 is to require public buildings and commercial facilities, including government-owned and -operated buildings and facilities, to be designed, constructed, and altered in compliance with the accessibility construction regulations specified under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). The purpose of
24 CFR 1 is to provide technical guidance on the design and construction of dwelling units as required by the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988. In Wisconsin, the accessibility requirements for the design and construction of public buildings and places of employment, including government-owned and -operated facilities and dwelling units, are currently found under chapter Comm 62 and the 2000 edition of the IBC as adopted by reference under section
Comm 61.05. The intent of the IBC and the amendments included under chapter Comm 62 is to ensure the Wisconsin construction requirements related to accessibility are substantially equivalent to these applicable federal laws and regulations.
Federal Register
Proposed federal regulations and amendments to established federal regulations for accessibility are found in the following Federal Registers:
4.
Federal
Register July 23, 2004, Americans with Disabilities Act and Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Guidelines
The ICC is actively monitoring the proposed changes to the federal standards affecting accessibility and will include these changes in future editions of the IBC and the corresponding ICC/ANSI A117.1–Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities Standard.
Safety Standards for Glazing Materials
Code of Federal Regulations
The portion of the CFR relating to safety glazing material in commercial buildings and facilities is found under
16 CFR 1201–Safety Standard for Architectural Glazing Materials. This standard prescribes the safety requirements for glazing materials used in architectural products, such as doors, sliding glass doors, bathtub doors and enclosures, and shower doors and enclosures. Currently, IBC section 2406 requires glazing material located in human impact locations to comply with
16 CFR 1201.
Federal Register
An Internet-based search of
16 CFR 1201 in the 2003, 2004 and the 2005 issues of the Federal Register did not identify any proposed changes to this standard.
Fire Prevention Code
Code of Federal Regulations
An Internet-based search for “fire prevention" in the CFR identified the following federal regulations that potentially address fire prevention at places of employment in Wisconsin:
1.
29 CFR 1910–Occupational Safety and Health Standards
2.
29 CFR 1926–Safety and Health Regulations for Construction
3.
30 CFR 56–Safety and Health Standards–Surface Metal and Nonmetal Mines
4.
30 CFR 57–Safety and Health Standards–Underground Metal and Nonmetal Mines
5.
33 CFR 127–Waterfront Facilities Handling Liquefied Natural Gas and Liquefied Hazardous Gas
6.
46 CFR 28–Requirements for Commercial Fishing Industry Vessels
7.
46 CFR 34–Firefighting Equipment (on tank ships)
No changes to Comm 14 are intended to supersede these federal requirements, so no comparison is made here to those requirements.
Federal Register
An Internet-based search for “fire prevention" in the 2005 and 2006 issues of the Federal Register identified the following proposed federal rulemaking and related actions that may address fire prevention at public buildings or places of employment in Wisconsin:
2.
Federal
Register November 16, 2005, 49 CFR 173 and
177–pertaining to construction, maintenance, availability and use of safe havens for storage of explosives and other high-hazard materials during transportation
3.
Federal
Register January 19, 2006, Federal Emergency Management Administration solicitation of comments on proposed revisions to the National Fire Incident Reporting System
Explosives and Fireworks
Code of Federal Regulations
An Internet-based search of the CFR found the following federal regulations relating to the activities to be regulated by the proposed rules:
1.
27 CFR 555 – Commerce in Explosives. This regulation contains extensive procedural and substantive requirements relating to (1) interstate or foreign commerce in
explosive materials; (2) licensing of manufacturers and importers of, and dealers in, explosive
materials; (3) issuance of permits; (4) conduct of business by licensees and operations by permittees; (5) storage of explosive
materials; (6) records and reports required of licensees and permittees; (7) relief from disabilities under this part; (8) exemptions, unlawful acts, penalties, seizures, and forfeitures; and (9) marking of plastic explosives. These regulations relating to the storage of explosive materials, such as separation distances and magazine construction, are the same as in chapter Comm 7. These regulations cover fireworks to the extent that display and special fireworks are classified as explosive materials.
2.
30 CFR 56 – Safety and Health Standards – Surface Metal and Nonmetal Mines, This regulation contains requirements relating to the storage, site transportation, use, extraneous electricity and equipment/tools for explosive materials at surface mines.
3.
30 CFR 57 – Safety and Health Standards – Underground Metal and Nonmetal Mines, This regulation contains requirements relating to the storage, site transportation, use, extraneous electricity and equipment/tools for explosive materials at underground mines.
Federal Register
An Internet-based search of the 2004 and 2005 issues of the Federal Register found the following regulations relating to the activities to be regulated by the proposed rules:\
1.
Federal
Register, May 27, 2005. The Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives published a final rule to require licensed importers to identify, by marking, all
explosive materials
they import for sale or distribution.
2.
Federal
Register, December 20, 2004. The Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives published a notice containing the 2004 annual List of Explosive Materials.
