Upholds Decision to Disapprove S141 Code Proposal, Among Others
On Saturday, the International Code Council (ICC) upheld its original
unanimous decision made in February regarding code proposal S141
(International Building Code-Structural), which addressed the side-hinged
exterior door standard. The proposal, submitted by the Window and
Door Manufacturers Association (WDMA), attempted to remove the current
exemption for side-hinged exterior doors from nationwide testing
of the AAMA/WDMA/CSA A440 test standard. If approved, the proposal
would have added testing and labeling requirements for side-hinged
door assemblies that are included within the scope of AAMA/WDMA/CSA
101/I.S.2/A440. The proposal was again disapproved at the final
action hearings being held through Wednesday this week in Minneapolis.
Mike Fischer, spoke on behalf of the WDMA, in support of the proposal,
but there were far more people speaking in favor of upholding the
committee's original decision. This included Jeff Burton, director
of codes and standards for the Association of Millwork Distributors'
(AMD) and Larry Ray representing pre-hanger GHDC Inc. in Tupelo,
All who spoke reminded members to "uphold the committee's
original unanimous decision in February."
"This [passage of this proposal] would cause utter chaos in
the industry," said Ray. "Many [prehangers] would not
According to Fischer, all exterior components in a structure face
the same exposure to weather. "This proposal is a logical extension
to apply the same requirements to side-hinged doors (within the
scope of 101/I.S.2/A440) that are currently applied to windows and
sliding doors. It is inconsistent for the code to require side-hinged
door installation and flashing to prevent water infiltration while
the door itself is exempted from any water testing requirements.
Expanding the requirements for testing and labeling to 101/I.S.2/A440
to side-hinged doors addresses this inconsistency in the code."
"Although my heart goes out to those states with hurricane
winds, we don't have these in Minnesota, but in the individual states
that have these problems, there are state codes to address this
issue," said one prehanger located in Minnesota.
A representative from Simpson Door reiterated the fact that it
is to up to the states to address this issue.
"There are codes in place in hurricane prone regions to address
this issue," he said.
He also noted that exterior side-hinged doors are all tested to
NFRC 100 and 200 standards.
"I feel lonely up here," said Fischer when it was his
turn to speak in favor of the proposal.
Another individual also supported the proposal and said, "Those
who are opposed to this are saying that it is up to the states,
but this is the International Building Code. It's for the entire
The following decisions from February were also upheld during
the final action hearings this weekend.
S83Proponent: John Woestman, representing the Door Safety
Council. If passed this would have allowed side-hinged door
assemblies to meet the impact testing requirements of ANSI/SDI A250.13.
The WDMA opposed this proposal.
RB174Proponent: Michael Fischer, representing the Window
and Door Manufacturers Association. According to the proposal,
window fall prevention devices and window guards, where provided,
shall comply with the requirements of ASTM F 2090. The 2006 IRC
and IBC contain a newly adopted requirement for minimum sill heights
in windows located more than 72 inches above grade as a means to
prevent child falls through open windows. During the consideration
of this proposal over several code cycles, WDMA expressed dismay
with the lack of technical substantiation that demonstrated any
positive impact of this requirement on the number of child window
falls. In fact, WDMA's opposition was due in large part to concerns
about the unintended consequences such a requirement could have
on fire safety.
When speaking before the committee on Sunday, Fisher said we shouldn't
"experiment with our children."
He also pointed out that minimum sill heights don't help reduce
child window falls.
"The only jurisdiction in the United States with a sill height
requirement is Denver and falls are heightened in that area,"
But those in support of the committee's original decision urged
the committee to not take the sill height requirement out of the
code, and ultimately they were successful as the committee's original
decision was upheld.
S142Proponent: William E. Koffel, representing the Glazing
Industry Code Committee. The proposal would have stated that
exterior windows and sliding doors shall be tested and labeled as
conforming to AAMA/WDMA/CSA101/I.S.2/A440. As was the case with
S141, the committee's original decision in February was upheld.
According to the proposal, "the purpose is to remove the exemption
that fenestration products labeled to AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440
do not have to meet the requirements of sections 2403.2 and 2403.3,
which ensure safe performance through proper support of glass. Specifically,
section 2403.3 requires that the deflection of framing members supporting
glass may not exceed L/175 of the glass edge length (or ¾
inch, whichever is less) when subjected to the design load. Chapter
24 of the IBC relies on glass design curves that are contained in
ASTM E 1300. This ASTM standard recognizes the importance of limiting
edge deflection of the glass and also recommends a limitation of
1/175 of the glass edge length. Prior to the IBC, the legacy codes
required deflection limitations of 1/175 of the span for glass holding
members. It was not until the IBC was published that this exemption
S143Proponent: John Woestman, representing the Door Safety
Council. This proposal would have added the ANSI Standard ANSI/SDI
A250.13-XX Testing and Rating of Severe Windstorm Resistant Components
for Swinging Door Assemblies to Chapter 35 of the International
At the time of the February hearings this standard was not complete
but is complete now so Woestman encouraged its addition in the code
as it would, "allow a component-based approach and allow interchangeability
This proposal helps resolve performance and code compliance issues
when doors are assembled from components from multiple sources and
include interchangeable elements, according to Woestman.
Gary Erlich of the National Association of Home Builders opposed
the proposal in February but is now in favor of it as the standard
is complete. The committee's February vote was no and in Minneapolis
the motion failed by one vote.
RE2Proponent, Thomas Zaremba and Thomas Culp. This
proposal would have placed the residential provisions of the energy
code in one place, rather than having potentially different requirements
in the IRC and the IECC. The committee's original vote of disapproval
For more info on these proposals go to www.iccsafe.org
Need more info and analysis about the issues?
HERE to subscribe to USGlass magazine.