ICC Committee Action Hearing – by Dave Cooper

Both Ashley Goodin, SMA Associate Code Rep. and Dave Cooper, Code Development Representative, attended CAH#1 in Orlando, Florida.  Splitting the issues between us based on topic and hearing order enabled us to better focus on each issue and essential points of testimony.  Switching back and forth minimized the confusion that can occur when the proceeding accelerates.

Of the 36 proposals related to our industry, we were successful  in supporting the SMA position in 21 of the 36 proposals.  SMA had submitted 14 proposals of the 36, however our committee decided to withdraw E92 as we were not able to reach consensus on how to address the controversial issues related to cable infill.

Of the 13 remaining 4 were successful

  • E66 – added the text from IRC related to walkline.  IBC now correlated with IRC
  • E69 – Corrected serious error allowing a landing that was smaller than what was needed and clarified width and depth
  • E72 – Added needed landing exception at non-uniform height risers
  • E88 – Limited required guards to only those portions of an open edge that are more than 30 inches abv floor or grade below.

9 were disapproved but in most cases the committee gave positive feedback/suggestions to improve and return in CAH#2.

  • E15 – Scissor Stair Definition
  • E28 – Correct use of defined terms related to stairways
  • E48 – Definition of landing, deletion of “floor or landing” and redundant text replaced by defined term
  • E68 – Nosing projection
  • E71 – Space between tread end and wall/guard
  • E79 – Type II allowed at crash rails and bumper guards
  • E81 – Width & height mins for Type I to replace “min cross-section”
  • E87 – remove “Monumental” ( not worth chasing)

Hot issues we will focus on resolving at CAH#2 to be held in Long Beach, CA, Oct 23-31

  • Landing Definition
  • illumination and contrast –
  • New applications for Type II at bumper guard and crash rails in medical facilities
  • Type I min cross-section
  • Exception to guard height for over easing
  • Social Stairs
  • 2” gap at tread ends

An online Code Change Submission Form has been developed to request issues for the code committee to consider in year 2 of the code cycle that will address IRC – Building and IBC-Structural

ICC/ANSI – A117.1 Accessible Buildings and Facilities Standard  –  Both the A117.1 Committee and Communications, and The Terminology Task Group have scheduled meeting every two weeks through the middle of June 2024.

Stair Contrast has reemerged with hot debate over signs that have trickled down to stair markings. A significant change in the requirement for visual contrast markings on treads now defines the percentage of contrast between solid colors with exceptions for other materials like wood, concrete, terrazzo, carpet, etc. that cannot be measured accurately for light reflectance value.  Where the exceptions apply the prior requirement of “…dark on light or light on dark…” will apply.  However, there are no changes to the size or location of nosing markings.