Skip Navigation LinksDLI > Uniform Construction Code > RAC Minutes 5-20-15

UCC Review and Advisory Council

Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Labor and Industry Building, Room E-100
651 Boas Street
Harrisburg, PA 17121

Council Members Present:

Thomas F. McCosby-Chair
Joseph A. Lavalle-Vice-Chair
Stephen Black
Ed Fegley
Craig Glotfelty
Mark Henry
John Kampmeyer
R. Clem Malot
Kathleen McCormick
Christian H. McQuail
Merle Musick
David Nice
David Brooke Rush
Nathan Schaffer
George W. Settle, Jr.
Karen L. Welsh
 

Also Present:

Dwight Decker, Esquire, Assistant Counsel, Dep’t of Labor & Industry
Cindy Sheaffer, Esquire, Assistant Counsel, Dep’t of Labor & Industry
 

Public Speakers:

Bryan Soukup, International Code Council
Shari Shapiro, Calliope Communications
Doug Meshaw, Pennsylvania Builders Association
Eric Lacey, Responsible Energy Alliance
Sarah Miller, Pennsylvania Builders Association,
 

Reporter:

Jennifer Garcia
 
 
The meeting was called to order by Chair Thomas McCosby, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and introduction of all Council Members and attendees.
 
  1. Approval of the minutes from the April 2015 meeting: Mr. Black made a motion to approve the April minutes. Mr. McQuail seconded the motion. The Council approved the minutes by unanimous consent.
     
  2. Approval of Agenda. Chair McCosby amended Number 16 of the Agenda to identify International Wildlife-Urban Interface Code and pointed out that the ICCPC will be split out during the voting process. Mr. Rush made a motion to approve the amended agenda. Mr. Henry seconded the motion. The Council approved the amended agenda by unanimous consent.
     
  3. Chair’s Comments: Chair McCosby observed that the RAC members did a lot of work during the last year, reviewing all 1,902 amendments.
     
  4. Attorney Decker reported that ADM 62 is a table of referenced standards. He noted that NFPA 70 is not listed on the table and therefore, cannot be adopted as a referenced standard as a whole, but that changes made in cycle will be eligible for adoption. Discussion ensued.
     
  5. Report of the Legislation Working Group: No action taken.
     
  6. Report of the Regulation Working Group: No action taken.
     
  7. Public Comments: None.
     
  8. Old Business:
    1. Subcommittee Reports:
      1. IBC Fire Safety:  Mr. Lavalle reported that all amendments were reviewed, voted on and recommended to the RAC.
         
      2. IBC-General:  Mr. Fegley reported that the voting was completed and the recommendation submitted. Mr. Settle added that there were 153 amendments, 12 of which were non-applicable to the Commonwealth.   Of the remaining amendments, 5 amendments were not recommended and 136 amendments were recommended.
         
      3. IFC International Fire Code:  Mr. Kampmeyer reported that the review was completed and submitted.  Mr. Settle advised that there were 222 applicable amendments, which were all recommended.
         
      4. IPC:  Mr. Kampmeyer reported that the committee reviewed about 120-130 changes and all were approved.
         
      5. IRC – Building:  Mr. Lavalle reported that the committee reviewed 272 amendments, finding 3 changes inapplicable and approving the remaining 269 amendments.
         
      6. IRC Plumbing:  Chair McCosby reported that everything was posted, but a few corrections were made to the spreadsheet.  Mr. Settle noted that it was 104 amendments in the affirmative.
         
      7. IWUIC:  Mr. Settle noted that this one was done.
         
    2. Chair McCosby noted that NFPA 70 was not reviewed because they were not aware that it needed to be and the changes were never provided to them.
           
  9. New business: Chair McCosby reviewed the voting procedure, including how the amendments would be presented, that an opportunity for public comments would be given; that council members could request that an amendment be voted on individually and how the voting itself would be conducted. Mr. Rush made a motion to adopt the procedures as presented and Mr. Kampmeyer seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. Mr. Settle explained that they would be voting on amendments as a block, but that individual amendments could be pulled out and voted on individually. Mr. Rush pointed out that it requires a 2/3 vote of the majority to approve an amendment. The council voted and the motion carried.

    VOTING:

    1. Administrative section:
       
      Mr. Fegley advised that the committee recommended that all 31 revisions be accepted. Mr. Settle requested that Amendment 62, pertaining to standards, be pulled out for separate vote.
       
      Public comment: none made.
       
      Mr. Fegley made a motion to accept all positive recommendations and Mr. Malot seconded.
       