7. Comparison with Rules in Adjacent States
An Internet-based search of adjacent states' rules found the following regulations that include similar requirements relating to public buildings and places of employment:
• The Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth administers the Michigan construction codes, which adopt by reference the 2003 editions of the IBC, IRC, IECC, IEBC, and IMC, with amendments. That Department also administers a Michigan fire prevention code, which adopts by reference the 1997 editions of NFPA 1 and NFPA 101®, Life Safety Code®, with amendments. Michigan is in the process of adopting the 2006 editions of the ICC codes. The specific amendments cover differences from the adopted codes and include changes based on Michigan's laws; no amendments have been made relating to automatic fire suppression for residential occupancies.
• The Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry administers the Minnesota State Building Code, which adopts the 2000 editions of the IBC, IRC, IFGC, IMC, and IECC with amendments. The Minnesota Department of Public Safety administers the Minnesota State Fire Code, which adopts the 2000 edition of the International Fire Code® (IFC) with amendments. These Minnesota departments are in the process of adopting the 2006 editions of the ICC codes. The specific amendments cover differences from the adopted codes and include changes based on Minnesota's laws.
• Illinois does not administer a statewide building code. However, the Illinois Office of the State Fire Marshall administers the Illinois Fire Prevention and Safety Rules, which apply statewide and which adopt the 2000 edition of NFPA 101 with amendments.
• The Iowa Department of Public Safety administers the Iowa State Building Code, which adopts the 2003 editions of the IBC, IMC and IEBC. The Iowa State Building Code applies generally to buildings owned by the state of Iowa and to construction projects in local jurisdictions where the Iowa State Building Code is adopted. The only provisions of Iowa's codes that apply statewide relate to accessibility for persons with disabilities, energy efficiency and factory-built structures. The Iowa Department of Public Safety also administers the rules of the State Fire Marshall, which apply to a broad range of occupancies across the state, and which are largely based on NFPA standards, such as the exiting standards in the 2000 edition of NFPA 101, and the requirements for assembly occupancies, in the 2003 edition of NFPA 101. The rules of the State Fire Marshall also allow local jurisdictions to instead apply the IFC.
8. Summary of Factual Data and Analytical Methodologies
The primary methodology for updating the Wisconsin Fire Prevention Code, chapter Comm 14, and the Wisconsin Commercial Building Code, chapters Comm 60 to 66, has been a review and assessment of the latest editions of the national model codes that serve as the basis for the two Wisconsin codes. The department's review and assessment process involved the participation of various advisory councils. The members of the councils represent many stakeholders involved in the building industry, including designers, contractors, developers, regulators, labor, the fire service and the public. (A listing of the councils and the current members is provided at the end of this analysis.)
The department believes that the national model codes reflect current societal values with respect to protecting public health, safety and welfare in the design, construction, use, operation and maintenance of commercial buildings that serve as public buildings and places of employment. The two model code organizations (National Fire Protection Association, NFPA, and International Code Council, ICC) both utilize a process open to all parties in the development of their codes. More information, including background information in the development of the respective 2006 model code editions, may be obtained at the NFPA web site,
http://www.nfpa.org, and the ICC web site,
http://www.iccsafe.org.
For the Commercial Building Code, the review and assessment process involved an examination of the revisions that occurred in the 2003 and 2006 editions of the IBC, IECC, IMC, IFGC and IEBC. The assessment included the evaluation of the current rules under chapters Comm 61 to 65 that modified these ICC codes. In conjunction with the advisory councils, determinations are made as to whether the various technical requirements under the latest editions of the model codes are reasonable for addressing potential risks or concerns, and promoting the public health, safety and welfare. Such determinations may be made based upon experience, forecasts, intuition or projection.
The requirement for more automatic fire suppression in residential occupancies is the most prominent change in this proposal. The IBC has required automatic fire sprinklers in all buildings with Group R fire areas, other than townhouses, since 2001.
Wisconsin law under, s.
101.14 (4) (c), Stats., references the building code of the Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc., now the IBC, as a benchmark for establishing fire suppression rules to protect public health, safety and welfare for public buildings and places of employment, which includes multifamily dwellings.
Under the provisions of
1999 Wisconsin Act 43 and
2005 Wisconsin Act 78 the department was legislatively directed to require fire sprinklers in all new residence halls and dormitories as well as in residential facilities operated by fraternities and sororities regardless of size. These Acts correspond with the requirements for fire sprinklers contained in the 2006 edition of the IBC.
In January 2006 the fire protection systems council and the multifamily dwelling code council recommended that the department proceed to public hearing without amending the IBC sprinkler threshold requirements for residential sprinklers. A recommendation on the matter from the commercial building code council was tied.
Relating to the issue of automatic fire suppression for residential occupancies, the department conducted a survey of all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The survey was completed in May of 2006 and revealed that:
• Thirty-five states have statewide codes that apply to all new residential buildings accommodating three or more dwelling units.
• Thirty-three states have more stringent statewide fire sprinkler requirements for new residential buildings than under the current WCBC. (The WCBC requires automatic fire sprinklers in new construction at 21 or more dwelling units.)
• Twenty-three states require automatic fire sprinkler systems in all new residential buildings of three or more dwelling units, reflecting the sprinkler thresholds of the 2006 IBC.
Fire Sprinkler Triggers within the United States and District of Columbia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Whenever building is greater 10,000 square feet.
