November 21, 2008 Mr. Michael J. Pfeiffer, P.E.
Deputy Senior Vice President Technical Services International Code Council
4051 W. Flossmoor Road
Country Club Hills, IL 60478

Dear Mr. Pfeiffer:

The American Society of Plumbing Engineers (ASPE) hereby submits its opposition to the appeal filed by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) regarding code changes RB64-07/08 and RB66-07/08. ASPE is the proponent of RB63-07/08, which is attached. ASPE is also the proponent of public comment #1 to RB64-07/08, also attached. RB63-07/08 and RB64-07/08 were combined by the public comment.

Many NAHB assertions are wrong. There was no “unfair domination” by any one group in the voting process. ASPE is a proponent of this code change and it is not a part of the claimed domination of a single “fire service” interest group and especially not a member of the IRC Fire Sprinkler Coalition. ASPE’s stated purpose is, “The American Society of Plumbing Engineers (ASPE) is the international organization for professionals skilled in the design, specification, construction administration and commissioning of plumbing systems. The Society disseminates technical data and information and, through research and education, expands the base of knowledge of the plumbing engineering industry. ASPE members are leaders in innovative plumbing design, effective materials and energy use, and the application of advanced techniques throughout the world.”

ASPE’s public policy promotes protection of health, welfare and safety of the public and is not dictated by one industry or company. It is clear that the installation of residential sprinklers in all one- and two- family dwellings and townhouses will increase the life safety of the public, reduce fire deaths, and reduce property damage. Plumbing engineers and designers have used their expertise to design innovative and cost effective residential sprinkler systems. In the interests of the public, ASPE has encouraged all code officials to support this change — building officials, fire officials, plumbing officials, mechanical officials, and community leaders. We also requested the support of other engineering, design, and contractor societies, many of which stepped forwarded in support of mandating residential sprinklers.

NAHB also misstates and obfuscates the meaning and purpose of OMB Circular A-119 by stating,“The voting on these code changes clearly violated the principle of “balance of interest” specified in OMB Circular A- 119 for a voluntary consensus body...” The ICC process is not a consensus process, nor is the International Residential Code a consensus standard.

However, ICC does utilizes a governmental consensus process. Since only governmental members may vote, there is no prejudice brought to actions under consideration. As with any governmental body the voting is by “above reproach” public officials with no need to balance competing interests of individuals or organizations. The voting process follows the rules and regulation of the ICC whereby members are encouraged to vote on issues that fall within their expertise.

NAHB is being hypocritical when it states, “NAHB strongly believes ICC must take immediate and strong action to eliminate the growing influence of third-party funding to secure votes at the ICC Final Action Hearings.” It was at the 2007 Final Action Hearing in Rochester, New York, where code change RB114-06/07 proposed to mandate residential sprinklers in all residential buildings. This code modification, by a vote of 476 for and 375 against, did not receive the necessary 2/3rds majority. What needs to be noted is that the NAHB states that they paid for numerous building officials to attend specifically to vote against the code change while the other code officials paid their own expenses. It needs to be acknowledged that financial assistance to attend meetings is a part of the code change process.

Should the ICC adopt a policy to prohibit funding for code officials from outside sources? This is just more obfuscation: as such a policy does not currently exist its inclusion in the NAHB appeal needs to be ignored.

A further claim of the NAHB is that there was not a fair and open process, stating, “However, it is NAHB’s opinion that ICC’s governmental consensus process was manipulated and subverted to advance the interests of a single stakeholder.”

While it may appear to NAHB that only the IRC Fire Sprinkler Coalition supported the mandate of residential sprinklers, that could not be further from the truth. ASPE, the main proponent of this code change cannot possibly be considered a single stakeholder. Furthermore, many engineering societies support the mandate of residential sprinklers.

An outsider to this whole process could easily conclude that there seems to be a single stakeholder opposing the mandate of residential sprinklers — the homebuilders. Obviously, perception can be reality even though it is known that others oppose the mandate of residential sprinklers.

The submission of the NAHB’s appeal is a desperate act. ASPE stands behind the technical merits that justify mandating residential sprinklers. NAHB should, in the interest of the public’s health, welfare and safety, help educate its members on the design and installation of low cost, efficient residential sprinkler systems; and ASPE offers to help. ASPE has worked with NAHB in the past and will continue to work with them in the future to the benefit of both.

If the ICC allows this appeal to be upheld, it would allow one organization or special interest to subvert and circumvent the will of the ICC membership. ASPE encourages the ICC Appeal Board to reject this appeal by NAHB.