      Then the RAC discussed the voting process further, confirming that they could vote on the revisions as a block, but would have to list the revisions individually in the report. Mr. Rush inquired how it would work if a revision was adopted. Chair McCosby explained that the adopted standard would just take the place of the identical existing standard. Mr. Rush was concerned about how this would be promulgated.
       
      Mr. Black called the question on the motion. Vote: Yes -7 and No-8. Motion fails.
       
      Individual considerations:
       
      1. ADM-13: Ms. Welsh made a motion to have ADM 13-13 considered individually. Ms. Welsh explained that ADM 13-13 adds “International Existing Building Code” to the list of “International Property Maintenance Code references.” Mr. Settle seconded the motion. Following discussion, the motion is withdrawn.
         
      2. ADM-62: Mr. Settle made a motion to adopt Administrative 62, which would update the standards referenced in the I-Codes, including NFPA 70.Mr. Lavalle seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. Mr. Fegley confirmed that the intention would be to update the standards that are used with the 2009 codes. The vote was held: Yes –12 and No- 4. Motion fails.
         
    2. After this vote, Mr. Kampmeyer interjected that, given the concern about whether Pennsylvania would have a workable code after this process, the ICC publish a Pennsylvania-specific code.
       
    3. IBC Fire Safety section: Mr. Lavalle reported that his 4-person committee reviewed 105 amendments and recommended all amendments for adoption.
       
      Public Comment: Mr. Bryan Soukup, Esquire, government relations representative for the ICC, he indicated that the ICC would be happy to promulgate a Pennsylvania-specific code, but that any regulatory or technical analysis would need to be done by the Commonwealth. He noted that they could not overrule the Legislature and Act 1 needed fixed. Mr. Kampmeyer observed the extent of the difficulty with this task will depend on how many of the 1900 changes the RAC passes. Shari Shapiro, Calliope Communications, agreed that the ICC could compile the codes, but cannot do the technical analysis to determine whether the new provisions accurately fit in with the other provisions of the codes. She commented that the technical analysis is the real issue.
       
      Chair McCosby commented that Pennsylvania is actually operating under 5 different codes, that including the 2009 codes; the stair geometry code out of the 1992 CABO; anchor bolt requirements are from the 2003 IRC; wall bracing requirements are from the 2006 IRC provisions.
       
      Mr. Lavalle feels like the process is complicated because the amendments that they are reviewing are from 2012 to 2015. He believes that this process will be difficult to impossible to implement without addressing the 2012 code.
       
      Mr. Lavalle moved to vote on the 105 amendments to the IBC Fire Safety Code of 2009. Mr. Musick seconded the motion.
       
      Vote: Yes - 9 and No - 7. The motion fails.
       
    4. Mr. Fegley inquired whether it would be possible to revisit a vote, completed today, to correct or reverse the vote tomorrow. RAC counsel reviewed Robert’s Rules of Order, while the RAC members discussed a motion by Chair McCosby and seconded by Ms. Welsh, to amend the voting procedure to allow the RAC to bring up anything that would not be voted on today, tomorrow. Mr. Black suggested that individual amendments should be pulled out from the block and the RAC should first vote on the remaining block and then the individual amendments held out. Mr. Black commented that the RAC cannot change a vote tomorrow because not all the same council members might be present. Following additional review, Attorney Decker advised that, under Robert’s Rules of Order, the RAC would be able to rescind or amend something previously adopted if approved by a 2/3 vote majority. The motion was withdrawn.
       
    5. IBC-General: Mr. Fegley advised that there were 153 amendments reviewed of which 136 were being recommended for adoption, 12 amendments were non-applicable and 5 amendments were rejected. Mr. Fegley moved to adopt the 136 amendments recommended by the committee. Mr. Lavalle seconded the motion.
       
      Public comment: Ms. Shapiro suggested that there could be problems if the RAC would later decide to adopt a provision, which was previously rejected, to the extent that the provision may affect other provisions that may have been rejected and inquired whether the RAC will need to go back and redo votes on any affected provisions. Chair McCosby reminded everyone that the RAC was discussing the motion to approve the 136 IBC-General amendments.
       
      Additional discussion ensued about the voting procedure ensued. The 5 amendments that were rejected by the committee were pulled out for discussion. Ms. Welsh pulled out Nos. G28-12; G30-12; G201-12 and G227-12.
       
      Vote: Yes - 7 and No - 9. The motion fails.
       
      Individual amendments reviewed:
       
      1. Nos. 214-218: Mr. Fegley made a motion for consideration of the rejected revisions. Mr. McQuail asked why these amendments were rejected. Mr. McQuail made a motion to reclassify the rejected provisions as non-applicable. Mr. Black seconded the motion. Discussion ensued about whether it was necessary to vote on the ones that are non-applicable or that are rejected by the committee. Attorney Sheaffer explained that it was only necessary to vote on the provisions that the RAC wants in, but a council member could bring one forward, which was either rejected or non-applicable, individually, if the member thought it should be considered. Non-applicable provisions are considered a “no” vote. The motions were withdrawn.
         
      2. No. G28: Ms. Welsh explained how this revision amends § 304.1 of the IBC, adding definition for certain food processing establishments to permissible uses for Business Group B. Ms. Welsh moved to adopt G28. Mr. Black seconded the motion. The vote was held: Yes - 13 and No - 2. The motion passes.
         
      3. No. G30: Ms. Welsh explained how this revision modifies the permitted uses concerning certain training and skill development programs under Business Group B. in § 304.1 of the IBC. She moved to adopt G30. Mr. Settle seconded the motion. The vote was held: Yes - 14; No - 0 and Abstain- 2. The motion passes.
         
      4. No. G201: Ms. Welsh explained that the first part of this revision deletes without substitution Chapter 34, existing structures and replaces it with IEBC provisions. She suggested that the IEBC was a more comprehensive code concerning existing buildings. She moved to adopt G201. Mr. Musick seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. Mr. Fegley was not sure the RAC could adopt this motion because the revision might not be consistent with the statute. Ms. Shapiro noted that the procedure has been to allow public comment before the vote. The vote was tabled to obtain additional information. (See q. below)
         
      5. No. G227: Ms. Welsh discussed this revision relating to requirements for replacement windows. She made a motion to adopt G227. Mr. Rush seconded the motion. The vote was held: Yes - 16 and No - 0. The motion passes.
         
    6. IBC-Means of Egress: Mr. Henry reported that the committee reviewed 136 changes and recommends that the RAC adopt all changes. Mr. Henry moved to adopt the 136 code changes.
       
      Public comment: Ms. Shapiro commented about the public comment procedure. Mr. Doug Meshaw asked if the council could announce the vote count because they could not necessarily see the raised hands.
       
      Mr. McQuail seconded Mr. Henry’s motion. Mr. Henry explained that the bulk of the changes were just clarifications and made to create more consistency. Ms. Welsh called the vote. The vote was held: Yes – 7; No – 6 and Abstain - 3. The motion fails.
       
    7. IBC-Structural:
       
      Public comment: none received.
       
      Mr. McQuail reported that 195 sections were reviewed and recommended. Mr. McQuail moved to adopt all 195 sections of the IBC-Structural. Mr. Henry seconded the motion.
       
      Discussion: No further discussion.
       
      Vote: Yes – 7; and No – 9. The motion fails.
       
    8. International Code – Performance Code: Chair McCosby reported that it had no amendments to review.
       
    9. IEBC-Existing Building Code:
       
      Public comment: none received.
       
      Mr. Rush reported that 9 sections were reviewed and 8 sections were recommended for adoption. Section 10.7, which pertained to accessibility of toilet facilities, was not approved because it was deemed not applicable. Mr. Henry moved to adopt the 8 sections approved by the committee. Mr. Kampmeyer seconded the motion.
       
      Discussion: No further discussion.
       
      Vote: Yes – 8; and No – 8. The motion fails.
       
    10. International Energy Conservation Code:
       
      Public comment: Eric Lacey, Responsible Energy Code Alliance, commented that there is an opportunity to improve energy efficiency. He specifically highlighted three 3 code changes for the RAC’s consideration: CE56 would clarify a roofing provision that has been a source of confusion for code officials; CE91 would update thermal envelope requirements, which would make it consistent with ASHRAE 90.1; and RE188 implements the new energy rating index, which would provide flexibility to builders.
       
      Mr. McQuail reported that the committee reviewed 215 changes and recommended 211 changes. The committee did not recommend four changes: CE284, CE332, CE355 and CE362. Mr. McQuail moved to adopt the 211 changes recommended by the committee. Mr. Henry seconded the motion.
       
      Discussion: Mr. McQuail pulled out CE56; CE91 for individual consideration.
       
      Vote: Yes – 6; No – 9 and Abstain - 1. The motion fails.
       
      Individual consideration:
       
      1. Mr. McQuail moved to approve CE56. Mr. Henry seconded. Discussion ensued. Mr. Fegley explained that CE56 revises definitions concerning roof replacement and insulation. Mr. McQuail indicated that this change was important for compliance in the roofing industry. Mr. Rush was concerned about increasing insulation compliance levels might cause people to not fix a roof. Chair McCosby noted that this change would be insanity for some situations. Mr. McQuail noted that 2009 code was very vague.
         
        Vote: Yes – 7 and No – 9. The motion fails.
         
      2. Mr. McQuail withdrew his request to discuss CE91 because it was irrelevant.
         
    11. IECC Residential:
       
      Public comment: Sarah Miller, on behalf of the Pennsylvania Builders Association, reported that the PBA would like RE6-13; RE50-13; RE58-13; RE60-13; RE109-13; RE111-13; RE132-13; and RE195, Part 1, adopted because these sections would increase usability and clarity of the code. Mr. Lacey cautioned that, if only some of the sections were adopted, it could weaken the efficiency of the 2015 code.
       
      Chair McCosby reported that the committee reviewed 45 amendments and approved 36. Chair McCosby moved to adopt the 36 amendments approved by the committee. Mr. Lavalle seconded the motion.
       
      Discussion: no further discussion.
       
      Vote: Yes – 6 and No – 10. The motion fails.
       
      Individual consideration: Ms. Welsh moved that the RAC consider each of the individual sections mentioned during public comment individually. Mr. Settle seconded the motion.
       
      1. RE6: Mr. Settle explained that RE6 provides a definition for insulated vinyl siding requirements. He noted that this change might lower costs. Ms. Welsh moved to approve RE6 and Mr. Settle seconded. No further discussion was made. Vote: Yes – 13; No – 0 and Abstain-3. The motion passes.
         
      2. RE50: Ms. Welsh explained the RE50 amended a table for equivalent U-factors to rectify the conversion from R-factor to U-factor. Ms. Welsh moved to approve RE50 and Mr. Black seconded. Discussion ensued concerning the relevance of this calculation. Vote: Yes – 3; No – 10 and Abstain-3. The motion fails.
         
      3. RE58: Ms. Welsh reported that RE58 relates thermal insulation requirements for vertical doors between unconditioned and conditioned spaces. Ms. Welsh moved to approve RE58 and Mr. Black seconded. Discussion ensued about the relevance of this change. Chair McCosby felt that this provision was misinterpreted by many people. Vote: Yes – 15; No – 0 and Abstain-1. The motion passes.
         
      4. RE60: Ms. Welsh explained that RE60 amends requirements for floor framing insulation in contact under subfloor decking. Ms. Welsh moved to approve RE60. Mr. Settle seconded. Mr. Settle and Ms. Welsh commented that this was a good amendment that could be easily inserted into the code. No further discussion was made. Vote: Yes – 16; No – 0. The motion passes.
         
      5. RE109: Ms. Welsh and Mr. Settle explained that RE109 relates to duct testing and equipment sealing requirements. Discussion ensued about what this provision, if adopted, would change in Pennsylvania; the ICC’s reasoning for the change; and the 2009 provisions. Vote: Yes – 5; No – 7 and Abstain - 4. The motion fails.
         
      6. RE111: Mr. Settle explained that RE111 clarifies duct sealing for low pressure systems. Discussion ensued about the details of this change. Ms. Welsh moved to approve RE111 and Mr. Black seconded the motion. More discussion about what this change requires. Vote: Yes-10; No-3 and Abstain: 2. Motion fails.
         
      7. RE132: Mr. Settle explained that RE132 simplifies pipe insulation requirements and was implemented to lower costs. Chair McCosby moved to approve RE132 and Mr. Black seconded. No further discussion occurred. Vote: Yes – 6; No – 7; and Abstain - 3. Motion fails.
         
      8. RE195, Part 1: Mr. Henry explained that RE195, Part 1 provides procedure for including insulated siding in thermal envelope calculations. Chair McCosby further explained how this change would work. Mr. McQuail noted that this is a follow-up to another provision they approved. Mr. Rush noted there is some confusion about this calculation. Vote: Yes – 15; No – 0; and Abstain - 1. Motion passes.
         
    12. International Fire Code (IFC):
       
      Public comment: Opportunity given, but none received.
       
      Mr. Kampmeyer confirmed that his committee reviewed over 240 revisions, of which 80 were applicable to the UCC and were recommended. The others were pure Fire Code issues that did not relate to construction. Mr. Kampmeyer pulled out F134-13; F144-13; F171-13; F189-13; F299-13, F359-13 and F360-13 for individual consideration. Mr. Kampmeyer moved to approve the applicable sections, which were not pulled for individual consideration. Mr. Malot seconded.
       
      Discussion ensued concerning why certain amendments were deemed inapplicable.
       
      Vote: Yes – 8 and No – 8. The motion fails.
       
      Individual consideration:
       
      1. F134-13: Mr. Kampmeyer explained that F134 concerns the height requirements for NPFA 13R, Sprinkler System installation. He moved to approve F134 and Mr. Musick seconded. Discussion ensued about how adopting this revision would guide which reference standard would apply. Vote: Yes – 11; No – 4 and Abstain - 1. The motion fails.
         
      2. F144-13: Moving to approve F144, Mr. Kampmeyer explained F144 adds the use of water mist systems for kitchen hoods. Discussion ensued about how this system works. Mr. Musick seconded. No further discussion. Vote: Yes – 14; No – 0 and Abstain - 2. The motion passes.
         
      3. F189: Mr. Kampmeyer explained that F189 defines pressurized stairs or pressure elevators hoistways as smoke-controlled systems and moved to approve this revision. Mr. Settle seconded. No further discussion occurred. Vote: Yes – 10; No – 4 and Abstain - 2. The motion fails.
         
      4. F299: Mr. Kampmeyer explained that F299 adds a certain class of aerosol products to Class III commodities in NFPA and moved to approve this revision. Ms. Welsh seconded. No further discussion occurred. Vote: Yes – 8; No – 7 and Abstain - 1. The motion fails.
         
      5. F359: Mr. Kampmeyer explained that F359 concerns placement of ionization or photoelectric smoke detectors relative to cooking equipment and moved to approve this revision. Mr. Settle seconded. Limited discussion confirming that this amendment would reduce accidental activation of these smoke alarms. Vote: Yes – 14; No – 0 and Abstain - 2. The motion passes.
         
      6. F360: Mr. Kampmeyer explained that F360 adds requirements for having carbon monoxide alarms near fuel-burning equipment in a building and moved to approve this revision. Mr. Henry seconded. Discussion ensued to clarify requirements of this provision. Vote: Yes – 9; and No – 7. The motion fails.
         
      7. F171: Mr. Kampmeyer moved to approve F171, explaining that F171 amends requirements for visible alarms in public use areas to comply with the ADA. Some discussion occurred clarifying the requirements of this provision. Mr. McQuail seconded. No further discussion occurred. Vote: Yes – 8; No – 7 and Abstain - 1. The motion fails.
         
    13. International Fuel Gas Code
       
      No public comment made.
       
      Mr. Settle reported that the committee recommended 13 provisions for approval by the RAC and moved for approval of the 13 provisions. Mr. Henry seconded.
       
      Discussion ensued about what these revisions covered. Mr. Settle believes it would be a clean insert into the code.
       
      Vote: Yes – 7 and No – 9. The motion fails.
       
    14. International Mechanical Code
       
      Public comment: Opportunity given, but none received.
       
      Mr. Settle reported that the committee reviewed and recommended 109 amendments. Mr. Henry seconded. Ms. Welsh pull M106 for individual consideration.
       
      No further discussion occurred.
       
      Vote: Yes – 6; No – 9 and Abstain - 1. The motion fails.
       
      Individual consideration:
       
      1. M106: Ms. Welsh explained that M106 deletes requirement that Type 1 hoods are installed over light-duty cooking appliances that produce grease or smoke and moved to approve this revision. Mr. Black seconded. Discussion ensued concerning the lack of need for this requirement. Vote: Yes –16; No – 0 and Abstain - 0. The motion passes.
         
    15. International Plumbing Code:
       
      Mr. Kampmeyer reported that his committee reviewed and recommended all 111 changes. He moved for passage of all 111 changes. Ms. Welsh seconded the motion. Ms. Welsh pulled P35-12 for individual discussion. No further discussion. Vote: Yes – 7; and No – 9. The motion fails.
       
      Individual consideration:
       
      1. P35-12: Ms. Welsh explained that P35 concerns guidelines for certain situations when public toilet facilities may not be required and moved that the RAC approve it. Mr. Black seconded the motion. Discussion ensued concerning the current situation, what this revision was designed to accomplish and specific details of the revision. Vote: Yes – 10; No – 3 and Abstain – 3. The motion fails.
         
    16. IRC-Building
       
      Public comment: Ms. Miller commented that the PBA would like the RAC to adopt RB68; 115, 124, 161, 167, 172, 211, 228, 262, 264, 278, 310, 319, 367, 369, 390, 391 and 435. When asked by Ms. Shapiro, Ms. Miller confirmed that PBA previously submitted comment concerning these sections.
       
      Mr. Lavalle reported that the committee reviewed 272 amendments and approved 269 amendment and 3 were deemed non-applicable. Mr. Henry seconded the motion.
       
      Mr. Fegley asked for Ms. Miller to elaborate on why the PBA wanted the particular revisions adopted. Ms. Miller advised that PBA submitted code change forms on the revisions to each of the council members. Mr. Settle pulled the 18 revisions identified by the PBA out for individual consideration.
       
      The vote held remaining revisions. Vote: Yes – 5; No – 10 and Abstain – 1. The motion fails.
       
      Individual consideration:
       
      1. RB68: Ms. Welsh explained that RB68 allows for unlimited exterior wall penetrations for sillcocks, dryer vent terminations, mechanical draft terminals and electrical equipment in certain instances. Mr. Black seconds. Discussion ensued concerning the requirements of the revision. Vote: Yes – 13; No – 0 and Abstain – 3. The motion passes.
         
      2. RB115: Ms. Welsh explained that RB115 concerns location of safety glazing on the bottom of a stair landing. Mr. Settle seconded. No further discussion. Vote: Yes – 12; No – 0 and Abstain – 4. The motion fails.
         
      3. RB124: Ms. Welsh explained that RB124 concerns windows used for emergency egress and moved to approve it. Mr. Settle seconded. Discussion ensued about the requirements of this revision and its applicability in Pennsylvania. Vote: Yes – 3; No – 11 and Abstain – 0. The motion fails.
         
      4. RB161: Ms. Welsh explained that RB161 concerns requirements for carbon monoxide alarms in existing dwelling units with attached garages or fuel-fired appliances and moved to approve this revision. Mr. Settle seconded. Discussion ensued, clarifying the requirements and the need for this revision. Vote: Yes – 3; No – 11 and Abstain – 2. The motion fails.
         
      5. RB167: Ms. Welsh explained that RB167 adds 23 and 32-inch wood structural panel as a permissible thermal barrier and moved to approve it. Mr. Black seconded. Discussion ensued clarifying the requirements and the fact that this revision likely reflects current practice. Vote: Yes – 9; No – 4 and Abstain – 3. The motion fails.
         
      6. RB172: Ms. Welsh explained that RB172 concerns foam plastic sprayed onto sill plates and headers. Mr. Henry seconded. Discussion ensued concerning the requirements of this revision. Vote: Yes – 15; No – 0 and Abstain – 1. The motion passes.
         
      7. RB211: Mr. Henry moved to approve RB211 and Ms. Welsh seconded. Mr. Henry explained that this revision updates the tables of minimum footing sizes and incremental snow loads. Discussion ensued about what this revision covers. Vote: Yes – 9; No – 5 and Abstain – 2. The motion fails.
         
      8. RB228: Ms. Welsh explained that this revision revises retaining wall definitions and requirements for foundation walls. Ms. Welsh moved to adopted RB228 and Mr. Henry seconded. Discussion ensued about the requirements of this provision and how it would apply. Vote: Yes – 5; No – 8 and Abstain – 3. The motion fails.
         
      9. RB262: Mr. Henry moved to approve RB262 and Ms. Welsh seconded. Mr. Henry explained that this revision provides alternate prescriptive methods to achieve an acceptable lateral load connection to residential decks. He noted that this revision would permit two methods to do it. No further discussion. Vote: Yes – 15; No – 0 and Abstain – 1. The motion passes.
         
      10. RB264: Mr. Henry moved to approve RB264 and Mr. Black seconded. Mr. Henry explained that this revision outlines methods for deck framing for beams, joists and footing for decks. Discussion ensued about the requirements of this revision and the need for this revision to ensure consistency. Vote: Yes – 15; No – 1 and Abstain – 0. The motion passes.
         
      11. RB278: Mr. Henry moved to approve RB278 and Mr. Musick seconded. Mr. Henry explained that this revisions concerns the format for wood frame fasteners and schedules. Discussion ensued clarifying what this revision changed and the requirements. Vote: Yes – 7; No—7 and Abstain – 2. Motion fails.
         
      12. RB310: Mr. Henry moved to approve RB310 and Mr. Settle seconded. Ms. Welsh explained that this revision reduces the amount of wall brace panels required in low seismic areas. Discussion ensued about the need for this revision, exactly what the revision changed, and its requirements. Vote: Yes – 11; No—0 and Abstain – 5. Motion fails.
         
      13. RB319: Ms. Welsh moved to approve RB319 and Mr. Henry seconded. Mr. Henry explained that this revision concerns wall sheathing and truss blocking where the outside edge of the truss web member aligns with the outside face of the wall studs below. Further discussion ensued to clarify the requirements for this revision and how and when it would apply. Vote: Yes – 10; No—4 and Abstain – 2. Motion fails.
         
      14. RB367: Mr. Henry moved to approve RB367 and Mr. Fegley seconded. Ms. Welsh explained that this revision adds to Table R703.5, limits for attachments of wall covers. Discussion ensued, clarifying the application of this revision. Vote: Yes – 4; No—10 and Abstain – 2. Motion fails.
         
      15. RB369: Ms. Welsh moved to approve RB369 and Mr. Henry seconded. Ms. Welsh explained that this revision concerns fastener spacing of wood shakes and shingles. Discussion ensued clarifying what this revision covers, how it applies, and the need for this revision. Vote: Yes – 12; No—2 and Abstain – 2. Motion fails.
         
      16. RB390: Mr. Henry moved to approve RB390 and Ms. Welsh seconded. Mr. Fegley explained that this revision concerns the attachment over foam plastic sheathing and clarifies the types of fasteners used in the application. Discussion ensued concerning what this revision covered, the purpose of the revision and clarifying the requirements. Vote: Yes – 6; No—7 and Abstain – 3. Motion fails.
         
      17. RB391: Mr. Henry moved to approve RB391 and Mr. Fegley seconded. Mr. Fegley explained that this revision concerns the attachment of siding foam insulation over masonry substrate. Discussion ensued, clarifying what this revision covered and its requirements. Vote: Yes – 7; No—7 and Abstain – 2. Motion fails.
         
      18. RB435: Ms. Welsh moved to approve RB435 and Mr. Henry seconded. Mr. Henry indicated that this revision clarifies the tables concerning the roofing underlayment requirement in tables. No further discussion. Vote: Yes – 8; No—6 and Abstain – 2. Motion fails.
         
    17. IBC-General: G201 (tabled earlier to obtain additional information): Discussion ensued about uncertified buildings over which the Department does not have jurisdiction, what construction code officials are required to do, and how this revision would apply given that Chapter 34 was eliminated. Vote: Yes – 10; No—6 and Abstain – 0. Motion fails.
       
    18. IRC-Mechanical:
       
      Public comment: Ms. Miller commented that the PBA would like the RAC to adopt RM34, which concerns make-up air for certain exhaust hoods, and RM53, which concerns requirements for closure systems for certain mechanical duct.
       
      Mr. Musick reported that the committee reviewed 71 amendments and he moved for the adoption of all 71. Mr. Settle seconded. Mr. Henry pulled RM34 and RM53 for individual consideration. No further discussion. Vote: Yes – 8; and No—8. Motion fails.
       
      Individual consideration:
       
      1. RM34: Mr. Settle reported that RM34 requires makeup air in certain exhaust hoods with an excess of 400 cubic feet per minute. Discussion ensued further explaining the application of this revision and how it works. Mr. Musick seconded the motion. Vote: Yes – 13; No—2 and Abstain – 1. Motion passes.
         
      2. RM53: Mr. Musick explained that this revision addresses closure systems with certain types of mechanical ducts joints. Discussion ensued to clarify what this revision does, when it applies and its impact. Vote: Yes – 16 and No—0. Motion passes.
         
    19. IRC-Plumbing:
       
      Public comments: Ms. Shapiro highlighted that RP79 would lower some flow rates for specific issues.
       
      Chair McCosby reported that his committee reviewed 107 amendments, approving 104 and rejecting 3. Chair McCosby pulled RP79 for individual consideration. Chair McCosby moved to approve the 104 amendments approved by the committee. Mr. Settle seconded. No further discussion. Vote: Yes – 6; No—9 and Abstain – 1. Motion fails.
       
      Individual consideration – RP79: Mr. Henry moved to approve RP79 and Chair McCosby seconded it. Ms. Welsh explained that this revision reduces flow rates and discussed the new standards. No further discussion. Vote: Yes – 5; and No—11. Motion fails.
       
    20. IRC-Electric:
       
      Public comment: none made.
       
      Chair McCosby pulled out 68, 72 and 73. He reported that the committee reviewed 77 changes and all were approved. He moved to adopt the changes to IRC-Electric. Mr. Henry seconded. No further discussion was made. Vote: Yes – 6; and No—10. Motion fails.
       
      Individual consideration: Chair McCosby explained that the changes he pulled concern electrical protection of swimming pools. IRC Item No. 68 concerns protection of the bonds of pool water. Chair McCosby summarized the problem and why it was important. Chair McCosby went on to explain that IRC Item No. 72 concerns clearances, ground fault circuit interrupters, grounding of equipment and pool water heaters to comply with the section for permanent pools. He further summarized the problem and indicated that this was a clarification. Chair McCosby explained that IRC Item No. 73 clarifies bonding requirements for hydromassage bathtubs to protect people from an electrical charge.
       
      Some discussion occurred because these changes did not have amendment numbers and Chair McCosby indicated that the changes came from the NFPA, not the ICC. Chair McCosby indicated that the NFPA writes the electrical portions of the ICC Residential code. Mr. Fegley noted that the IRC Residential included the residential requirements of the NFPA 70, National Electric Code of 2014. Vote to approve No. 68, 72 and 73: Yes-12, No-1 and Abstain-3. Motion fails.
       
    21. Mr. Black moved to reconsider Admin 62. Mr. Malot seconded it.
       
      Mr. Settle explained that Admin 62 adopts new reference standards, which should include the NEC. Mr. Kampmeyer asked if the Legislature indicates that the 2014 IRC cannot be included would that negate the RAC’s vote on Admin 62. Chair McCosby felt that it would just be a “no attempt status.” Mr. Settle felt that it would just remove the one that the Legislature considered wrong, but they would still have the others. Ms. Shapiro noted that L7I’s website indicates that IBC 2009, Chapter One was not adopted and Chapter 27 requires that electrical equipment comply with NFPA 2008. Mr. Fegley pointed out that they cannot adopt the administrative provisions from the IBC. Mr. Meshaw noted Chapter One didn’t exist and L&I was required to write the necessary provisions.
       
      Vote was called. Vote on Admin 62 provisions for NEC 2008, 2014: Yes – 12; No—3 and Abstain – 1. Motion fails.
       
    22. Wildlife-Urban Interface Code:
       
      Public comment: None given.
       
      Mr. Malot reported the amendments were all clarifications and the committee recommended adopting all revisions. He moved to adopt the changes and Mr. Kampmeyer seconded. No further discussion made. Vote: Yes – 7; No—8 and Abstain – 1. Motion fails.
       
  10. New business:
     
    1. Mr. Henry moved that the RAC submit a letter to the Secretary of Labor and Industry, recommending that the Department adopt the 2015 codes as a standard. Chair McCosby seconded the motion. Mr. Kampmeyer suggested they include the 740-750 spam emails about adopting the code with whatever they send to the Legislature. Discussion ensued about who received the emails. Mr. Black felt this motion was out of line since they completed the review process and they did make some progress. Attorney Sheaffer noted that the Department does not have the authority under the Act to adopt the 2015 code, so their recommendation to do so will have no effect. Mr. McQuail noted that the RAC never articulated the problem to the Secretary, the State Legislators, and the Governor with the review process and he reiterated the problem. Mr. Kampmeyer agreed that the Legislature is the one who must make the change to the review process. Mr. Glotfelty believes the Legislature understands the problem, but hasn’t had the votes to fix it. Mr. Glotfelty rejects the comment that the RAC didn’t do anything and called the vote. Mr. Lavalle discussed that Legislators don’t know how to fix the problem and the RAC members could help them, but there is a communication problem they need to address. Discussion ensued about whether there was interest, if the Legislature would allow, to continue the review, including the 2012 revisions. Motion called. Vote: Yes – 3; No—12 and Abstain – 1. Motion fails.
       
      Further discussion ensued about the interpretation of the statutory requirements of the RAC’s review process and the impact of current process.
       
  11. Public Comments: Ms. Shapiro suggested that the RAC could have just refused to meet or do anything until the statute changed; L&I could have given the RAC an opinion that would have allowed them to do what they wanted to do; and the RAC could have just done what they wanted to do with the 2015 and gone to court.
     
  12. Future Meetings: The next meeting is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on September 16, 2015 at the Main L&I Building, 651 Boas Street, Harrisburg, PA 17121.
     
  13. The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:25 p.m