Residential fires cause over 80 percent of the annual civilian fire fatalities in the United States. It is estimated that 3,030 civilian fire fatalities and 13,825 civilian fire injuries occurred in residential occupancies in 2005. (National Fire Protection Association Report – Fire Loss in the United States During 2005, July 2006) A U.S. Fire Administration special report reveals that from 2001 to 2004 smoke alarms operated in 34 percent of fatal apartment fires and 12 percent of fatal one- and two- family dwelling fires. (OLS Newsletter, Vol. 21, Nos. 9 & 10)
The department surveyed all 860 Wisconsin fire departments in an attempt to identify the number of civilian and firefighter fire fatalities that had occurred in residential occupancies since 2001. As of September 1, 2006, 560 fire departments have reported:
•Two hundred forty-two civilian fire fatalities occurred in residential occupancies.
• Thirty-three fire fatalities occurred in residential buildings containing 3 to 20 dwelling units, twenty-eight of which occurred in buildings with 3 to 8 dwelling units.
• Eleven fire fatalities occurred in residential buildings containing more than 21 dwelling units.
• Eleven fire fatalities occurred in residential buildings where the number of dwelling units was unknown.
• One hundred eighty-seven of the fire fatalities occurred in one- and two- family dwellings.
• Two firefighter fatalities; one as a result of a heart attack and the other in a single family dwelling fire as a result of a collapsing floor.
The department studied the sprinkler installation costs of 64 recently constructed multifamily dwellings in Wisconsin. Sprinkler installation costs ranged from $0.59 to $3.33 per square foot of building area for the projects. The following table shows the number of buildings studied and the average cost per square foot for buildings in three size categories.
Average Reported Costs of Fire Sprinklers in Dollars/Sq. Ft.
|
No. of Dwelling Units in Building
|
3 – 8
|
9 – 16
|
17 and up
|
No. of Buildings
|
27
|
17
|
20
|
Average cost per square foot
|
$1.87/sq. ft.
|
$1.45/sq. ft.
|
$1.44/sq. ft.
|
The following table shows the estimated average sprinkler installation costs as a percentage of the estimated average total building construction cost for three building categories and whether urban or rural water supplies were available for the sprinkler system.
Average Estimated Cost of Fire Sprinklers as a Percent of Total Building Construction Cost*
|
No. of Dwelling Units in Building
|
3 – 8
|
9 – 16
|
17 and up
|
No. of Buildings Studied
|
27
|
17
|
20
|
Average % of total cost (urban water)
|
1.53%
|
1.85%
|
2.01%
|
Average % of total cost (rural water)**
|
2.98%
|
2.62%
|
2.56%
|
*Total building construction and sprinkler costs were estimated utilizing RSMeans software based upon the location and type of construction for each of the 64 buildings.
**The sprinkler installation cost included an additional $25,000 estimated to cover a water supply reservoir and pump for those projects where an urban water supply was unavailable.
The department compared the impact of increased construction costs due to fire sprinklers for residential occupancies to the cost of mortgage interest. Over the life of a 30-year mortgage, a one percent increase in the amount financed results in approximately the same cost to the consumer as a one-tenth of a percent increase in the mortgage interest rate. Put another way, a two percent increase in construction costs could be expected to impact consumers as much as a two-tenths percent increase in their mortgage rates. The department anticipates that consumers may react to increased costs due to fire sprinklers in much the same way that they react to other cost increases by reducing amenities or reducing the size of the building. A two percent reduction to a 900 square foot dwelling unit is 18 square feet or 6 inches along 36 feet of exterior wall.
Although fire sprinklers may increase the cost of construction, sprinklers do not increase the cost of land. In fact land costs on a per dwelling unit basis may decrease where fire sprinklers are utilized given that an increase in the maximum distance between a sprinklered building and fire department access roads is permitted.
The annual cost of code-required tests on fire sprinkler systems, for apartment and condominium buildings containing three to twenty dwelling units, ranges from $300 to $550, according to a major mechanical contractor active across Wisconsin.
The department found that the sprinkler installation costs in the above study were consistent with the current valuation estimates which are published by Marshall and Swift/Boeckh, LLC, as an industry benchmark for real estate appraisers throughout the country. Consequently, these costs are widely recognized as increasing the assessable or appraisable value of a building, which means these costs can be recouped when the building is sold.
Substantial insurance savings can result from the installation of fire sprinkler systems. Published accounts describe fire insurance savings of 5 to 40% for residential occupancies that are served by fire sprinklers. Savings vary by building construction type, location and type of usage. One insurance industry expert advised Commerce that reduced insurance premiums for sprinkled apartment and condominium buildings may pay for the cost of the sprinkler system over a period of 10 to 15 years.
Substantial savings can also be expected to accrue from the fire damage that would not occur because of the additional fire sprinkler protection. Reported data shows that residential fires caused an estimated $6.8 billion of direct property loss in the United States in 2005. Wisconsin's annual per capita proportion of that loss would be about $126 million.
Automatic fire sprinkler protection has an established worldwide record. Sprinkler protection has been attributed with reducing and often times eliminating the following effects from fires:
