Safety and Buildings Division Comm 14 Code Advisory Committee Meeting Summaries

Meeting summaries are subject to review at a subsequent meeting

Tuesday, May 19, 2009, 9 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., Tommy G. Thompson Commerce Center, Room 3B, 201 West Washington Avenue, Madison, WI

Council member attendance: John Ashley - Present; Gregg Cleveland, Chair, Present; Tod Doebler - Present; Marty King - Present; John Periard - Absent; and Jim Stormer (Todd Blaser, Alternate) - Excused.

Department of Commerce staff: Bob DuPont, Joe Hertel, Greg Jones, Terry Nolen and Sam Rockweiler

Guests: Matthew Mertens, North Shore Fire Department, and Russ Saunders, National Fire Protection Association

Gregg Cleveland opened the meeting with a round of introductions, and the Council accepted the
draft progress report for the preceding, March 17, 2009, Council meeting.

Department update

Current rulemaking - Bob DuPont reported that a public hearing notice is expected to be finalized in June for the Department’s draft rules for updating chapter Comm 14 to be consistent with recent statutory changes for fire-incident reporting and mobile kitchens. The hearing is expected to occur in July.

Bob noted that under the statewide smoking ban that was enacted on May 18, the Department may need to develop new rules for No Smoking signs.

Registration of construction projects and fire sprinkler inspections - Bob explained that the Department’s contractor-registration program has become popular, and has generated interest in likewise requiring individual construction projects to be registered with the Department. Registering the projects could contribute toward developing a more robust statewide inspection program, such as for energy conservation.

Bob noted the Department tracks the required periodic inspections for about 98% of the elevators and boilers in the State, because those appliances can become unsafe – and tracks the required periodic inspections of cross-connection-prevention valves in water distribution systems, because those valves provide protection from potentially unsafe conditions. However, although annual inspections are required for automatic fire sprinkler systems that likewise provide protection from potentially unsafe conditions, those inspections currently are not tracked, but could be, beginning with registering the inspections during construction.

Gregg asked whether the registration would include a fee, and Bob indicated there could be an annual filing fee. Marty King commented that providing the information to the Department could be beneficial, but some complaints could arise from the building owners who would have to report the information. There was interest in determining the reaction of sprinkler contractors to the concept. Gregg noted the requirement could be a disincentive to provide sprinklers, but the gathered data could have educational value. According to Bob, the data could increase belief in the reliability of sprinkler systems. Gregg noted the data could have other benefits, such as for the water-use fees administered by the Public Service Commission – and for the sprinkler-system tracking that is required at some local levels, which out-of-state testing companies sometimes do not comply with. Marty noted the database could also track deficiencies, and Bob said the Department’s response if a required inspection does not occur could be to send either a notice to the owner or an inspector to the site. Marty suggested requiring inspectors to attach an inspection tag to the sprinkler riser, and suggested enabling local governmental units to search and download information from the database. Gregg asked whether the required periodic testing of fire alarms could be tracked as well, but Marty noted the alarm installers and testers are not registered, as sprinkler installers and testers are.

Gregg suggested surveying fire departments to determine how many fire sprinkler systems currently exist. Greg Jones noted the Department has data showing which newer buildings have sprinkler systems, and Bob said that data shows about 18,000 buildings have been built since 1997 with sprinklers. Tod Doebler noted additional buildings may have been built since then with sprinklers that have been required only by local ordinances. Matthew Mertens indicated the tracking could be helpful because little tracking occurs locally, and turnover of local fire inspection staff is frequent. Matthew asked what the Department would do with the data, and Bob explained the primary response would be to follow up on deficiencies. Joe Hertel added that fire sprinkler testers could query the database for missing inspections. It was noted that in many cases sprinklers are not maintained in vacant buildings. Matthew noted the fire sprinkler tester often is also the tester of the cross-connection-prevention valves.

Craig Hubbell noted concern that fee payers would subsidize any violators, and suggested minimizing the fee along with fining the violators. Joe noted the Department does not have citation authority, but Bob explained that late fees could be assessed. Terry Nolen explained that Department staff also have authority to issue stop-use orders. Tod suggested annually notifying the owner of the need for the inspection, as occurs with annual renewal of permits for underground storage tanks. Gregg asked whether a portion of the fee should be sent to the local level, and Marty and Craig preferred to not do so and to instead keep the fee low.

Gregg suggested obtaining input from the sprinkler industry, and avoiding actions that would increase opposition to sprinklers. Russ Saunders reported that several states are considering proposed legislation for restricting requirements to install sprinklers. Some of that legislation is gaining support, and some of it is being defeated.

Fire-incident reporting - In reference to the proposed rule changes for fire-incident reporting that were sent to the Council in advance of the meeting, Bob explained that the legislative intent was likely not met by the preceding draft text which defined the Department, as referenced in section 101.141 (3) of the Statutes, as being the fire chief. Bob explained that the legislative intent for statutorily authorizing corrections to fire-incident reports was directed at the Department rather than fire chiefs. Gregg opposed the newly proposed text that would require the Department to only involve the fire chief when making changes to a fire department’s report, because the Department could then make changes that the fire chief disagreed with. Gregg noted the on-line National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) that is to be used for filing the reports has an audit feature which screens out the errors the Department has previously corrected on paper-based reports. Joe and Terry agreed the statutory reference to correcting the reports is largely an outdated throw back to those previous corrections. Sam suggested revising the proposed text to require the Department to obtain consent from the chief of a fire department prior to correcting or updating a NFIRS report from that department.

A motion was made by Craig Hubbell, seconded by Marty King, and passed unanimously to require the Department to obtain consent from the chief of a fire department prior to correcting or updating a fire-incident report from that department under section 101.141 of the Statutes.

Gregg asked whether private fire departments that contract with a municipality are subject to the reporting requirements in section 101.141 of the Statutes, and asked what role mutual-aid fire departments have for reporting a fire they respond to. Terry noted the NFIRS reports are designed for any type of fire department that responds to a fire. Bob explained the Department has authority under chapter 227 of the Statutes to require reports from private fire departments, and to allow mutual-aid fire departments to file the reports. There was agreement to revise the draft rules to more clearly convey this requirement and allowance.

Proposed Q&As

Community-based residential facilities - Sam explained that the proposed Q&A for community-based residential facilities which was sent to the Council in advance of the meeting addresses a requirement by the Department of Health Services that became effective on April 1, 2009, to have annual fire prevention inspections. The Q&A clarifies that the fire inspections conducted under Comm 14 typically will satisfy the DHS requirement. It was noted that the Q&A refers to a CBRF as serving 5 or more adult-care residents, which is consistent with the corresponding Statutes, rather than 9 or more as was referenced in previous codes. The Council accepted the Q&A as proposed.
Marty suggested that DHS provide input about their corresponding requirements for health-care facilities at the upcoming fire inspector conference in November. Mathew Mertens noted there is uncertainty about day-care for adults, versus day-care for children – and there was interest in having a table in Comm 14 for showing all of the buildings and projects that are exempt from the code.

Child day-care facilities - Sam explained that the proposed Q&A for child-care facilities which was sent to the Council in advance of the meeting clarifies that fire prevention inspections are required for a public or private day-care center for 8 or fewer children which is not in a one- or two-family dwelling. The Council accepted the Q&A as proposed.

Design and construction - Sam explained that the proposed, revised Q&A for design and construction which was sent to the Council in advance of the meeting included a hotel-construction example that was intended to illustrate some of the NFPA^® 1 requirements which are considered to be design and construction requirements and therefore do not apply in Wisconsin. Sam noted that additional examples could be added as they become available.

Gregg recommended redrafting the Q&A to focus it more on the NFPA 1 requirements that address the design of a building and therefore do not apply in Wisconsin. With that focus, the example would not need to exclude the building-component requirements in NFPA 1 which address fire prevention during construction, such as temporary wiring, fire sprinkler protection and building-separation walls. Russ Saunders commented that in some other states it is common to look at the requirements in both NFPA 1 and the International Building Code^® during plan review, and refocusing the Q&A more on the design of the building rather than the act of construction could be helpful. Russ noted that some states have statutes or reciprocal agreements that address the authority, procedures and roles of the building and fire inspection programs. There was agreement the Q&A should be redrafted as Gregg recommended.

Unresolved issues from fire departments

General - Sam distributed a table of unresolved fire department issues that Terry developed and then updated to reflect the discussions at the March 17 Council meeting. The update included adding yellow shading to identify the issues that may be resolvable only through changes in either Comm 14 or in other Comm codes, such as Comm 60 to 66; however, some of the cells in the table that are entirely shaded may be partially resolvable without code changes. The update also included adding three new columns to designate the code-change issues, the issues that may be resolvable through a Q&A, and issues that may be resolvable through Council consensus and documentation in progress reports.

Gregg cited discussions he has had with counterparts in other sates, which concluded that each issue should be addressed either in the building code or in the fire prevention code, but not in both. As an example, it was noted that requirements for tents should not be applied from both codes. Gregg also noted that when defining terms, they should not be mixed between both codes – and where there is conflict, the most stringent rule should apply.

Terry noted that having fire service personnel submit future issues on a code-change proposal form through the Department’s Web site could be helpful by documenting the background of the issue. As an example, Terry referenced the Council’s conclusion at the previous meeting to retain the current local flexibility for addressing abandoned buildings under section 66.0413 of the Statutes, rather than recommend a corresponding code change – but further follow-up research on the issue indicates the background is that many small fire departments do not have enough municipal resources or support to adequately address those buildings under the current code text. Those departments want the preceding Comm 14 text restored for dealing with dilapidated buildings.

Flammable and combustible liquids and gases - In reference to the entries on page 8 of the table relating to chapters Comm 10 and 40, Terry indicated there is interest in expanding the scope and application of Comm 14 to have it match the generally broader scope and application of the respective statutory authority. Bob explained that the overriding, enabling chapter 101 of the Statutes has a long history of applying primarily to public buildings and places of employment, and was relatively recently expanded to also apply to one- and two-family dwellings. Joe noted NFPA 1 sections 63.6 and 63.7 simply reference NFPA 55 for gaseous and liquefied hydrogen systems, and asked whether Comm 40 needs revision to be consistent with that reference. There was interest in considering whether Comm 40 could be replaced by corresponding requirements in NFPA 1 and Comm 14. Bob suggested considering that change and having the Comm 40 Council report to the Comm 14 Council during the next code-update cycle, in 2012. If Comm 40 is eventually replaced by requirements in Comm 14 and NFPA 1, the scope of Comm 14 could be expanded to extend beyond public buildings and places of employment, for the topic areas currently addressed in Comm 40. Bob noted that during the current update of Comm 14 and Comm 60 to 66, there may be an option to simultaneously update Comm 40 – as Comm 7 and 9 were updated during the previous update of Comm 14 and Comm 60 to 66, for fireworks and explosives. Terry noted that in 2001 one of the objectives of adopting a model building code and a model fire code was to enable repealing some of the existing Department codes. The rationale was that adopting NFPA 1 would allow updating these included requirements in unison on a regular basis – and the NFPA requirements are at least equivalent to, and in many cases more detailed than, the fire safety requirements contained in the current editions of the corresponding Wisconsin Administrative Code chapters. Bob agreed to report back to the Council at its next meeting, on the feasibility of simultaneously updating Comm 40.

Referenced standards - In reference to the entries on page 8 of the table relating to referenced standards, Terry noted the background on the issue is some staff are concluding that Comm 14.01 (2) (a) 3. and NFPA 1:1.3.2.2 are in conflict with each other, and that the building and fire codes and some local ordinances are applying them differently. The Council saw no conflict between the two rules. Marty commented that the topic should be addressed in more detail through training, which could include discussion of using manufacturer recommendations where the code is silent. The Council agreed that neither a code change nor a Q&A is currently needed for the topic.

Inspection frequency - In reference to the entries on page 9 of the table relating to inspection frequencies, Terry noted the background of the issue is whether the list of uses that can be inspected once per year instead of twice should be expanded, such as by providing latitude to make case-by-case exceptions for the example uses listed on page 9. Gregg noted reluctance to expand the list other than for case-by-case exceptions, and explained that some events should be inspected each time they occur. The Council agreed that the current rule text in section Comm 14.01 (11) (b) 4. that directs fire chiefs in first class cities on how to establish their inspection frequency could likewise be applied to fire chiefs elsewhere who are responsible for the fire inspections of the uses listed on page 9 – which include seasonal occupancies; temporary-occupancy uses, such as farm structures temporarily used for winter storage, horse stables or riding arenas; home-occupation accessory buildings used as businesses; seldom or infrequently occupied buildings; and unoccupied buildings. It was noted that a code change would be needed for applying this criteria beyond first class cities. Terry noted concerns with auditing under this concept if the fire chief does not declare the inspection frequency and corresponding buildings in advance, or have a list of buildings to be inspected and their inspection frequency.

Terry noted the other background of the inspection frequency issue is whether providing extra public fire education services should be given a percentage credit to allow performing fewer than the required number of fire inspections, as was permitted in 1988. The Council agreed it should not, and Gregg noted this conclusion should be emphasized in training. Sam noted Comm 14 defines substantial compliance as meaning “an ample amount of the required activity was performed through a concerted effort aimed at total compliance.” Gregg stated, as a member of the subcommittee that developed the definition of “substantial compliance,” that the subcommittee’s intent was to apply the term to all the required 2% eligibility elements as a whole, rather than individually to each element. Terry indicated that applying substantial compliance to all the 2% eligibility elements “as a whole” is completely different than applying it to each of the eligibility elements separately, as was initially presented to the fire service and is currently being applied by each fire prevention coordinator. Terry noted that under the “as a whole” concept, a fire department could do everything but fire inspections, and still pass the audit. Craig asked whether the Coordinators are each addressing the topic in the same manner. Bob agreed they should be and suggested that a corresponding Q&A could be developed which could emphasize the “effort” aspect from the definition of substantial compliance.

Next meeting

The next meeting was generally scheduled for late July to early August, to coincide with reviewing the outcome of the public hearing for updating Comm 14 to be consistent with recent statutory changes for fire-incident reporting and mobile kitchens.

Council member attendance: John Ashley - Present; Gregg Cleveland – Chair - Present; Tod Doebler - Present; Marty King - Present; John Periard - Absent; and Jim Stormer (Todd Blaser, Alternate) - Present.

Department of Commerce staff: Bob DuPont, Joe Hertel, Terry Nolen and Sam Rockweiler

Guests: Matthew Mertens, North Shore Fire Department

Wednesday, February 25, 2009, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., Tommy G. Thompson Commerce Center, Room 3B, 201 West Washington Avenue, Madison, WI

Council member attendance: John Ashley - Present; Gregg Cleveland – Chair - Present; Tod Doebler - Present; Marty King - Present; John Periard - Absent; and Jim Stormer (Todd Blaser, Alternate) - Present.

Department of Commerce staff: Bob DuPont, Terry Nolen and Sam Rockweiler

Wednesday, December 10, 2008, 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Tommy G. Thompson Commerce Center, Room 3B, 201 West Washington Avenue, Madison, WI

Council member attendance: John Ashley - Present; Gregg Cleveland – Chair - Present; Tod Doebler - Present; Marty King - Present; John Periard - Absent; and Jim Stormer (Todd Blaser, Alternate) - Absent.

Department of Commerce staff: Bob DuPont, Terry Nolen and Sam Rockweiler

Guests: Anne Carmody, Department of Children and Families; Bill Lauzon, PE, Department of Health Services; and Lynn Wallace, Department of Health Services.

Gregg Cleveland opened the meeting with a review of the agenda, and the Council accepted the draft progress report for the preceding, October 22, 2008, Council meeting.

Department update

Comm 14 changes - Bob DuPont reported that the changes for chapter Comm 14 which are needed for fire incident reporting and mobile kitchens, as discussed at the Council’s October meeting, are expected to advance to a public Hearing in February 2009. The changes for fire incident reporting will update the current Comm 14 requirements to be consistent with the record keeping requirements in 2007 Wisconsin Act 75. The Act 75 requirements will supersede the differing Comm 14 requirements until the Comm 14 changes become effective later in 2009.

Christmas trees in assembly occupancies - Bob noted the Department’s Web site for the Fire Prevention Program includes an October 30th letter from the Secretary to all fire chiefs, explaining that NFPA 1 section 10.14.2 allows them, as the Authority Having Jurisdiction, to permit natural-cut Christmas trees where they determine that adequate safeguards are provided. Concerns were expressed that the letter only addresses assembly occupancies and not the other occupancies where Christmas trees are prohibited by NFPA 1 table 10.14.1.

Gregg reported that data is being gathered by a Wisconsin State Fire Chiefs Association (WSFCA) survey, for consideration during next year’s use of the trees. It was noted schools and nursing homes are choosing to not use natural-cut trees based on insurance and liability concerns. There is concern for how much liability municipalities take on if an AHJ allows something that is outside the fire code. The fire service does not understand how the Department derived its interpretation on the topic, and wants more explanation from the Department, such as what support the Department would provide if a corresponding lawsuit is filed against a municipality. Bob stated the Department will trust the judgment of an AHJ. Gregg emphasized that the explanation should address how fire chiefs have become authorized to allow variation from the fire code – and if a fire occurs as a result of that permission, what should a municipality do if the insurance company seeks to recover damages from them.

Bob explained that NFPA 1 section 10.14.2 allows limited quantities of combustible vegetation, and is followed by other sections that specify safeguards to apply where the vegetation is used. Bob stated the Department could codify the AHJ discretional areas if the WSFCA wants. If further safeguards need to be codified, they could be added to Comm 14. Gregg recommended not changing Comm 14 in that manner, and Bob noted further explanation and adequate safeguards, including examples, could be posted as a Q&A on the Fire Prevention Program Web site.

Gregg commented that the underlying issue is that a transition has occurred – from a previous process where the Department established the rules, to a new process where local governmental units can allow varying from the rules – and this new authority has not been clearly explained and communicated to the local units. In addition, there may be some concern that the Department has capitulated to pressure for using the trees in assembly occupancies. 

Bob suggested that the Q&A which staff are developing for clarifying the role of AHJs will help resolve the issue. Gregg said the main question is whether the Department will support a fire department if something goes wrong. Bob said it would be difficult for the Department to issue a general statement promising to support fire departments 100 percent of the time. Gregg recommended the Department issue a statement that it has consulted with the fire service, and then developed best practices which can be used to minimize risk. John Ashley commented that such a statement could be helpful, but it would not resolve the insurance issue. Gregg agreed the statement would not resolve the insurance issue entirely, but a fire department’s liability could be significantly lessened if a fire chief who is testifying in court is able to display the Department’s best practices and then explain how the fire department followed them. John questioned whether the Department would accept being exposed to the remaining portion of the liability.

Bob noted that the Secretary’s letter was issued after finding that the legislature was moving toward suspending the entire set of rules for natural-cut Christmas trees, and fire chiefs have developed some best practices for the trees.

Marty King commented that a primary concern is not having enough control over whether a church uses the trees correctly, and churches typically are staffed with seasonal volunteers who are not adequately aware of both the fire danger and the needed safeguards.

A motion was made by Marty King and seconded by John Ashley that the Department issue a Q&A which (1) explains how fire departments have become authorized to allow Christmas trees in assembly occupancies, (2) shows why fire departments are not violating Comm 14 by allowing the trees, and (3) describes best practices that should be used with the trees.

Terry Nolen noted the Council and the Department have known about this code problem since 2005, and he indicated the National Fire Protection Association has taken an informal position that NFPA 1 section 10.14.2 is not intended to include trees. According to Terry, NFPA has further stated that the AHJ authority for discretion is found in NFPA 1 section 1.4 titled Equivalencies, Alternatives, and Modifications. Terry suggested if the Department wants to interpret NFPA 1 section 10.14.2 differently, it should utilize the text in section Comm 14.01 (2) (c) which states that any Departmental interpretation of the requirements in Comm 14 supersedes any differing interpretation by an issuer of an incorporated standard. Marty noted the Q&A could cite the general criteria in NFPA 1 chapter 1 that addresses equivalencies and alternatives. Gregg recommended that the Q&A include a reference to the superseding aspect and an explanation of the chain of authority.

Terry questioned whether the 15 municipalities that have adopted the 2006 International Fire Code® as an alternative to NFPA 1 will have similar AHJ discretionary options for allowing the trees, because the 2006 IFC does not contain text which is similar to NFPA 1 section 10.14.2. Gregg and Marty agreed that having or not having those options under the IFC is entirely a local issue because any municipality which chose to adopt the 2006 IFC did so after being informed that the Department would not assist in determining whether any such proposed adoption would be equivalent to Comm 14 and NFPA 1 – and therefore the Council should not spend time on it. Terry questioned how any IFC-ordinance conflict with section Comm 14.001 (2) (a) would be resolved. Bob noted that under section 101.02 (7) (b) of the statutes, any person affected by any local order that is in conflict with an order of the Department may petition the Department for a hearing on the ground that such local order is unreasonable and in conflict with the order of the Department.

The motion passed unanimously.

Wisconsin Burning - Bob reported that the 2005 edition of the Wisconsin Burning report has been posted on the Fire Prevention Program Web site, and presents a detailed overview of fire incidents in Wisconsin.

Budgetary cutbacks - Bob reported that the Governor’s Office has directed the Department of Administration to help other State agencies identify aids and grants that are non-essential and therefore can be postponed until after budget deficits are resolved. In response to DOA’s proposed list of such aids and grants, Department of Commerce staff have proposed identifying the two-percent fire department dues payments as being essential, safety related aids.

November 1, 2008, edition of Comm 14 - Sam Rockweiler distributed the November 1, 2008, edition of Comm 14 and explained that the only change from the previous edition is updating the chapter Comm 10 title in the Note under section Comm 14.01 (2).

February 1, 2009, edition of Comm 10 - Sam distributed the February 1, 2009, edition of Comm 10, for flammable, combustible and hazardous liquids, and explained that this effective date is delayed for 2 months after November 1 to help small business adjust to the new rules. Sam emphasized that under section Comm 14.01 (2) (b) 4., where differences occur between the requirements of chapter Comm 14 and chapter Comm 10, the requirements of Comm 10 will prevail unless otherwise excluded by Comm 10. For example, the new Comm 10 applies a newer version of NFPA 30 to flammable and combustible liquids in aboveground tanks and other containers of 110 gallons or more, than is applied in Comm 14.

2009 NFPA 1 - Bob distributed the 2009 edition of NFPA 1, for the Council to begin reviewing for adoption in Comm 14.

Web site Q&As, and Authority Having Jurisdiction

Q&A Web site for the Fire Prevention Program - In reference to the Department Web site for posting Q&As for the Fire Prevention Program, which became operational after the Council’s discussion of it in October, Marty asked whether notices for it could be distributed through Gregg’s LISTSERV® e-mail list for fire chiefs, and Tod Doebler asked about distributing notices through his LISTSERV list for fire inspectors. Bob explained that any party which has subscribed to the Safety and Buildings Division LISTSERV will get a notice each time a new Q&A is posted. Gregg and Tod agreed to subscribe their LISTSERVs to the Safety and Buildings LISTSERV.

Q&A for Authority Having Jurisdiction - In reference to the Q&A for Authority Having Jurisdiction, which was sent to the Council in draft form in advance of the meeting, a motion was made by John Ashley and seconded by Marty King to accept the draft as written. Terry asked whether there was any concern for the second sentence in the Answer, which describes the “governing authority” as being the Department – since that term is not directly included in Comm 14. Marty noted it is included indirectly through adoption of NFPA 1, because NFPA 1 does include it. Sam noted that NFPA 1 and Comm 14 together are the Wisconsin Fire Prevention Code. Bob said the term could be added to the definitions in Comm 14 and modified there if needed. The motion passed unanimously.

Q&A for design and construction - Gregg recommended developing a Q&A for explaining which requirements are for design and construction, and therefore are within the scope of the Commercial Building Code – versus requirements that are for use, operation and maintenance, and therefore are within the scope of Comm 14.

A motion was made by Marty King and seconded by Tod Doebler that the Department develop a Q&A for design and construction, with input from the Council, and through whatever process is deemed best due to the interplay between Comm 14 and the Commercial Building Code over this term.

According to Marty, this term, and consequently the applicability of the two codes, is often misinterpreted. Therefore, even if the Council does not entirely agree with the final draft, publishing it would still be helpful.

The motion passed unanimously.

Carbon monoxide alarms

Bob reported that about ninety percent of the time, a required location for a carbon monoxide alarm is the same as for a smoke alarm; therefore combination smoke and carbon monoxide alarms can be used in those locations. Also, support is building for extending the statutory requirement for their installation in commercial buildings to apply also to both new and existing one- and two-family dwellings. For credentialing and training for inspectors of the alarms, Bob noted that the least intensive level which the Division has used in other programs has consisted of mailing reference materials to applicants, who then return a signed statement that they have read the materials, and the Division then certifies those applicants. A higher level of training could primarily consist of a Web-based system. Continuing-education modules that address the alarms could be developed for building inspectors who are required to obtain continuing-education credits for renewing a credential. More details are expected to be available by the next Council meeting, after upcoming meetings with representatives from the carbon monoxide alarm industry.

Terry questioned whether fire inspectors should only inspect alarms in residential common areas, rather than also within dwelling units, because fire departments have raised concerns about being required to inspect within occupied dwelling units. Bob noted that the statutes require maintenance inspections only for alarms in the common areas of apartment-type buildings – just as for smoke alarms. However, inspectors can inspect a unit within such buildings at the request of the owner or occupant of the unit to be inspected. It was noted that the Department of Health Services (DHS) has rules for access to CBRF dwelling areas. In addition to ongoing maintenance inspections by fire departments, initial inspections by building inspectors are expected to occur during new construction – and the Department and DHS are expected to have corresponding requirements for ongoing inspections of sealed-combustion appliances. Marty suggested extending the training and credentialing to staff from DHS. Bob noted that DHS is required to develop rules for their inspections.

NFPA 1, 2009

In reference to the NFPA summary of changes from the 2006 to the 2009 edition of NFPA 1, which was sent to the Council in advance of the meeting, Gregg asked whether any of the changes could affect the current Comm 14 modifications of the 2006 edition of NFPA 1. Bob said staff could review the summary and identify any of those changes for the next Council meeting.

In discussing the new definition for special amusement buildings that is included in the 2009 NFPA 1, there was interest in looking at whether any of the 2009 changes conflict with the requirements in chapter Comm 34 for amusement rides.  For this review, and for looking at whether any of the changes conflict with requirements in other Comm codes, staff will pursue getting an electronic-based version of the summary that can be expanded to include a column for showing any such conflicts. Similarly, some of the 2009 changes may address topics that are addressed in rules by other State agencies, such as the changes in sections 10.9.1, 10.9.2.2 and 10.9.2.4.2 for emergency plans for health-care and child-care facilities. There was agreement to retain the global note in Comm 14 referring to other Department codes and state agencies that may have additional requirements which may apply to public buildings and places of employment. It was noted that the 2009 NFPA 1 has been realigned to meet the current NFPA code format style.

Bob emphasized that the Department generally leans toward applying model code requirements except where that application would be too problematic. Marty suggested including an informational Note in the Comm 14 Appendix in conjunction with adopting the 2009 NFPA 1, for alerting readers to the best practices for Christmas trees, that are expected to be posted on the Fire Prevention Program Web site.

Fire department inspections, and written statements about evacuation plans and fire safety for licensed health-care and child-care facilities

Overview - Bob explained that the Department can facilitate Council discussions with the Department of Health Services (DHS) and the Department of Children and Families (DCF) for the services which fire departments provide to the health-care and child-care facilities licensed by those two Departments. The discussions could address fire department complaints about DHS requiring fire inspections no more than 6 months apart, and questions about the authority of DHS or DCF to require fire departments to provide inspections and planning services for evacuation and fire safety. Concerns were raised as to the lack of standardized terminology, such as for assistance, signed certificates, certifications, continuing contracts, disaster vs. evacuation vs. fire safety vs. emergency plans, and fire protection services. It was noted that a nursing home must contract with a private inspection services to provide the required services if a local fire department refuses to.

Marty recommended that fire departments not sign any forms or letters accepting responsibility or liability for the licensed facilities. Gregg questioned the extent of a current memorandum of understanding between Commerce and DHS for health-care facilities. Bob explained that it includes having DHS review construction plans for non-health care components of health care facilities, such as parking ramps, when reviewing overall construction plans for these facilities. Gregg asked what the process is for resolving any differences between Wisconsin’s Commercial Building Code and applicable NFPA construction codes, such as the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code, and Bob said the more-restrictive requirement is applied if there is a difference. Bob noted Department staff audit the DHS plan review program for compliance to Commerce codes. Bob added that a separate memorandum of understanding could be developed if desired, to address fire inspection conflicts, and statements about evacuation plans and fire safety. Marty emphasized that (1) fire departments want timely rather than urgent scheduling for fire inspections, and (2) they are being advised by legal staff to not certify the adequacy of an evacuation plan or the fire safety of a facility.

Nursing homes - Tod Doebler explained that several fire departments are reporting they are being contacted by nursing homes which have received a citation from a nursing home inspector for not having a fire department’s “certification . . . as to the fire safety of the facility and to the adequacy of a written fire plan for orderly evacuation of residents,” as required in section HFS 132.82 (3) (c) 2. Tod noted that fire departments are refusing to provide that certification. He asked what is meant by “certification” in HFS 132.82 (3) (c) 2., and where the DHS authority originates from for requiring the certification.

Lynn Wallace responded that this code requirement was promulgated through legislative review and has existed for at least 20 years, but DHS is now enforcing it more vigorously because of heightened emphasis on emergency preparedness, relating in part to recent flooding and other extreme-weather related incidents. Marty commented that the requirement is an unfunded mandate which local governments and fire departments have been unaware of; and he noted that fire chiefs are deputies of the Department of Commerce and subject to its authority, but are not subject to DHS authority.

Bill Lauzon read a statement from a Port Washington fire inspector which generally described a nursing home’s evacuation plan and fire safety as “adequate safeguards are in place,” and which was accepted by a nursing home inspector. Bill said the nursing home section in DHS could issue guidelines on what can be accepted as a “certification” of the fire safety of a facility and the adequacy of an evacuation plan. The fire service raised concerns as to nursing homes throughout Wisconsin appearing to be treated differently – and the fire service goal is equal application statewide. Tod questioned whether compliance with standard NFPA 1600, as referenced in NFPA 1, would be needed. Marty asked whether stating that the facility’s fire safety plan is in compliance with model codes would suffice, because fire departments prefer to rely on model code benchmarks. Bill suggested looking for whether a fire safety plan includes the elements that are required in section 19.7.2 of the 2000 edition of NFPA 101. Terry noted the same elements are found in NFPA 1600, as is referenced in NFPA 1 section 10.9.2. Lynn said the DHS nursing home section could be asked to develop a draft guidance document that the Council could comment on.

Marty noted that a second issue of concern is what is meant by the requirement in section HFS 132.82 (3) (c) 1. for “semiannual” fire inspections, and Sam noted that section Comm 14.01 (11) (b) 3. requires conducting fire inspections “at least once in each non-overlapping 6-month period per calendar year.” Lynn indicated the HFS requirement should be met by complying with the Comm 14 requirement. Marty added that a nursing home typically contacts his department and wrongly assumes they are familiar with the HFS requirements – and his department likewise does not know which DHS inspector is involved with the facility. Bill agreed to provide a chart showing which nursing homes are inspected by which DHS inspector.

Terry noted HFS 132.82 (3) (c) 3. requires a nursing home to have a contract for fire protection services if the home is located in a city, village or township that does not have an official, established fire department, and requires keeping a certification of the existence of that contract on file in the facility. Terry noted HFS 132.82 (3) (c) appears to require the administrator of those facilities to arrange for semiannual fire department inspections, and certifications of evacuation plans and fire safety, as applicable, and he questioned whether that is an accurate reading of the code.

Community-based residential facilities - Marty indicated that the optional DHS inspection form which was sent to the Council in advance of the meeting should be useful for the annual fire department inspections that are required in section HFS 83.42 (6) (a) 1. for CBRFs with 9 or more residents. It was noted that HFS 83.42 (6) (a) 2. refers to “comments and recommendations” from the fire department, rather than a “certification,” about the adequacy of written plans for evacuation of residents in the case of fire, and about the adequacy of the fire safety of the CBRF. Tod raised liability exposure concerns about fire departments being required to comment or making recommendations on the requirements in HFS 83.42 (3) for CBRF emergency plans and in subsection (4) for emergency planning for certain residents. It was also noted that HFS 83.42 (6) (b) requires DHS to annually inspect CBRFs for 8 or fewer residents to determine compliance with fire safety requirements and the adequacy of written emergency plans.

Outcome for health-care facilities - Lynn indicated that chapter DHS 124 does not have any language requiring local fire departments to do fire inspections or approve evacuation or life safety plans, for hospitals. Bill agreed to pursue having DHS draft a letter for the Council to review that will (1) clarify what can be accepted as a “certification” under HFS 132.82 (3) (c) 2., and whether to use a standard specification, such as section 19.7.2 in the 2000 edition of NFPA 101 or NFPA 1 section 10.9, as a benchmark; (2) clarify whether the “semiannual” frequency in HFS 132.82 (3) (c) 1. is met by the inspection frequency in Comm 14.01 (11) (b) 3.; (3) clarify the optional use of the CBRF inspection forms; (4) include a chart of DHS inspectors that shows their e-mail and mailing addresses, telephone numbers and assigned inspection areas; and (5) clarify the requirements for a nursing home that is located in a city, village or township which does not have an official, established fire department.

Child-care facilities - Anne Carmody explained that the administrative codes for the various types of licensed child-care facilities are being updated in conjunction with the Division of Children and Family Services becoming the Department of Children and Families (DCF). Chapter HFS 45, for family child care centers, has become DCF 250; HFS 46, for group child care centers, has become DCF 251; and HFS 55, for day camps for children, has become DCF 252. According to Anne, these three codes do not require any inspections by fire departments.

Similarly, HFS 52, for residential care centers for children and youth, has become DCF 52; HFS 57, for group foster homes for children, has become DCF 57; and HFS 59, for shelter care facilities, has become DCF 59. Anne noted that of these three codes, only DCF 52 requires inspections by fire departments. Section DCF 52.55 (3) requires an annual fire inspection; DCF 52.55 (1) requires developing an evacuation plan in consultation with the fire department; and, for the initial license application, DCF 52.62 (2) (c) 11. requires a fire inspection report showing “approval of the facility for fire safety.” Terry noted that NFPA 1 section 10.9 requires emergency plans for residential board and care facilities and day-care centers unless otherwise exempted by sections Comm 14.01 (1) (b) and (c) 5. and 6.

It was noted that some child-care providers in Marshfield, Cornell and Richmond are contacting fire departments about licensure trouble from not complying with a DCF requirement to have two fire department inspections every year within 6 months – which is different from the requirement in Comm 14.01 (11) (b) 3. to conduct fire inspections at least once in each non-overlapping 6-month period per calendar year. Anne noted that DCF generally looks for a recent fire department inspection report when re-licensing a child-care facility in conjunction with a change of ownership – and she agreed to look into and clarify for DCF staff that they are not authorized to require child-care providers to have two fire department inspections every year within 6 months. Anne said this clarification and similar guidance for other topics can be posted on a Web site DCF has for providing assistance to field staff.

Terry noted that in some cases a fire department may not be aware of a child-care facility and consequently has not inspected it. Anne agreed to send Sam hyperlinks to DCF Web sites that show new, pending and existing, licensed child-care facilities – for posting on the Fire Prevention Program Web site.
Anne suggested that substantial deficiencies which are found in a licensed facility during a fire inspection, such as problems with a fire sprinkler system or fire alarm, could be reported to the corresponding DCF regional office. According to Marty, such reporting can result in significantly quicker correction of a deficiency. A directory of the DCF regional offices could be posted on the Fire Prevention Program Web site.

Anne questioned how DCF staff could determine if a fire protection system is operable or has been maintained. Terry recommended adding a note to DCF’s inspection forms for alerting DCF inspectors to check for fire protection maintenance records from qualified maintenance personnel, for sprinkler systems and other fire protection components, such as fire alarms.

Unresolved issues from fire departments

In reference to the table of unresolved fire department issues that was developed by Terry and sent to the Council in advance of the meeting, Gregg asked whether Terry could identify which issues are the most important. Terry explained that the table is a running list of unresolved issues which fire departments have posed to the Department’s Fire Prevention Coordinators since adoption of the 2000 edition of NFPA 1 in 2001, and he suggested subdividing the issues into major categories. Bob suggested reviewing the issues simultaneously with NFPA’s summary of changes from the 2006 to the 2009 edition of NFPA 1. Gregg asked whether any of the issues are currently causing major problems. According to Terry, several of the issues could be resolved through developing a Q&A for design and construction, and the Q&A that will be posted for clarifying the AHJ and governing authority should similarly resolve several of the issues. Terry said another topic that could be clarified which could resolve several issues is “temporary use,” which he believes the Council interprets as having a significantly different application and meaning in Comm 14 than in the Commercial Building Code. Bob suggested identifying any other global issues whose clarification could resolve subsequent issues, and he asked how the entries in the columns for “Not addressed” and “Addressed” were determined. Terry explained he added these two columns at Gregg’s request, and Council discussions can now determine when the “Not addressed” entries can be changed to “Addressed.”

Next meeting

The next meeting was tentatively scheduled for the last Wednesday in February 2009, and was projected to primarily focus on Terry’s list of unresolved issues from fire departments.

Council member attendance: John Ashley- Present; Gregg Cleveland, Chair - P; Marty King - P; Tod Doebler - P; John Periard - Absent; Jim Stormer (Todd Blaser, Alternate) - P.

Department of Commerce Staff: Bob DuPont, Mike Fehrenbach, Joe Hertel, Terry Nolen, Sam Rockweiler.        
Gregg Cleveland opened the meeting with a round of introductions, and the council accepted the draft progress report for the preceding, August 6, 2008, council meeting. 

Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 9 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., Thompson Commerce Center, Room 3B, 201 West Washington Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin

Council Member Attendance: John Ashley - Excused; Gregg Cleveland, Chair - E; Marty King - Present; Tod Doebler, Vice Chair - P; John Periard - Absent; Jim Stormer (Todd Blaser, Alternate) - P 

Guests: Brad Boycks – Wisconsin Builders Association

Department of Commerce Staff: Bob DuPont, Joe Hertel, Terry Nolen, Jim Quast, Sam Rockweiler
 
Tod Doebler opened the meeting with a round of introductions, and the council discussed the draft progress reports for the preceding, March 22, 2007, and May 22, 2008, Council meetings. 

In reference to the May 2008 progress report, there was a question on whether the department had developed proposed language for credentialing fire inspectors under Comm 5.  Bob DuPont noted the department had no proposal to report out yet.  Terry Nolen asked whether the department had sent an informational letter to all the municipalities that had applied the International Fire Code under the preceding edition of Comm 14 – for alerting them to the new alternative model fire code option for the IFC, and the related requirements.  Bob said the department had done so, and that the letter is posted on the department’s fire prevention Web site, PDF file. Terry noted he asked at the May meeting that the department publicize its interpretation of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) requirements for Christmas trees, in NFPA 1 section 10.14.2.  According to Terry, a formal interpretation would most likely be needed for code clarification and application purposes.

A motion was made and seconded to approve the March 2007 and May 2008 progress reports, in light of the above-noted comments and with a spelling correction in the 2008 report, and the motion carried.

- Update on Comm 10 – flammable, combustible and hazardous liquids
Sam Rockweiler reported that the legislative review period for repealing and recreating Comm 10, as administered by the Environmental and Regulatory Services Division, began on July 18 and is expected to end on September 16.  An effective date of February 1, 2009, is anticipated.  Sam emphasized that after the effective date, Comm 10 would no longer overlap with Comm 14’s regulation of aboveground containers having a capacity of less than 110 gallons.  Bob reported that the Governor’s Office of Energy Independence has asked the department to help encourage small-scale production of biofuels at farms.  This production primarily uses containers of less than 110 gallons.  Marty King commented that local fire departments need to be kept informed of locations where this production and processing occurs, and guidance materials from the department would be helpful, such as the information the Bureau of Petroleum Products and Tanks has been providing for larger producers and marketers of biofuels.  There was interest in having all the educational materials related to this topic, including archived information, compiled and posted in one location on the department’s Web site.

- Carbon monoxide detectors
Bob noted that 2007 Wisconsin Act 205 requires carbon monoxide (CO) detectors in certain residential buildings which contain fuel-burning appliances, and requires the department to promulgate corresponding permanent rules.  Due to the mandated near-term effective date for installing the detectors in newly constructed buildings, emergency rules will also be needed, which were sent to the council in draft form in advance of the meeting.  Jim Quast explained that the emergency rules do not address existing buildings because the act specifies a later, April 1, 2010, effective date for those buildings.  The current rules for smoke detectors have been used as a model for developing the CO rules, such as in requiring new construction to have detectors that are continuously powered by the building’s electrical service, with a battery back-up, even though Act 205 does not require those two features.  Bob noted the CO detectors can be omitted in an existing building with no attached garage if all of the building’s fuel-burning appliances have sealed combustion chambers that are inspected annually by a credentialed inspector of heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment. 

Marty asked whether building inspectors would be notified of the emergency rules.  Bob said yes, and that a subsequent notice would explain the requirements for existing buildings.  Marty suggested posting a brochure and owner checklist on the department’s Web site, that could be printed locally to include the fire department’s telephone number.  There was interest in having any available CO training opportunities posted as well.  Bob noted the Department of Health and Family Services is expected to send information about the CO requirements to the corresponding DHFS-licensed facilities, and Marty said fire departments should be notified of the facilities that receive the information from DHFS.  Bob indicated DHFS inspectors may look for a record of whether the CO detectors are regularly inspected, although the emergency rules are not expected to address annual inspections of the detectors.  Marty suggested delaying discussion of annual inspections until after the department develops educational materials, which could be by the next meeting of the Council.  Terry indicated Act 205 appears to relieve building owners of corresponding liability if the owner reasonably maintains the detectors.  Terry questioned the impact of this statute language as it relates to local false-alarm ordinances and penalty fees.  Bob noted fire extinguishers are an example of other equipment that likewise needs period maintenance inspections.  Joe Hertel said the life expectancy of CO detectors is currently about 5 years, whereas smoke detectors last about 10 years.

- Seasonal and periodic occupancies
In reference to the Q&A for seasonal and periodic occupancies that was sent to the council in draft form in advance of the meeting, Marty suggested explaining that periodic occupancies are less regular than seasonal occupancies.  Terry noted that the topic of adding seasonal and periodic occupancies to the general exception list of occupancies which are eligible for once-per-calendar-year fire inspections originated in 1991.  Back then, members of the Wisconsin Fire Prevention Council could not agree on a definition for these occupancies, and this has continued to be an illusive topic for statewide uniform code application.  According to Terry, the department’s Fire Prevention Coordinators do not completely agree with the draft language for the Q&A, and have not yet reached consensus on an alternate definition such as in whether a maximum number of days should be specified.  Bob noted part of the interest for developing the Q&A arose from an owner of a private inspection business who works in more than one Fire Prevention Coordinator area and could therefore be subject to differing interpretations, thus affecting the 2 percent fire dues audit criteria for fire inspection frequency.  Marty commented that fire departments have difficulty trying to inspect seasonal or periodic occupancies twice a year.  Under the proposed language, Terry questioned whether an occupancy such as a school would be considered seasonal, and discussion indicated they typically are not, because of being open for various activities during the nonschool-year summer period.  It was noted that local ordinances could be more stringent.  There was agreement to further refine the Q&A, through discussions with staff, along with further clarification of the term periodic occupancies, and to then send the results to the Council.

- 2007 Wisconsin Act 75 – Reporting data for fires
Bob explained that the Wisconsin Builders Association has agreed that the fire-incident reports for Act 75 can address the age of only the portion of the building where a fire occurs.  Terry noted that most of the data for fire-incident reports is gathered at the fire scene, and may consist largely of what the data collector is told.  Bob suggested having age categories that are based on when major building code changes have occurred, and Comm 14 could allow estimating the building’s age.  The act also requires reporting the “purpose” of the building, which should be easy to determine, and whether the building has fire sprinklers and fire alarms, which also should be easy to determine. 

The act also requires reporting the amount of damage to the building as a result of the fire, and Bob suggested that reporting the portion of the building which is damaged, such as a loss of 7 of 10 dwelling units, would be easier than estimating a dollar loss.  Tod Doebler noted that the FIREHOUSE Software for fire department records documentation uses building-loss categories of 0 to 25 percent, 25 to 50 percent, 50 to 75 percent and 75 to 100 percent, and does not use building-age data.  Bob emphasized that the act addresses the damage to the building rather than to the building and its contents, and does not require estimating the replacement cost for the damage.  Tod indicated fire departments typically rely on assessed values in estimating fire damages, except estimated replacement costs are often used for small fires.  Bob said Comm 14 could allow fire departments to use either assessed values or expected replacement costs, and could allow reporting either an estimated dollar loss or an estimated percentage of the building that is damaged.  Todd Blaser said insurance data has been helpful in estimating fire losses, but insurance companies generally are moving toward sharing less information with fire departments.  Terry noted the act requires reporting the data to the US Fire Administration for placement in the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS).  Terry recommended making the damage-reporting requirements as simple as possible, following the NFIRS format.  NFIRS currently asks for estimates of the total property and contents dollar loss, and the pre-incident value of the property and contents is optional.  Staff agreed to draft a proposed change to Comm 14 reflecting the discussion.

- 2007 Wisconsin Act 79 – School drills for tornadoes and other hazards
Terry noted that the department’s current form for reporting school drills for fires and other emergencies adequately accommodates the requirements in Act 79 for reporting drills relating to tornadoes and other hazards.  However, the form may need more lines for the additional emergency egress drill that is required by NFPA 1 section 20.2.3.2.2 (3) during the first 30 days of operation for educational occupancies which are not open on a year-round basis.  The council agreed that an informational note is not needed in Comm 14 for referring to the department’s form.

- 2007 Wisconsin Act 173 – Fire-suppression-system exemption for low-use mobile kitchens
Marty reported that all the mobile kitchens at the 2008 Wisconsin State Fair had adequate fire suppression systems.  For any mobile kitchen that is not equipped with a fire suppression system because of the exemption in Act 173, the council agreed the owner should be required to maintain a record demonstrating compliance with the act’s requirement to use the kitchen fewer than 12 days a year.  This requirement would be consistent with the requirements in NFPA 1 section 10.2.4 for owners or operators to maintain records relating to fire protection systems.

- Remaining unresolved staff issues, and resolution process
Terry reported that his list of remaining unresolved staff issues is not yet finished in the format previously requested by Gregg Cleveland, and hopefully would be finished by the next council meeting in October.

- Q&A for design and construction
Bob noted that the department’s building inspection management recognizes that fire inspectors typically are the initiators for achieving compliance with previously unmet change-of-use requirements in the Commercial Building Code.  Bob suggested that a Q&A for clarifying which of the requirements in NFPA 1 address design and construction could emphasize this role of fire inspectors.  According to Terry, most fire inspectors do not have a copy of the Commercial Building Code,  which is Comm 61 to 65 and the International Code Council codes that are incorporated into those chapters, and building inspectors are not always able to inspect each newly constructed commercial building.  Terry noted that the Comm 50-64 Appendix B in the preceding version of the Commercial Building Code had identified the majority of the building code topics of primary concern to the fire inspector while conducting the fire prevention inspections mandated by section 101.14 of the Statutes,  such as fire alarm and detection systems, fire sprinklers, flammable and combustible liquids, and fire extinguisher cabinet locations.  Bob indicated interest in finding ways to better coordinate the efforts of building inspectors and fire inspectors throughout the state.  

Next meeting
The next meeting was tentatively scheduled for the third week in October. 

Thursday, May 22, 2008, 9 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.; Thompson Center; Room 3B, 201 West Washington Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin

Council Member Attendance: John Ashley - Present; Gregg Cleveland, Chair - P; Marty King - P;Tod Doebler - P; John Periard - Absent; Jim Stormer - Absent. 

Department of Commerce Staff: Bob DuPont, Joe Hertel, Terry Nolen, Sam Rockweiler.
 
Gregg Cleveland opened the meeting with a welcome and a review of the agenda.  Discussion of the draft progress report (below) for the preceding, March 22, 2007, council meeting was postponed until after the council members reacquaint themselves with it. 

Department update
Comm 41 - Boiler Code:  Bob DuPont reported that a public hearing was held the previous day on rule changes that include stiffening the requirements for solid-fuel-burning boilers.  There is some interest in using such boilers indoors, that are listed for outdoor use, but the Department would allow such indoor use only if the listing also recognizes indoor use.  Terry Nolen noted that outdoor setbacks to buildings and structures are also a concern; and explained how existing boilers, over time, sometimes gradually become enclosed within a building or structure, to protect the operator from the weather elements.

Comm 16  Electrical Code: Bob reported the Department is proposing to no longer modify the criteria for arc-fault circuit interrupters from the National Electrical Code, which would increase the cost of a 1200-square-foot, $180,000 house by $120 to $150.  Four to five interrupters would be needed in a typical home, at a cost of $30 each.  Tamper-resistant receptacles are also proposed, at an additional cost of approximately $0.50 each, which have been used in Europe for a long time.  Joe Hertel explained the manufacturers were instrumental in getting the NEC changed to result in new interrupters that have a better trip level.  The previous interrupters were not very effective because they tripped at 70 amps, and the new trip level is 5 amps.  Bob noted a public hearing on the proposal and on other changes to Comm 16 would be held on June 18.

Comm 60 to 66 - Commercial Building Code:  Bob reported the Department recently prevailed in a lawsuit that had challenged the Department’s authority to require automatic fire sprinklers in multifamily dwellings with fewer than 20 units.  According to Bob, phasing-in the sprinkler requirement should now be completed by 2011.  Gregg asked staff to send the judicial ruling to Council members. 

Comm 18 - Elevators, Escalators and Lift Devices:  Bob reported that mandatory licensure of elevator installers has been adopted, with a 6-month delayed effective date, and grandfathering of current installers.  The licensure reflects legislation that passed about 3 years ago, which followed implementation of credential requirements for inspectors of elevators and other lift devices.  It was noted that the future trend may be to credential all elevator practitioners, including installers, contractors, maintenance personnel, and inspectors.

Comm 10 - Flammable, Combustible and Hazardous Liquids:  Sam Rockweiler reported that the Comm 10 Code Revision Committee met on May 8 and reviewed the rule changes the Department made or rejected, as based on public hearing comments that were received in April and May of 2007.  Sam distributed and emphasized the changes that have been made in the opening sections of Comm 10 to refocus the chapter on long-standing statutory directives to protect new and existing facilities, or occupants or firefighters therein, from flammable, combustible, or explosive conditions.  Sam noted that this protection is in harmony with or coexists as environmental protection rules in Comm 10, because the objective of both of these types of protection is largely accomplished by keeping flammable and combustible liquids contained and controlled.  Sam explained that extensive changes were made to the hearing draft in response to sharing comments that the proposed rules were difficult to understand.  Retroactive requirements for secondary containment and overfill protection were also emphasized.  Sam distributed a timeline showing the rule changes could become effective by February 1, 2009.  It was noted that NFPA 30-2008 is likely to be adopted in the Comm 10 rule package. The NFPA 1-2009 will pick up that same NFPA 30 edition and probably become effective approximately in the spring of 2010.

Tod Doebler asked how extensively the draft rules modify corresponding industry standards.  Sam explained that as in other Department rulemaking in recent years, substantial efforts are being directed at replacing Wisconsin-based requirements with the current, nationwide industry standards.  Terry Nolen asked if the draft rules are ahead of rulemaking in adjacent states, and Sam explained that if they are, they should not be for long, due to each state needing to comply with the same federal directives relating to environmental protection.  Terry asked whether the new Comm 10 would regulate home brewing of ethanol and biodiesel fuels, and Sam explained that Comm 14 would likely instead address those operations because their storage containers are typically smaller than the 110-gallon threshold at which Comm 10 begins to apply.

New legislation
Bob distributed and discussed a listing of acts from the most recent legislative session that address programs administered by the Safety and Buildings Division. 

Act 63 newly requires statewide licensing of electricians and statewide inspection of electrical installations.  Although no grandfathering of current electricians is included, the licensing is to be phased in over the next 5 years. 

Act 75, as distributed to the council members, expands current requirements for collecting fire-incident data.  Bob noted that some of the data which will be newly collected, such as determining the age of a building where a fire incident occurs, may not mesh easily with the National Fire Incident Reporting System, and may show sprinklers are needed in one- and two-family dwellings, instead of showing sprinklers are not needed in smaller multifamily dwellings, as claimed by some of the builders.  Bob explained that the degree of compliance in reporting fire incidents will continue to be excluded from determinations about eligibility for fire department dues payments.  It was noted that although the act mandates fire incident reporting, the initial goal of the Department is to publicize the requirements and to encourage volunteer compliance.  Bob added that Comm 14 needs to be updated to be consistent with Act 75, and until that occurs, the differing criteria in Act 75 will supersede the corresponding Comm 14 criteria.  According to Terry, the two most controversial elements in Act 75 include (1) determining the age of a building, especially if a fire occurs in one of several additions that were built at different times; and (2) determining the cost of a fire’s damage to the building.  Cost tables may be available from the International Code Council for guidance in determining these costs.  Bob said Comm 14 could address age periods, and Marty King suggested correlating such age periods with the dates when major code changes occurred.  Marty suggested the Department provide guidance in how to estimate the age of buildings and the cost of the damage.  It was noted that the insurance industry generally does not furnish the fire loss information to the fire department anymore.

Act 79, as distributed to the council members, newly requires schools to annually file a Department-based hazard-evacuation report with the fire department, and newly requires semiannual drills for evacuating in the event of a tornado or other hazard.  Bob said the type of hazard can be selected by the school.  Marty indicated these evacuation drills should not be substituted for the required monthly fire drills.  It was noted that the statutes supersede code requirements, and the Department should clarify the requirements and differences.  Terry noted staff previously posted a fire-drill report form on the Division Web site, that may need changes, and he explained that NFPA 1 section 20.2.3.3.2 requires a second emergency egress drill annually during the first 30 days of operation, in addition to the once-a-month drills that are required by section 118.07(2)(a) of the statutes.  Marty agreed to send his current report form to Bob, for reference in revising the Web-based form.  John Ashley noted that the upcoming state education convention in January could include a presentation on fire safety, which could address the new requirements in Act 79.

Act 173, as distributed to the council members, exempts small, infrequently-used mobile kitchens from needing fire suppression systems and exhaust hoods.  Bob indicated this exemption is a modification of the requirements in NFPA 1 chapter 50 for commercial cooking equipment, which could be followed by legislative modification of the requirements in NFPA 1 section 10.14 for natural cut Christmas trees.  Marty reported that insurance carriers are asking for written permission from fire departments to use natural cut trees in public buildings as a way of reducing the associated risks.  John commented that the NFPA 1 section 10.14 requirements technically do not allow flowers at weddings and funerals unless approved by the fire department.  Terry reported that NFPA staff are interpreting NFPA 1 section 10.14.2 as not allowing fire departments to permit use of natural cut trees, because the section refers only to combustible vegetation.  Bob and Sam explained that according to Wisconsin’s criteria for constructing statutes and administrative rules, the reference in NFPA 1 section 10.14.1 to “Combustible vegetation, including natural cut Christmas trees” means that in Wisconsin, the reference in 10.14.2 to combustible vegetation likewise includes natural cut Christmas trees.  It was noted that some local authorities having jurisdiction have adopted both model fire codes and are applying whichever model code language that best suits the jurisdiction’s needs on an issue.  Terry asked for a department interpretation to be issued and publicized.  It was noted that artwork and teaching materials on school walls was another controversial code issue and that may need to be revisited.  Terry noted concern for rented or leased mobile kitchens that are used at multiples sites, with a total annual usage which exceeds the exemption limit in Act 173 of fewer than 12 days.  Bob said a rule could be developed that establishes a tracking system for documenting the total annual usage.  Bob also noted Act 173 does not exempt mobile kitchens from any other requirements, such as setbacks.

A motion was made by Tod Doebler, seconded by John Ashley, and passed unanimously, recommending that the Department promulgate a rule which requires tracking of mobile kitchens that are used under the Act 173 exemption, to verify they do not exceed the annual usage limit of fewer than 12 days.

Act 203 newly requires licensing of propane distributors, and Bob noted that rules for the licensing will be added to chapter Comm 5.  Bob explained that the act does not apply to retail stores where empty portable containers are simply exchanged for full containers, but would apply to a facility with, for example, a 1,000-gallon storage tank that is used for filling portable containers.  It was noted that a training plan would need to be developed which would also address the liability insurance requirements.   

Act 205, as distributed to the council members, newly requires installation of carbon monoxide detectors in residential buildings except in one- or two-family dwellings, hospitals, and nursing homes.  It was noted that the department would need to develop rules by October of 2008.  Bob explained the act also requires certified inspectors or the Department to inspect the installations, which could be accomplished by certifying fire inspectors to perform the inspections.  Gregg noted that fire department inspectors are authorized deputies of the Department and could perform the inspections without becoming certified, but he emphasized he is not opposing credentialing of fire inspectors, especially if those credentials would expedite getting inspections of the detectors started.  Bob noted training may be needed for the inspections, and private-sector inspectors could perform the inspections.  It was noted that the required training covering the basics may be approximately a minimum of two hours.  Gregg added that owners who have knowledgeable staff could also perform the inspections.  Joe noted that Underwriters Laboratories may have a training program available, and training could be offered at county fire officer meetings.  It was noted tat the Wisconsin Building Safety Network could partner with the University of Wisconsin and offer training at approximately $15 per person.

Act 208, as explained by Joe, newly allows non-graded load-bearing lumber in one- and two-family dwellings and in multifamily dwellings, if the miller has been correspondingly trained and certified by the Department of Natural Resources.  However, the act also allows inspectors to reject the lumber or to impose limits on its use.

Act 225 newly requires manufacturers of cigarettes sold in Wisconsin to certify to the Department that the cigarettes comply with the fire-safety requirements in the act.  According to Bob, Illinois and 30 other states have enacted similar legislation.

Fire dues program
Bob reported that 3 townships are not eligible for fire dues payments this year, due to failing to send the Department the self-certification form 2 years in a row.  Bob noted ineligibility which is based on this failure is not appealable to the Department-appointed fire dues appeals board.  Even so, the Department is proceeding with establishing the board, for referrals if appeals occur in the future.  It was noted the Department has authority to relieve any fire chief from duties as a Department deputy, for cause; and upon such suspension, to appoint some other person to perform the duty.  However, the Department historically has not exercised that authority.

Timeline for review of the 2009 NFPA 1, and issues with the March 1 edition of Comm 14
Staff explained that copies of the 2009 changes to the 2006 NFPA 1 should become available in the fall.  Prior to then, changes to Comm 14 can be developed that are needed to achieve consistency with the previously discussed new legislation.  It was noted the target effective date for the next edition of Comm 14 is April 2010.  The target effective date for the next edition of Comm 60-66 is January 2010.

Gregg recommended analyzing what has been lost and what has been gained through the March 1 edition of Comm 14, and considering what can be done better - particularly with issues that have not been completely resolved, such as defining what constitutes design and construction, and addressing Terry’s list of unresolved staff issues.  Terry reported that the list of staff issues has shrunk - but some new issues have been added, such as the difficulty some volunteer fire departments are having with adjusting from the previous edition of Comm 14 to the March 1 edition.  Gregg agreed this difficulty is not uncommon.  It was noted the council may want to establish a workgroup to address the special issues and to make recommendations back to the council.

Terry recommended improving the clarity of Comm 14 by moving some of the administration and application requirements in section Comm 14.01 to corresponding topic areas in subsequent sections.  This could include moving the application criteria for fire department access and water supply in Comm 14.01(2)(a)4. to a new Comm 14.18 that would correspond with the criteria in NFPA 1 chapter 18 for fire department access and water supply.  Similarly, the application criteria for flammable, combustible, and hazardous liquids in Comm 14.01(1)(f) could be moved to a new Comm 14.66 that would correspond with the criteria in NFPA 1 chapter 66 for flammable, combustible, and hazardous liquids.  Another change could consist of renumbering the Comm 14 subsections to correspond with matching sections in the NFPA 1 chapters - such as renumbering Comm 14.13(4), for maintaining sprinkler systems, to be Comm 14.13(8), in order to correspond with the maintenance requirements in NFPA 1 section 13.8.  If this renumbering occurs, the note about section numbering at the beginning of Comm 14 subchapter II could be expanded to also address coordination of subsection numbering.  Attempts could also be made to further apply NFPA 1 as the primary document, with flags that go to Comm 14 whenever Comm 14 modifies NFPA 1.

Bob reported that article 708 in the current National Electrical Code, which is adopted in Comm 16, addresses critical-operation power systems as so designated at the local level.  Bob asked whether other agencies besides the Department should provide training on the topic.  Gregg agreed that deciding which power systems are critical should be a local decision, and Commerce should not provide the training.

Bob asked whether clarification is needed for “seasonal” occupancies, such as whether one inspection per season is appropriate.  Gregg suggested that seasonal implies an occupancy of 6 months or less.  Terry suggested relying on a dictionary definition of seasonal, and noted that although Comm 14 limits a “temporary” occupancy to no more than 180 days, no definitions are included for “vacant,” “unoccupied,” “periodic,” or “abandoned.”  And, NFPA 1 section 10.13.1.1 refers to facilities used on a seasonal basis and to temporary vacancy.  The issue of concern is how to determine the number of fire prevention inspections that are required under Comm 14.01(11)(b), because of their impact on establishing eligibility for fire dues payments.  Seasonal could be interpreted to mean an occupancy that extends consecutively to up to 3 of the 4 weather seasons in Wisconsin.  Gregg questioned whether the Department should publish guidance on the issue, and Bob agreed to route a draft through the council if the guidance is developed.

Fire inspection form
Bob asked whether there is interest in using a two-page, more-detailed inspection form based on NFPA 1.  Although the council members are not using the Department’s current one-page form, they concluded that guides, such as checklists that are organized by occupancies, may be helpful for small fire departments.

Fire inspector certification
Bob reported that efforts are continuing for developing a voluntary credential program for fire inspectors, but the program probably will not advance substantially further until after implementation of the newly required licensing for inspectors of carbon monoxide detectors.

Wisconsin Building Safety Network
Bob reported that efforts are underway for coordinating building-safety regulation activities with economic development activities, through organizations such as the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, the Wisconsin Counties Association, the Wisconsin Towns Association, the University of Wisconsin - Madison College of Engineering, and the University of Wisconsin - Extension.  The efforts include addressing related topics such as contracting with independent inspection agencies; storm water management, and taxes based on impervious surfaces such as fire access lanes; training courses for building inspections, soil erosion, permits and permit centers, carbon monoxide detectors, electrical inspections, ordinances, and human resources; and informational outreach to elected officials.  Terry emphasized the need to maintain visibility on following through with funding the corresponding fire prevention enforcement activities, particularly because fire dues payments are inadequate for covering the costs of these activities.

Next meeting
Gregg suggested meeting in July, and focusing on Terry’s list of staff issues - such as (1) identifying which issues have been resolved by either the March 1 edition of Comm 14 or through a published Question-and-Answer format, (2) identifying issues that remain unresolved, and (3) identifying new issues.  The unresolved and new issues could then be addressed in a prioritized order selected by staff. 

Council Member Attendance: John Ashley - Present; Gregg Cleveland, Chair - P; Marty King - P; Dave Lind - P; John Periard - Absent; Jim Stormer (Todd Blaser, Alternate) - P 

Visitors: Tod Doebler - Menomonee Falls Fire Department; Dan Gengler - National Fire Sprinkler Association

Department of Commerce Staff: Bob DuPont, Joe Hertel, Terry Nolen, Sam Rockweiler
 
Gregg Cleveland opened the meeting with a review of the agenda and the draft progress report for the preceding, March 7, 2006, Council meeting. 

A motion was made by Dave Lind, seconded by Marty King, and passed unanimously, to accept the March 7, 2006, progress report.

Department updates
          Commercial Building Code and fire sprinkler thresholds
Bob DuPont reported that subsequent to the December 2006 public Hearing for updating Wisconsin’s Commercial Building Code and Fire Prevention Code, most of the activity in updating the Commercial Building Code has focused on revising the requirements for ventilation and energy conservation.  Bob emphasized that no changes are anticipated to the proposed expansion of sprinkler requirements to include all new buildings with three or more dwellings. Bob indicated that the proposed expansion would put Wisconsin in line with 24 other states that currently have the lower sprinkler threshold for residential buildings.

            Limited-scope review of the fire dues program
Bob distributed copies of a letter from the Wisconsin Legislature’s Joint Audit Committee, and a preceding joint audit request from a state Senator and a Representative, that have resulted in a limited-scope review of the two-percent fire insurance dues program.  According to the Committee letter, the review is focusing on expenditures by the Department and by the Wisconsin Technical College System.  Bob reported that the auditors are reviewing expenditures over the last three full fiscal years, from July 2003 to July 2006, and are expected to issue a report near the end of April.  Gregg commented that the concerns which prompted the audit primarily relate to the fire service training provided by the technical colleges. 

Gregg asked how many Department staff are funded by the two-percent dues, and Bob said there are 5 field positions and 1.6 office positions.  Bob added that the fire dues program has recently hired a 0.5 FTE position for entering National Fire Incident Reporting System data; and NFIRS training options are being looked at, which could result in video-based training on the fire prevention program’s Web site.

              Budget Bill
Bob reported that the Governor’s proposed Budget Bill does not cut any positions in the Department’s regulatory programs, and that although the Department may be required to lapse some funding to the state’s general fund, no lapse will occur from the two-percent funds.  Marty King reported there has been preliminary discussion of transferring some of the two-percent funds to emergency medical services, but he does not expect those efforts to proceed further.  

              Fire dues audits
Joe Hertel reported that efforts are underway to develop Web-based reporting for the two-percent self-certification forms that municipalities submit to the Department.  Dan Gengler asked what the current compliance rate is for Wisconsin fire departments in filing National Fire Incident Reports, and Bob estimated the rate at 55 percent.  Dave Lind asked how well the current fire dues audits are proceeding, and Bob reported that Department field staff are currently recommending a determination of noncompliance for three municipalities – one of which was self-certified as being noncompliant.  In response to questions on whether an appeals board had been appointed yet and who the members are, Bob explained that he expects a fire dues appeals board to be appointed shortly after the effective date of the corresponding rules in proposed chapter Comm 14, which is currently estimated at September 1.

              Stop-work orders
Gregg asked for clarification of issuing stop-work and stop-use orders.  Bob explained that only Department staff can issue the stop-work orders which are addressed in chapter Comm 3, but stop-use orders can be issued by local officials under other authority.  Terry Nolen noted that Department field staff have limited criteria in the current Comm 14 to issue stop-work or stop-use orders, because much of chapter 1 of the 2000 edition of NFPA 1 was deleted during its adoption in Comm 14.  The staff would have expanded criteria through the 2006 NFPA 1 chapter 1 requirements that are proposed for Comm 14.  However, stop-work orders are not likely to occur frequently under the new Comm 14 because the NFPA 1 requirements for constructing public buildings and places of employment would continue to be deleted under the new Comm 14. 

Departmental responses to December 2006 Hearing comments  (See amended PDF of hearing responses)
In reference to the excerpted summary of hearing comments and corresponding draft Department responses that was e-mailed to the Council on March 16, Sam Rockweiler explained that the excerpt was intended to include only the comments relating to Comm 14.  Sam noted that the excerpt was still in draft form, and that the complete hearing comments and Department responses would be posted on the Department’s Web site after being accepted by the Secretary’s Office.  Sam noted the comments were supportive, except for opposition to (1) continuing to allow local application of the International Fire Code instead of the NFPA 1 code, and (2) continuing to delete the NFPA 1 chapters relating to flammable, combustible and hazardous liquids.

                Local use of an alternate model fire code
Gregg questioned whether the reference in the draft responses to local adoption of an alternate model fire code adequately captures the Department’s traditional position that locally adopted requirements must be equivalent to or more restrictive than the Department’s requirements.  It was noted that no comprehensive comparison was done between the 2000 and the 2006 versions of the IFC as was done with the NFPA 1, Uniform Fire Code.  Dave questioned the meaning of the response that the state fire code will “stand down” where a municipality chooses to administer the IFC in lieu of NFPA 1.  Dave explained that some municipalities currently adopt the IFC, and then selectively apply parts of NFPA 1 which are more restrictive than the IFC – which is substantially different than applying the IFC wholly in lieu of NFPA 1.  Sam noted the corresponding draft text in proposed Comm 14 no longer includes the phrase “in lieu of” and instead refers to local requirements that, in total, are equivalent to the Department’s requirements.  Bob explained that under the proposed Comm 14 text, municipalities could apply a combination of the IFC and NFPA 1, but only if they do so through an ordinance.  Terry noted that municipalities have always had this authority locally without the need to have the alternative fire code option language or reference in Comm 14. 

Marty noted concern for the Department not providing oversight in municipalities that apply the IFC instead of NFPA 1.  Dave asked whether the Department would resolve subsequent uncertainties about whether local requirements are equivalent to NFPA 1 requirements, such as through an appeal process, and Bob said yes.  Dave noted his belief that the Department has a responsibility to inform municipalities of the repercussions of substituting the IFC for NFPA 1, such as then potentially being unable to selectively apply requirements from both model codes.  Gregg noted concern for lack of clarity about the current application of the two model codes, and Marty noted that particular difficulties arise where a fire department serves multiple municipalities which do not each apply the same model code.  Dave commented that the Department has allowed a problem to exist in the fire service, and the Fire Inspectors Association is not obligated to resolve it by providing training on the IFC.

A motion was made by Dave Lind and seconded by John Ashley, recommending that the Department send an informational letter about the expected upcoming changes to local adoption and application of the IFC, to each of the municipalities which currently have a special order for applying the IFC in lieu of NFPA 1.

Terry recommended explaining the difference between the corresponding proposed text for Comm 14 and the current practices, and Bob agreed clarification might be helpful.  Gregg recommended emphasizing that a municipality cannot selectively apply requirements from both model fire codes unless it has a local ordinance which is not in conflict with Comm 14 and which clearly allows use of both codes.  Terry recommended clarifying whether a municipality can apply the IFC to a state-owned building, and clarifying the role of a fire department that serves multiple municipalities which do not each apply the same model fire code.

The motion passed unanimously.

                      Costs of Standards and Codes
John Ashley asked for clarification of the reference in the Hearing comments to an unfunded mandate being created by adoption of the International Building Code.  Joe Hertel explained that the reference addresses the costs that fire departments may incur in obtaining standards and codes which are incorporated into the Commercial Building Code.  Joe agreed to look into whether the Department could get copies of the IBC to each of the 850 Wisconsin fire departments.  Bob agreed to pursue getting copies of NFPA 1 to any fire departments that are unable to attend expected upcoming NFPA 1 training, where copies of that code will be distributed to the attendees. 

                       NFPA 1 chapters relating to flammable, combustible and hazardous liquids  
Sam explained that the draft Agency response to comments relating to chapter Comm 10 had been developed in conjunction with developing proposed public Hearing documents for repealing and recreating chapter Comm 10, which were recently delivered to the Secretary’s Office for approval to hold public Hearings.  The proposed new Comm 10 would focus more on tanks and less on smaller containers.  Questions arose as to the status of the remaining fire prevention provisions in Comm 10, and Marty and Dave noted a continuing preference to have Comm 14 include all fire prevention requirements for flammable, combustible and hazardous liquids, rather than having some of those requirements in Comm 10.  It was noted that the fire service prefers to have one code for these issues, a one stop shopping concept.  Bob explained that further efforts could be directed at achieving that consolidation during the next code-change cycle, involving the 2009 edition of NFPA 1.  Gregg commented that application of the most restrictive corresponding requirements should always be emphasized during construction of buildings.  Terry recommended having the Department’s various codes contain similar global statements for making the codes work well together, especially in any areas of code conflict.  Dave asked whether the next code-change cycle would include a coordinated update of each of the Department’s major codes, and Bob noted a preference for that coordination.  Gregg recommended having that coordination particularly mandate application of the most restrictive corresponding requirements.  For the current code-change cycle, Bob reported that instead of updating the Department’s two enrolled codes for commercial buildings and fire prevention, staff may develop insert pages for use with the 2006 model building and fire codes.

Post-Hearing changes to Comm 14
Sam initiated discussion of the draft post-Hearing changes to Comm 14 that were emailed to the Council on March 16; and he explained how they fit into the previous, complete redraft of Comm 14 which was e-mailed to the Council on August 14, 2006.  Sam emphasized that the overall effect of the March 16 changes would be to no longer delete the requirements in NFPA 1 which relate to flammable, combustible and hazardous liquids, except where those requirements differ from requirements in Comm 10 – as would occur if upcoming changes to Comm 10 include adoption of a newer version of the NFPA 30 flammable and combustible liquids code.  

Gregg asked which chapters of NFPA 1 would remain deleted after inserting the March 16 changes into the August 14, 2006, redraft.  Sam explained that only NFPA 1 chapter 27 would remain deleted – in order to instead apply recently updated requirements in chapter Comm 26 for mobile home parks.

The Council was not opposed to the March 16 draft changes.

Gregg questioned whether a steamer connection at a fire hydrant can have nonstandard threads.  According to Terry, the requirements for standardized hose threads in section 213.15 of the Statutes were originally intended to apply only to private fire-fighting companies and firemen’s associations organized under chapter 213.

Sam distributed and initiated discussion of three handouts of additional proposed changes to Comm 14, which were developed from internal staff discussions.  In proposed section Comm 14.01 (12) (f) 2., the Council agreed the deadline for fire departments to submit annual update forms should be changed to February 1.  There was interest in coordinating this deadline with Web-based, 2 Percent reporting in the near future.  For proposed sections Comm 14.01 (11) (b) 7. and (e), the Council discussed whether electronic-based reports should be maintained in a form capable of conversion to written form within a reasonable amount of time.  Terry noted that the proposed language was extracted from section 181.1601 (4) of the Statutes, and such conversion may be important in the proposed appeal process for fire dues audits.  However, there was concern for such conversion becoming impractical after long-term migration through successive software versions.  The Council agreed the conversion capability could be required for up to five years.  In discussing the requirements in NFPA 1 section 20.1.4.3 for open flames, Dave Lind commented that NFPA’s application of these requirements to only assembly occupancies is an oversight.  The Council reaffirmed an earlier agreement that the 20.1.4.3 requirements should be modified to apply to all occupancies.

Sam distributed and reinitiated discussion of previously discussed changes for current section Comm 14.002 (6), which are being developed in conjunction with moving regulation of small containers (less than 110 gallons) of flammable, combustible and hazardous liquids, and regulation of certain process containers for these liquids, from Comm 10 to Comm 14.  Sam explained that the scope of Comm 14 is being expanded for flammable, combustible and hazardous liquids, to apply beyond public buildings and places of employment, as Comm 10 currently does, and the retroactive aspects of Comm 14 would newly apply to these containers.  Based on the March 16 changes relating to no longer deleting NFPA 1 requirements for flammable, combustible and hazardous liquids, the Council agreed that the Comm 14.002 (6) criteria could be substantially shortened and simplified, and there may be interest in expanding the Comm 14 Appendix to include a listing of the containers that are moving from Comm 10 to Comm 14.  The Council also agreed that the Note under proposed section 14.01 (12) (d) 2. should be expanded to recognize that records of fire inspections beyond public buildings and places of employment are not fire dues entitlement records.

Unresolved issues previously addressed by the Council
Gregg noted ongoing concern for issues that are discussed but left unresolved.  He wants to see the Department put procedures or processes in place for addressing unresolved issues.  He also indicated that formal Code Interpretations from the Department have been effective in the past, but the less formal, Question-and-Answer pronouncements that the Department has issued since 2002 for the Commercial Building Code have been too transitory.  Gregg wants to see Department code interpretations and code-application positions become more formal and archival, and he wants the Department to develop a process to accomplish that.  As an example, Gregg cited ongoing difficulties resulting from not having a definition of design and construction, since Comm 14 defers to the Commercial Building Code for all design and construction of public buildings and places of employment.  Gregg commented that the Comm 14 Council’s progress reports are the only archives currently available for determining the original intent of the Council and the Department.  Dave asked whether the Department’s code interpretation authority extends to the standards and codes that are incorporated into the Department’s codes.  Bob said yes, and he added that the Q and A pronouncements could be modified to be more formal. 

Bob reported that although Q and As have not been developed yet for Comm 14, a new communications position is being filled, which could address the topic, and the Department is approximately two months into analyzing optimal resource allocations throughout all of its programs.  The analysis is expected to include a comparison of the resources that each program has for interfacing with local agents, which could result in applying some general Safety and Buildings Division appropriations which are not from fire dues, to fire prevention programs.  In short, Bob agreed that a better system is needed for addressing unresolved issues, but he needs to be able to apply resources to develop the improvements.

Terry commented that the Department fire prevention coordinators’ list of unresolved issues primarily address the fire code problems which have occurred from 2002 to now, especially (1) violations of the IFC-alternative option; (2) when is an issue considered design and construction versus when is an issue considered use, operation and maintenance; (3) lost Wisconsin-based requirements from the 1999 edition of Comm 14; and (4) requirements that are retroactive.  Gregg recommended looking at how the numerous jurisdictions in other states address issues relating to adoption of the International Building Code and its references to the IFC, in combination with adopting NFPA 1.  Gregg also recommended developing improvements for addressing unresolved issues before considering new issues, such as the remaining topics on the meeting Agenda, which included voluntary credentials for fire inspectors, letters for rescinding notices of noncompliance to fire dues criteria, and fire extinguishers on school buses.  Dave recommended against waiting with considering new issues until after all previous issues are resolved.  John noted concern that school districts may be making assumptions which are untrue, if the assumptions are based on inadequate information being provided to local jurisdictions, but new issues that are important should be addressed in a timely manner as well.  Nonetheless, the Council emphasized its appreciation for the Department’s efforts and output to date.

Voluntary credentials for fire inspectors
Bob noted that interest has arisen for voluntary credentials for fire inspectors.  Bob indicated a scope statement could be initiated, and a task group could be appointed to work on the topic and make recommendations.  Tod Doebler reported that the interest is conceptual at this point, within an education committee for fire inspectors.  Gregg recommended that fire inspectors discuss the topic with the Fire Chiefs Association and other fire service organizations, and substantially develop a proposal before having the Council and the Department consider the topic in detail.  Terry noted the topic is linked to a current mandate in section Comm 14.47 (4) (a) for fire inspectors to complete required training approved by the Department and by the fire chief.

A motion was made by Todd Blaser, seconded by Tod Doebler, and passed unanimously, to not mandate a certification or other credential for fire inspectors.

A corresponding motion was made by Tod Blaser, seconded by Gregg Cleveland, and passed unanimously, to amend the applicable portion of the current mandate in Comm 14.47 (4) (a) to read  “conduct the inspections upon completion of required training approved by the department and by the fire chief.”

Next meeting
Bob recommended that the next meeting not occur until July, at the earliest, in anticipation of completing the proposed update of the Commercial Building Code and the Fire Prevention Code. 

Tuesday, March 7, 2006, 9 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., Thompson Commerce Center, Room 3B, 201 West Washington Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin
Council Member Attendance: John Ashley Present;  Gregg Cleveland, Chair (Dave Lind, Alternate) P; Marty King P; Dave Lind (Tod Doebler Alternate) P;     John Periard Absent; Jim Stormer (Todd Blaser Alternate) P.
Department of Commerce Staff: Bob DuPont, Joe Hertel, Terry Nolen, Sam Rockweiler.
Dave Lind opened the meeting with a review of the draft progress report for the preceding, February 1st Council meeting.  In reference to the discussion on page 4 addressing the authority versus duty of fire chiefs, under sections 101.14 (1) and (2) of the Wisconsin Statutes, Terry Nolen noted that the statutory text has not changed for many years, and that although the progress report accurately reflected his comments at the February meeting, he is concerned about whether the Department is changing its interpretation of the statutory text on fire chief authority to administer and enforce Comm codes as it relates to fire hazard abatement, versus the duty to determine and correct fire hazards.  Terry noted the fire chief, as a deputy of the Department, is given authority to administer and enforce the requirements in the Wisconsin Commercial Building Code that relate to fire hazards or to prevention of fires.  The fire chief also has a duty, in public buildings and places of employment, to determine and cause to be eliminated any fire hazard or any violation of any law relating to fire hazards or to prevention of fires.  Bob DuPont commented that the Department’s corresponding rules, which fire chiefs have authority to enforce, have the effect of law.  Bob added that the Department would like to have a commercial building inspector, from either the public or private sector, available in all counties or municipal areas throughout the state.  Wherever a local jurisdiction is then unable to provide building inspection, the Department could contract with private inspection agencies, as is currently occurring with construction of one- and two-family dwellings.  Bob emphasized that under the Statutes, fire chiefs have a duty to cause to be eliminated any fire hazard at any public building or place of employment.  Dave Lind commented that under his local ordinance, both building inspectors and fire inspectors have concurrent authority to enforce requirements in both Comm 14 and the Commercial Building Code, and he indicated that the Department’s rules should also reflect that authority.

A motion was made by John Ashley, seconded by Marty King, and passed unanimously, to accept the February 1st progress report, in conjunction with the March 7th discussion.

Department updates
Local use of an alternate fire code
Bob reported the Secretary’s Office has decided that the public hearing draft for updating Comm 14 should retain the current local option to apply the International Fire Code in lieu of the NFPA fire prevention code.  Dave asked whether the Secretary’s Office intended to answer the IFC questions he previously posed.  Bob said he had no written answers to forward to the Council, and any possible future responses may be in reaction to public hearing comments.  Bob added that the date for the hearing was not established yet, but a date in May is desired.  Dave asked whether the decision would result in any substantive changes to the corresponding draft text that the Council has reviewed for proposed section Comm 14.001 (2).  Bob said it would not, because the draft text is consistent with the Department’s general movement toward less bureaucracy.  However, the procedures for implementing this IFC option have not been fully established yet.

State Fire Marshall’s Office
Bob reported that the Secretary’s position on whether any changes should be made to the State Fire Marshall’s Office is that the topic is not appropriate for the Department to address, and the question should be directed instead to the Governor’s Office and Legislature.  Marty King commented that adjacent states have more-robust State Fire Marshall Offices, and Tod Doebler said the fire service in those states typically report to that Office.   

Fire sprinklers in multifamily dwellings
According to Bob, the topic that is attracting the most attention in the current update of the Commercial Building Code is whether to change the threshold for requiring sprinklers, from the current level of more than 20 dwelling units, down to three or more dwelling units.  Bob noted the model building codes currently apply the lower threshold, and the Department generally is inclined to use requirements in model codes.  Department staff are compiling corresponding National Fire Incident Reporting System data, along with data from other states that relates to adoption and application of the lower threshold.  A total of 24 states have adopted the 2003 edition of the International Building Code, which contains the lower threshold, and 12 states have made no changes to it.  Staff are also analyzing the potential impacts on small businesses.  Some businesses would incur higher costs, and other businesses, such as sprinkler contractors,  would benefit.  About 1000 new apartment or condominium buildings in Wisconsin could be affected each year by the change.  Based on an estimated sprinkler cost of $1.50 to $2 per square foot of building area, the total annual cost of the change in Wisconsin could range from 18 to 24 million dollars, which could result in a 1- to 5-percent increase in the total cost of the buildings.  However, that cost increase would be diminished by the Building Code’s relaxation of other requirements, where sprinklers are provided.  Water supply concerns must also be addressed.

Terry asked whether the Department’s legal counsel has issued a written opinion on whether lowering the sprinkler threshold would conflict with the sprinkler thresholds for multifamily dwellings, as listed in chapter 101 of the Statutes.  Bob explained that the opinion is still in draft form, but the expected outcome is that the Department has authority to lower the threshold, and that lowering the threshold to match the model code requirements would comport with a statutory directive to be consistent with model code requirements for sprinklers in commercial buildings.  Terry asked whether the Department’s opinion would permit municipalities to establish local sprinkler ordinances to meet the lower thresholds, or affect those municipalities with pre-existing sprinkler ordinances.  Bob said the Department’s opinion would not affect either.

Fireworks
Staff distributed copies of proposed 2005 Assembly Bill 1083, which essentially would prohibit retail sale of all fireworks except to people who hold a fireworks display permit, as issued by a municipality after an applicant demonstrates compliance with several statutory requirements.

National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS)
Bob explained that the Department is interested in coordinating a Wisconsin-based reply to a federal invitation for comments on improving NFIRS.  Bob explained his interest in simplifying the system and making the database more readily accessible, but not at the expense of compromising data that the fire service needs.   

Marty King said although the position of the Professional Fire Fighters of Wisconsin is that the system should be simpler and easier to use, the actual practice has been that the current level of detail, such as for firefighter deaths and injuries, is sometimes necessary for proving the needs of fire departments.  Marty, Dave and Todd Blaser explained that they also use alternate reporting systems that better suit their needs.  Further discussion focused on the system’s limited ability to accommodate quick queries for specific kinds of information; inability of a fire department to see information from other nearby local fire departments; inability for local fire departments to see information from other states; inability to show fire trends, such as for fire setters, church fires, or vacant or abandoned buildings; a possibility for designating local fire departments as assistant state program managers; and fire department concerns about NFIRS being overly burdensome for entering and working with data, time constraints, and high staff turnover rates from a training and education perspective.  Dave recommended that the Department solicit corresponding input from the Wisconsin State Fire Chiefs Association, and he indicated the Wisconsin Fire and EMS Coalition would support the results.

March 2nd updated draft rules for repealing and recreating Comm 14
Sam Rockweiler initiated discussion of the updated draft rules and corresponding summary for repealing and recreating Comm 14, which were e-mailed to the Council on March 2nd.  Bob noted that staff had not forwarded the draft rules yet to the Secretary’s Office for approval to advance to public Hearings, and when the draft is released for the Hearings, it will include proposed rules for updating the Commercial Building Code.

Tod Doebler asked what the Department would do if the accompanying changes in the Building Code become bogged down by resistance to lowering the sprinkler threshold for residential occupancies.  Bob indicated that the proposal to lower the threshold could be removed from the draft, and he noted the desired effective date for the draft rules remains at January 1, 2007.

In reference to the proposed text for section Comm 14.66 on page 21 of the draft rules, for flammable and combustible liquids, Dave noted concern that the text would turn off all of NFPA 1 Chapter 66, in Comm 14.  Sam explained that although the proposed text addresses a boundary between Comm 14 and Comm 10, and Comm 10 regulates storage, use and transportation of flammable and combustible liquids, the proposed text does not change the current local authority to enforce Comm 10.  Sam noted the Environmental and Regulatory Services Division, which administers Comm 10, is satisfied with the proposed text.  Dave commented that there are too few Comm 10 certified inspectors to cover the entire state, and he explained his preference to move all fire-safety related requirements from Comm 10 to Comm 14, and thereby have Comm 10 address only the environmental-protection related requirements for flammable and combustible liquids.

Terry questioned why a boundary is needed between Comm 10 and Comm 14, and yet none is needed between Comm 10 and the Commercial Building Code.  Terry noted that the Commercial Building Code also addresses design and construction requirements for storage and use of flammable and combustible liquids, and it informs readers to see Comm 10 for additional requirements for motor vehicle service stations and for storage, handling, processing and transporting of flammable and combustible liquids.  Terry asked why the Fire Code cannot handle it the same way.  Terry indicated the Comm 14 Council has been dealing with this issue for over two years, and the net effect is “nothing has changed.”  Bob explained that Comm 10 defers to the Building Code for design and construction of public buildings and structures, in lieu of the requirements in the NFPA standards which are adopted in Comm 10.  Bob added that the proposed text in Comm 14.66 would allow enforcing additional aspects of NFPA 1 Chapter 66, through Comm 14, when regulation of small containers (aboveground tanks smaller than 110 gallons, and underground tanks smaller than 60 gallons) is moved, as expected, from Comm 10 to Comm 14.

A motion was made by Dave Lind, seconded by Todd Blaser, and passed unanimously, to move all fire-prevention related topics for flammable and combustible liquids, from Comm 10 to Comm 14.

In reference to the deletion of previously proposed section Comm 14.69 on page 21 of the draft rules, for liquefied petroleum gases and liquefied natural gases, staff noted the result is that no modifications are proposed for NFPA 1 Chapter 69.

In discussing the proposed text for Comm 14.43 on page 20, for spraying, dipping and coating using flammable or combustible materials, as addressed in NFPA Chapter 43, the Council agreed to amend its motion for flammable and combustible liquids to include the topics addressed in NFPA Chapter 43; and to similarly include the related topics in NFPA Chapter 30, which address motor fuel dispensing facilities and repair garages, and the related topics in NFPA Chapter 42, which address refueling of automotive vehicles, marine vessels, and aircraft.

In discussing the informational Note under Comm 14.01 (2) (a) 4. c. on page 5, which refers to design and construction requirements in the Commercial Building Code, the Council agreed the Note should be moved to subdivision 2., where the design and construction requirements in NFPA 1 are deleted.  Dave suggested changing the Note to instead be a Comm 14 requirement.

In discussing the proposed revisions for Comm 14.01 (2) (b) 1. on page 6, which address any conflicts between the Department’s rules and other documents referenced therein, Dave commented that the topic illustrates how problems result from having outdated fire safety requirements in Comm 10. 

In discussing the NFPA 1 Chapter 1 requirements that would be excluded by Comm 14.01 (4) on page 7, Bob reported that the Secretary’s Office is moving toward allowing only Division Administrators or management designees thereof, rather than Department field staff, to issue stop-work or stop-use orders.  Consequently, the allowance in NFPA 1 Section 1.7.14 for local issuance of such orders may be excluded from Comm 14.  Dave and Marty commented that fire departments have statutory authority to order evacuation of buildings, whenever eminent danger occurs, and that any work which would be ordered to stop, under Section 1.7.14, would not be construction work because construction is not within the scope of Comm 14.  Bob agreed to pursue not excluding Section 1.7.14 from Comm 14, and he indicated that retaining this Section should not negatively impact small businesses, because the section would essentially provide further guidance for what is already occurring under current statutory authority.

Staff list of issues
Terry initiated discussion of a staff list of issues that remain to be addressed by the Council, which was emailed to the Council on February 28.  Bob noted that some of the issues are not code-change items. 

In discussing problems associated with definitions, Terry noted there is uncertainty about when electronic-based records should be accepted as written records.  The Council agreed that the informational Note under Comm 14.01 (10) (b) 7. on page 11 of the draft rules, which addresses electronic-based records, should be moved to the end of subsection (10) in order to provide guidance for the entire subsection, and the topic should be emphasized during training programs for fire departments.

For two-percent-dues audits, Terry said the corresponding timelines in Comm 14 do not all match the timelines in the Statutes.  Bob suggested changing Comm 14 to clarify that a Department audit of a fire department is different from a self-certification performed by a fire department.  The Council agreed to delete “audit” at every reference in Comm 14 to “self-certification,” and to delete “onsite” at every reference in Comm 14 to “audit.” 

Terry explained that under current Comm 14.47 (2) (b), which is repeated in Comm 14.01 (10) (b) 2. on page 9 of the draft rules, the fire chief is responsible for determining the number of public buildings and places of employment that are to be inspected, in each municipality for which the fire department has responsibility.  This code language requires a determination to be made and implies that a list should exist in either written or electronic format.  Terry commented that when conducting two-percent-dues audits, Fire Prevention Coordinators do not always get a list of the public buildings and places of employment that are to be inspected.

Marty recommended not requiring fire departments to generate a list of the buildings to be inspected.  The Council agreed to change the code text to refer to a fire chief determining “those” buildings that are to be inspected, rather than determining “the number of” buildings to be inspected.

Terry noted that neither Comm 14 nor the Statutes have definitions for different types of fire departments, but different types of fire department are referenced in the Statutes and in the Department’s training terminology, fire department database, and two-percent-dues process.  Dave said Comm 14.01 (11) (a) 1. b. on page 14, which addresses training programs for fire departments, could be expanded to include references to paid-on-call and volunteer type departments.  Bob said potential complexities with the Department of Workforce Development argue against codifying definitions for the different types, and Marty likewise noted preference for not codifying them.  Dave suggested revisiting the topic after public hearings are held on the draft rules, and recommended that Bob and the Fire Prevention Coordinators try to resolve the issue in the interim. 

Terry noted that the building occupancy classifications in Comm 14.01 (10) (b) 5. a. to s., on pages 10 and 11, for the occupancies that may be inspected once per year, do not all coincide with the current or upcoming classifications in the Commercial Building Code, NFPA 1, or NFIRS [NFPA 901].  In addition, the classifications in these Comm 14 sections apply retroactively.  Dave said fire inspectors typically have only NFPA 1 to refer to, so Comm 14 should use the NFPA 1 terminology.  Bob noted that these Comm 14 sections also refer to building heights which are based on the number of stories, which historically meant the number of stories above the surrounding grade, but the current Commercial Building Code definition of story includes floor levels down to the bottom of a basement.  Staff noted that unless Comm 14 modifies the NFPA 1 terminology, the NFPA 1 terminology applies.

Dave reported that the definition of a governing authority is being revised for the next edition of NFPA 1, so in the future the Council may want to discuss that definition along with definitions for an authority having jurisdiction and for fire protection and fire prevention services.

In addressing the most significant issues on the staff list, Terry said the scope of Comm 14 should be broadened to match the scope of the corresponding Statutes.  Under section 101.14 (1) (a), the Department “may make reasonable orders for the repair or removal of any building or other structure which for want of repair or by reason of age or dilapidated condition or for any other cause is especially liable to fire, and which is so situated as to endanger other buildings or property and for the repair or removal of any combustible or explosive material or inflammable conditions, dangerous to the safety of any building or premises or the occupants thereof or endangering or hindering fire fighters in case of fire.”

Terry said the International Mechanical Code has requirements for outdoor appliances, but section Comm 64.0001 in the Commercial Building Code deletes those requirements.  Bob said staff are considering several refinements of Comm 64.  Dave said the issue is another example of where NFPA 1 addresses a design and construction topic that is not addressed by the Commercial Building Code.  The Council agreed that the schematic guidance for outdoor storage, as shown on the last page of Terry’s list, should be added to the Comm 14 Appendix.

In discussing referrals and tracking of complaints, Dave suggested developing a process for anonymously filing complaints against commercial building inspectors, similar to the current process for filing complaints against inspectors of one- and two-family dwellings.  Terry asked whether Comm 14 should be revised to define fire inspection, in terms of quality, and initial versus follow-up inspections.  Marty responded that other organizations, including NFPA, do not. 

Due to the number of staff issues and concerns, the Council agreed to table the remaining issues, for discussion at future Council meetings.

Dave asked staff to send the hearing draft of the proposed rules to the Council members before public hearings are held. 

Next meeting: The Council agreed to postpone the next meeting to after public hearings are held on the draft rules. 

Wednesday, February 1, 2006, 9 a.m. to  2:30 p.m., Tommy G. Thompson Commerce Center, Room 3B, 201 West Washington Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin
Council member attendance: John Ashley Excused; Gregg Cleveland Chair P; Marty King P; Dave Lind P; John Periard Absent; Jim Stormer (Todd Blaser Alternate) P
Department of Commerce Staff:Bob DuPont, Joe Hertel, Terry Nolen, Sam Rockweiler      

Gregg Cleveland opened the meeting with a review of the draft progress report for the preceding, December 13th Council meeting.  In reference to the discussion on page four addressing 2 percent fire dues audits, Terry Nolen noted that the procedure for fire departments which are determined to be noncompliant is to add them to the onsite audit schedule for the following year, and this is a proposed procedure rather than a current procedure.  Terry added that under the Wisconsin Statutes [section 101.573 (3) (b)], the corresponding payments to a noncompliant municipality “shall” be reduced.  In reference to the discussion on page five addressing the NFPA summary of changes in the 2006 NFPA 1/Uniform Fire Code, Terry noted the discussion had also included recognition that the new requirements in NFPA 1 section 10.15.11, for crop mazes, would apply to crop mazes which are a place of employment.

A motion was made by Todd Blaser, seconded by Marty King, and passed unanimously, to accept the December 13th progress report, as amended through the February 1 discussion.

Department updates
January 12, 2006, Joint Meeting of the Commercial Building Code Council and Multifamily Dwelling Code Council
Bob DuPont reported that the joint meeting of the two Councils focused primarily on two topics:  fire department access roadways, and sprinklers in residential occupancies.  Bob described how the City of Madison presented its desire to continue having the roadway requirements in the Commercial Building Code, but having the requirements there is counter to the national model of having the requirements in a fire prevention code.  Bob said the Commercial Building Code Council had some concern that having the requirements in Wisconsin’s Fire Prevention Code would create a need for building designers to refer to another separate book.  However, designers likely will need to refer to the Fire Prevention Code for other purposes as well, and the requirements for the access roadways do not directly affect the design of a building.  Marty noted that building designers typically do not request required local approvals for departing from standard roadway requirements.  Bob reported the Multifamily Dwelling Code Council understood that moving the roadway criteria to the Fire Prevention Code would allow local departure from the uniformity which is otherwise statutorily mandated for the Commercial Building Code’s requirements for multifamily dwellings.  Bob said the two Councils asked that the Comm 14 Council further address the roadway topic.

A motion was made by Dave Lind, seconded by Marty King, and passed unanimously to (1) formally recognize the adequacy of the requirements in NFPA 1/UFC for fire department access roadways, and (2) to include the requirements in Comm 14 rather than in the Commercial Building Code.

Bob reported that staff presented the two Councils with cost data for complying with a new requirement in the International Building Code to provide fire sprinklers in all new R-2 occupancies which are below the current thresholds for providing sprinklers.  The data showed that the cost increase for a typical apartment building would range from 1.1 percent (where a municipal water supply is available) to 11 percent (where a private water supply would be needed).  However, those cost increases would diminish where designers utilize the tradeoffs that are available in the Building Code, when providing sprinklers.  Bob reported that the two Councils considered a motion to advance rule changes to the public Hearing stage that do not include the new IBC sprinkler requirement.  The CBCC voting on the motion tied, and the MFDCC voting failed to pass the motion as well. 

Bob reported that the Wisconsin Legislature introduced a bill on January 31 that would make the Commercial Building Code uniform statewide.  Dave asked that the Council receive a copy of the bill, and he noted concern that the bill could increase efforts to use the International Fire Code instead of NFPA 1/UFC.  Staff distributed copies of the bill – 2005 AB 956 – and Bob said he is recommending that the Department neither support nor oppose the proposed bill.
 
Dave asked for the Department’s position on the new IBC sprinkler requirement, and Bob said the position is not established yet.  He added that he agrees with the new requirement, and the construction industry may support the new requirement in order to achieve passage of the legislation for making the Commercial Building Code uniform statewide.  Dave asked whether adjacent states have a statewide-uniform Commercial Building Code, and Bob said they likely do not.  Bob noted that the rationale within the construction industry to use the same model building code in each state applies within and throughout each state as well.  Marty commented that builders typically are no longer arguing that sprinklers are too expensive, and he said that exempting the new requirement in rural areas which do not have municipal water supplies would conflict with sprinklers being needed more there because fire department response times are longer there.  Bob reported the Department’s legal counsel may advise that the Department not only has the authority but also has a duty to propose the new IBC sprinkler requirement, because of a corresponding statutory mandate to be consistent with contemporary model building codes.  Bob added that Wisconsin’s Small Business Regulatory Review Board could review any proposal to adopt the new requirement.  

Bob reported the Department is developing emergency rules for implementing 2005 Wisconsin Act 78, as enacted in the preceding month, which requires sprinklers in specified, privately owned, residential buildings for students at institutions of higher education.  The analysis for the rules will likely reference the new IBC sprinkler requirement for R-2 occupancies. 

Replies From the Secretary
Gregg noted the Council had not yet received, and still desires, a reply from the Secretary’s Office, for the questions Dave Lind submitted by email on October 19, 2005, relating to local use of the IFC in lieu of NFPA 1.  According to Gregg, the Council likewise has not received the Secretary’s position on establishing a “true” State Fire Marshall, as requested six months previously.

January 23rd updated draft rules for repealing and recreating Comm 14
Sam Rockweiler led discussion of the updated draft rules and corresponding summary for repealing and recreating Comm 14, which were emailed to the Council on January 23rd. 

- In reference to the text on page two of the draft, for local use of an alternate model fire code, Gregg noted the Council has not retreated from its motion to delete all references to any alternate model fire code.

- In reference to the text on page one of the draft, for an informational note in section Comm 61.41 (1) for inspections, Dave asked why the text differed from the corresponding note that previously occurred in chapter Comm 50.  Bob explained that the Commercial Building Code, chapters Comm 61 to 65, does not require inspections, and the proposed text references statutory requirements for fire departments to periodically inspect public buildings and places of employment.  Dave and Marty indicated concern that the proposed text would be inadequate for dispelling perceptions that fire inspectors do not have authority to enforce the Commercial Building Code.  There was agreement to expand the note to include the criteria in sections 101.14 (1) and (2) of the Statutes that (1) recognize fire chiefs as deputies of the Department and (2) establish the authority of Department deputies to determine and cause to be eliminated any fire hazard or any violation of any law or order, such as the orders in the Commercial Building Code, relating to fire hazards or to the prevention of fires.  Terry noted that there are three main talking points to this issue: (1) the relationship to the Comm 5 credential for building inspectors, and the lack of recognition of the Wisconsin Technical College certification issued to fire inspectors; (2) the authority of the fire chief as a deputy of the Department to enforce the Comm 61 to 65 requirements relating to fire hazards or to the prevention of fires, along with the duty of fire chiefs, in public buildings and places of employment, to determine and cause to be eliminated any fire hazard or any violation of any law relating to fire hazards or to the prevention of fires; and (3) the lack of local access to the International Code Council model codes, as adopted in Comm 61 to 65, for use by deputies and inspectors in the exercise of their authority or the fulfillment of their duties.  The department has a statutory duty under, section 101.14 (3), to annually conduct training sessions and to provide manuals and other materials and services to assist deputies and inspectors in the fulfillment of their duties.  Bob commented that the IBC includes an “F” designation for content which most directly relates to fire officials, and which is maintained or proposed by the IFC Development Committee. 

Dave asked who is inspecting buildings wherever local ordinances do not require inspections.  Bob explained that inspection of some building components may occur there, such as by the Department’s elevator or boiler inspectors, but the Department’s delivery of the Commercial Building Code in those areas is not as good as the delivery of the one- and two-family dwelling code, which has mandatory inspections statewide.  Bob agreed that inspection of public buildings is inadequate and needs to grow; and he explained that the Department is proposing to conduct a survey of municipalities to see who is currently performing Comm 61 to 65 building inspections.  Dave indicated the lack of inspection conflicts with movement toward uniform codes, and is not offset by construction oversight from registered, supervising professionals.  Bob agreed, and explained that the Department plans to pursue an update and upgrade of the implementation of the Commercial Building Code immediately after completing the current cycle for updating the Commercial Building and Fire Prevention Codes.  Dave noted particular concern for the lack of inspections for the Building Code tradeoffs that are authorized in the IBC.  Bob suggested inspection requirements could be added to the proposed bill that would make the Commercial Building Code uniform statewide.  Terry suggested any future training for all groups associated with Comm 61 to 65 could (1) emphasize and reinforce that fire inspectors have authority to inspect buildings for compliance with the Commercial Building Code and (2) emphasize and reinforce where that authority comes from.  Bob suggested delivering the message of improving inspections to others besides the fire service, such as the League of Wisconsin Municipalities.

-In reference to Comm 14.001 (2) on page two of the draft, for local use of an alternate model fire code, Bob said he recommended to the Secretary to repeal this IFC option, but the Secretary wants to leave the option in.  There are 15 out of 1851 municipalities that support the IFC option. Where the IFC is adopted by a local ordinance, local resources will support it.  The Department will not provide any resources or assistance to support the IFC.  Gregg said the descriptive text for this rule section should include reference to the Council’s motion opposing continuation of the alternate-code option, and he commented that this is the only Commerce code where the Department allows for an alternative option to be used in place of the State’s minimum requirements.  Dave recommended deleting the option from the public hearing draft and then seeing what reasons are advanced by any advocates for continuing the option.  Sam emphasized that the redrafted text for the option discontinues the current special Department order and predetermination of equivalence, for using the alternate code.  Under the redrafted text, the local municipality would review and determine equivalence, but that determination could be reviewed some time later by the Department, such as in response to a complaint or an appeal.

- In reference to deleted text for Comm 14.01 (2) (c) 6. on page three of the draft, which would repeal text that exempts small, community-based residential facilities from Comm 14, concern was noted for the retroactive application to the former 3-8 CBRF classifications.  There was interest in having the corresponding statutory references [101.01 (11) and 101.11].

- In reference to the informational note on page five, describing the scope of NFPA 1 as being broader than Comm 14, Sam explained that staff would revise the note when upcoming rule changes in Comm 10 transfer regulation of small containers and storage tanks for flammable and combustible liquids to Comm 14.  Concerns were noted about the authority and relationship between the Comm 10 “authorized agent” and the fire inspector with regards to determinations of fire safety compliance under Comm 10.  As at previous Council meetings, Dave recommended expanding the scope of Comm 14 to include any design and construction requirements in NFPA 1 and 101 that are not addressed in the Commercial Building Code.  Bob responded that those requirements should be discussed for inclusion in the Commercial Building Code rather than in Comm 14.  Bob noted that Dave could address that discussion in his role as a member of the Commercial Building Code Council.

- In reference to the draft text in Comm 14.01 (10) (b) 8. on page 12, for fire safety inspections, the Council agreed that the text should refer to authorized deputies of the Department and to authorized representatives of local fire departments, which could include private inspection agencies.

- In reference to the draft text in Comm 14.01 (10) (c) on page 12, for fire incident reports, Terry noted that administration of section 101.141 of the Statutes was transferred to the Department from the Department of Justice in 1975.  The law requires the Department to maintain records of all fires occurring in Wisconsin and to make the records available to public inspection.  The law does not require fire departments to submit the reports.  Bob noted he believes the Department has sufficient authority to require the reports to be submitted under administrative rule.  Terry said he understood Bob’s comments.  Terry thought the agency’s rule-making authority is limited by chapter 227 of the Statutes, if the rule is in conflict with the intent of the law.

- In reference to the draft text in Comm 14.01 (10) (b) 5. s. on page 11, for inspecting seasonal or periodic occupancies, Sam noted the dictionary definition for these terms would apply.  Terry questioned whether the criteria should also apply to temporary occupancies, or to buildings in transition, such as temporarily unoccupied buildings.  The Council agreed to expand the criteria on page 10 for vacant buildings, to also apply to temporarily unoccupied buildings.  No inspection-frequency decision was reached for the temporary uses of a building or portion of a building that are addressed in Comm 14.01 (2) (f).  Terry commented that some of the occupancy classifications under Comm 14.01 (10) (b) 5. on pages 10 and 11 differ somewhat from the occupancy classifications in the IBC.  Some of the occupancy classifications were different before Wisconsin’s adoption of the IBC became effective on July 1, 2002.  According to Terry, the retroactive application of Comm 14 for this topic causes confusion because the classification categories do not line up.

- In reference to the draft text in Comm 14.01 (10) (b) 9. on page 12, for inspection authority, the Council agreed that the text should reference section 101.14 (2) of the Statutes, which recognizes fire chiefs as authorized deputies of the Department.

- In reference to the draft text in Comm 14.01 (10) (b) 5. (intro.) on page 10, for inspection frequency exceptions for other municipalities, Terry questioned the Council for clarification of their intent that the interval between those inspections should not exceed 15 months.  The Council reaffirmed their position that the proposed language is needed, to prohibit having nearly two years lapse between inspections.  Currently, a fire department can perform an inspection on January 1 in one calendar year and not have to perform the next inspection until December 31 in the next calendar year.

- In response to a question on where the adopted codes and referenced standards and publications are addressed in the proposed draft, Sam explained that Comm 14.01 (2) (a) 3. on page five specifies the application of the adopted codes and referenced standards.

- In reference to the draft text in Comm 14.01 (11) (f) 3. on page 16, for the timing of a fire dues audit appeal, the Council agreed that the text should not include references to Fire Prevention Coordinators or their supervisor.

- The Council agreed to retain the signage requirements in NFPA 1 section 10.12, as use requirements for premises, shaftways and stairways.  The Council concluded that the requirements would not conflict with the Commercial Building Code.

- The Council recommended repealing the general prohibitions currently in Comm 14.03 (1), relating to interference with firefighting and firefighting equipment, because NFPA 1/UFC adequately includes them.  The Council also recommended moving the current reprint of corresponding statutory references and penalties to the Appendix.

- The Council agreed to accept the draft text on page 19 for cross-connection control devices.

- In discussing the draft text in Comm 14.11 for allowing portable, fuel-fired, unvented heating appliances, Dave reported his department has transported people sickened from corresponding lack of ventilation.  Other comments referred to a lack of adequate air changes and carbon monoxide detection with using the appliances at construction sites, a lack of proper maintenance of carbon monoxide detection equipment, and problems with carbon atmosphere interference.  The Council recommended revising the draft text, to require adequate ventilation when using the appliances.

- The Council recommended deleting the draft text on page 20 for exhibition of motor vehicles, because NFPA 1/UFC has adequate corresponding requirements.

- In discussing the draft text in Comm 14.30 for the intersection between Comm 14 and Comm 10, the Council recommended (1) not modifying the requirements for motor fuel dispensing facilities and repair garages in NFPA 1 chapter 30, and (2) referring to Comm 10, in an informational note, for additional requirements.  The Council similarly recommended addressing any requirements for refueling in Comm 14.42 (1), and any requirements for flammable and combustible liquids in Comm 14.66, in the same manner.  The Council recommended deleting the draft text for defueling, in Comm 14.42 (2), because NFPA 1/UFC has adequate corresponding requirements

- In discussing the draft text in Comm 14.53 for the intersection between Comm 14 and Comm 45, the Council recommended (1) not modifying the requirements for mechanical refrigeration in NFPA 1 chapter 53, and (2) referring to Comm 45 for additional requirements, but only in the multiple-code informational note on page 7. 

- In discussing the draft text in Comm 14.69 for the intersection between Comm 14 and Comm 40, the Council recommended (1) not modifying the requirements for liquefied petroleum gases and liquefied natural gases in NFPA 1 chapter 69, and (2) referring to Comm 40 for additional requirements, but only in the multiple-code informational note on page 7.

- Based on the recommendation to not have informational notes in Comm 14.53 and 14.69 for referring to Comm 45 and 40, the Council recommended likewise referring to Comm 10 only in the multiple-code informational note on page 7, rather than also in informational notes in Comm 14.30, Comm 14.42, and Comm 14.66.  Terry suggested addressing Comm 10 in a similar manner in the Commercial Building Code.

- A motion was made by Dave Lind, seconded by Marty King, and passed unanimously, to (1) continue recognizing the Council’s objection to allowing local use of an alternate model fire code, and (2) to proceed to the public hearing stage with the draft rules for repealing and recreating Comm 14, after amending them to reflect the meeting’s discussions.

The Council asked staff to email the amended draft rules to the Council members for affirmation, with a request for each member to use a reply-all response, before transmitting the rules to the Secretary for acceptance in the public hearing draft.  Staff distributed a timeline for the remaining steps in the rulemaking process, which projected a hearing date between April 10 and 15.

Next meeting: The Council agreed to meet again prior to the public hearing, to discuss unresolved issues and a distributed, staff list of unaddressed issues.  The next meeting date was tentatively scheduled for March 7, at the same location and for the same time period.

Tuesday, December 13, 2005, 9 a.m. - 2:30 p.m.,  Thompson Commerce Center, Room 3B, 201 West Washington Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin

Council Member Attendance: John Ashley-Present; Gregg Cleveland, Chair-P; Marty King (Tod Doebler, Alternate)-P; Dave Lind-P; John Periard-Absent; Jim Stormer (Todd Blaser, Alternate)-P

Guests:Ed Erickson-Marshfield Fire Department

Department of Commerce Staff: Bob DuPont, Joe Hertel, Terry Nolen, Sam Rockweiler

Gregg Cleveland opened the meeting with a review of the draft progress report for the preceding, November 15th Council meeting.  In reference to his recommendation on page 7 to apply any NFPA 1 design and construction requirements that are not addressed in Wisconsin’s Commercial Building Code, and in reference to the corresponding discussion on page 8 for the Note proposed in Comm 14.10, Dave Lind noted his recommendation had also included applying any NFPA 101 design and construction requirements which are not addressed in the WCBC.  Dave explained that his statement on page 4 about the number of references in the International Building Code to the International Fire Code was based on a count produced by NFPA staff. Terry Nolen commented that (1) the first sentence in the last paragraph on page 2, relating to AHJ duties and responsibilities, should also have included reference to the authority having jurisdiction and the governing authority; and (2) the second paragraph on page 3 relating to doing a full comparison of the two model code suites should have included reference to the Proposal C, the 2001 agreement between the Department of Commerce and the Wisconsin Fire Service.
A motion was made by Dave Lind, seconded by John Ashley, and passed unanimously, to accept the October 18th progress report, as appended through the December 13th discussion.

Department updates
Natural Christmas trees: There was agreement that the Department’s informational notice for natural-cut Christmas trees should be revised to refer to removing 1 inch from the bottom of the trunk, for water absorption, to be consistent with that dimension in Comm 14, rather than the ½-inch dimension in NFPA 1.  Terry welcomed any further comments for improving the notice.  There was recognition that NFPA interprets section 10.14.2 in the 2006 NFPA 1 as not providing for AHJ discretion on the use of natural cut Christmas trees, and this issue may need to be revisited.

Alternate use of the IFC: Bob Dupont reported the Department is considering whether to discontinue the current option in Comm 14 that allows municipalities to adopt IFC requirements in lieu of NFPA 1.  Gregg emphasized that the Council remains opposed to continuing the option.

Mandating fire sprinklers in student housing: Proposed Assembly Bill 544, which would expand the range of new and existing student housing that must be protected with fire sprinklers, was reported as being passed by the Wisconsin Senate, with an eight-year period to achieve compliance in existing buildings.

Fire sprinklers in all new R-2 occupancies: Bob reported that the Department’s Building Code Fire Protection Systems Advisory Council has recommended not modifying the 2006 IBC requirement to provide fire sprinklers in all new R-2 occupancies.  Bob explained that the Wisconsin Builders Association has responded with a written opinion from their legal counsel stating that the Department is prevented from adopting that requirement because that requirement would be more restrictive than the thresholds in the Wisconsin Statutes for providing sprinklers in multifamily dwellings.  According to Bob, the Department disagrees with that opinion, and plans to discuss the topic further with its Commercial Building Code Council and Multifamily Dwelling Code Council at a January 2006 meeting.  Corresponding cost data and insurance rate comparisons are being compiled for that discussion.  Bob said the Statutes do not prohibit the Department from adopting more restrictive sprinkler thresholds.  He added that the Department has previously relied on its general authority to make buildings safe, through administrative codes, in adopting requirements for safety glazing and for smoke detection equipment that also are more restrictive than corresponding statutory criteria.  Terry suggested that if a corresponding Department legal opinion is generated, it should also address preexisting local sprinkler ordinances which are more restrictive than the State-level statutory thresholds.

December 9th updated draft rules for repealing and recreating Comm 14:Sam Rockweiler led discussion of the updated draft rules and corresponding summary for repealing and recreating Comm 14, which were e-mailed to the Council on December 9th.
Gregg questioned whether the draft rules adequately convey that Comm 14 applies the design and construction requirements in NFPA 1/Uniform Fire Code for fire apparatus access roads.  There was interest in clarifying this application further in proposed section Comm 14.01 (2) (a), and in adding a corresponding informational note in the Commercial Building Code, Comm 61 to 65.  Bob emphasized that if the IBC does not include design and construction requirements, for buildings, that are included in NFPA 1 or 101, those requirements should be considered for including in Comm 61 to 65 rather than in Comm 14.
Gregg recommended that any Department code interpretations which are issued under Comm 14.01 (2) (c) should be formally written.  Bob noted that in preceding Council meetings, there was discussion that Department interpretations which are posted in a question and answer format on a Department Web site could be accompanied with a notice that each Q&A is the official position of the Department.  Terry emphasized the importance of archiving all official interpretations and positions in order to determine the code of the day and its application.  There was interest in posting archives on a Commerce Web site for a minimum of fifteen months, and to develop a method for copying the information to local agents of the Department.  Gregg emphasized that local officials prefer to have written interpretations from the Department in advance of enforcement actions, rather than have those actions interrupted by a subsequent, contravening Department interpretation.

John asked whether Department interpretations are issued by different Department staff than the staff that provide routine explanations.  Bob responded that explanations typically come from plan reviewers and inspectors, and issuance of formal interpretations has ranged from the bureau-director level, to the Division Administrator, to the Department Secretary.  Dave recommended narrowly focusing each building or fire code Q&A, or other written interpretation, on a specific topic or subcategory, and posting that information together in one location on a Commerce Web site, with a corresponding link on each of the Web sites for individual programs in the Safety and Buildings Division.

Terry agreed with deleting the reference in Comm 14.01 (2) (b) 4. to having Comm 61 to 65 prevail over any differences in Comm 14.  However, difficulty still remains in determining which NFPA requirements are considered as addressing design and construction, and which are considered as addressing use, operation and maintenance.

John questioned whether building owners should consider hiring private-sector inspectors to audit buildings in order to address the building owners’ responsibility to maintain their building and premises in compliance with Comm 14.  There was recognition that this compliance does not relieve the owner from complying with the other administrative rules established by the Department or other state agencies.  Dave generally agreed that such audits can be helpful, and he recommended that they focus on risk analysis.  According to Dave, some fire departments are performing home inspections upon request, and are then making suggestions rather than looking for and citing code violations.

Dave recommended expanding the list of occupancies in Comm 14.01 (10) (b) 5. that are eligible for a once-per-calendar-year inspection frequency, to address seasonal occupancies, and to require inspection of those occupancies during an occupancy period.  There was recognition that the purpose of a fire prevention inspection has been established, but the terms fire prevention inspection, fire inspection or inspection have not been defined for purposes of applying the inspection-frequency language.  Bob noted the inspection frequency in subdivision 5 should also apply to first-class cities in subdivision 4, and where the local ordinances for annual inspection in subdivision 6 are adopted.  Dave noted that the proposed frequency in subdivision 6 would allow nearly 2 years between inspections, and there was agreement that no more than 12 months should occur between those inspections.  There also was agreement that the frequency in subdivision 6 should be recognized in subdivision 3 as being an exception to the inspection frequency required in subdivision 3.
Gregg asked whether a quorum should be required in Comm 14.01 (11) (f) for meetings of the proposed appeals board for two-percent-dues audits.  There was agreement to expand the draft rule to require a majority vote of the board for conducting business.  Joe Hertel questioned whether the hearing locations authorized under 14.01 (11) (f) 8. should be limited to Madison, and there was agreement to limit the locations to those that are agreed to by the Department.  Bob asked whether the appeals process should be available to jurisdictions that self-certify noncompliance.  Gregg explained that the process was intended to be available only to jurisdictions that receive an adverse determination from the Department, and an appeal could be filed in either the first or second annual period after an adverse determination.  Terry noted that under section 101.573 (3) (b) of the Statutes, the amount payable to any municipality that is first eligible after May 1 must be reduced by 1.5 percent for each month or portion of a month which expires after May 1 and prior to the eligibility determination.  There was interest in developing a flow chart for outlining the major timelines of the 2 percent fire dues eligibility process.  Based on the current practice of conducting onsite audits of fire departments that are determined to be noncompliant, prior to conducting audits of other fire departments, a question was raised whether the Fire Prevention Coordinators can complete the proposed five-year audit cycle.

Dave questioned whether the criteria in Comm 14.65 (2) for layout of mixing plants would be considered design and construction requirements.  According to Bob, these criteria likely repeat corresponding requirements in the 2006 IBC, and if so, they will be deleted.  Staff will likewise review the remaining criteria in 14.65 to determine whether further deletions are appropriate.

Dave questioned whether the preliminary text in Comm 14.001 for the IFC should be an informational note instead, and should identify the IFC sections, rather than chapters, that must be adopted locally if the IFC is chosen in lieu of NFPA 1.  Bob responded that refinement of this text has been withheld, pending the outcome of internal reconsideration of the IFC option.

NFPA summary of changes in the 2006 NFPA 1/UFC: Bob asked whether the previously distributed NFPA summary of changes in the 2006 NFPA 1 illuminated any new requirements that could create difficulties.  Dave explained that where an assembly occupancy load exceeds 250, an additional crowd manager is needed for each additional quantity of 250, whereas the previous threshold was 1000.  John indicated that this change likely would not create difficulties.  Dave also explained that the 2003 NFPA 1 newly required a notification explaining where emergency exits are located, prior to the start of a performance, and the 2006 NFPA 1 better coordinates that requirement with the crowd-manager requirements.  There was reference to further description of crowd-management guidelines, factors, and techniques, in the Society of Fire Protection Engineers’ Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, Section 3, Chapter 13.

Gregg asked whether “authority having jurisdiction” and “deputy of the Department” would have the same meaning under the proposed revision of Comm 14.  Sam Rockweiler explained that the two terms would not always have the same meaning:  for example, on State-owned property, the State, rather than a local official who is a deputy of the Department under section 101.14 (2) (a) of the Statutes, would be the authority having jurisdiction.  There was reference to the use of “the AHJ designated by the governing authority” in NFPA 1 section 1.6.

Gregg questioned whether placards would be newly required under NFPA 66.2.5.2.1 for identifying hazardous liquids in tanks.  Tod Doebler noted these placards are not currently required under Comm 10.

Dave asked whether the NFPA 1 requirements for retail sales of fireworks would be included in the revised Comm 14.  Bob said they would, except where they address design and construction.

Staff list of issues that remain to be addressed by the Council: Terry distributed an updated staff list of color-coded issues that remain to be addressed by the Council.  Terry explained that many of the issues were not addressed in the 2000 NFPA 1, as currently adopted in Comm 14, but are reasonably addressed in the 2006 NFPA 1 and the 2000 IBC, particularly for spray booths, and interior and exterior storage of combustibles.  However, the main continuing difficulty relates to determining whether an NFPA 1 requirement addresses design and construction rather than use, operation and maintenance.  Dave recommended not trying to resolve this difficulty by developing a definition of design and construction, and a definition of use, operation and maintenance.  Terry recommended further discussion in order to eliminate conflict, confusion and uncertainties about whether the fire or building codes would apply.  An example cited was barns that are converted to seasonal storage for boats or cars which are not owned by the barn owner.

Terry commented that the most important topic to consider on the staff list of issues is whether to reinsert an informational note into the Commercial Building Code for explaining that building inspectors and fire inspectors share enforcement of that Code.  Gregg commented that the preceding edition of the Code included a similar note, along with an Appendix list of code sections that were particularly related to fire inspections, and both the note and the list were very helpful.  Dave agreed, and said the note gave fire inspectors a higher level of credibility.  Terry indicated that by not having the note and corresponding list of code sections, local deputies and fire inspectors are less aware of what to look for in inspections.  There was discussion that a corresponding list of code sections should be developed for training purposes and reinserted into the Commercial Building Code and Fire Code.

Gregg noted interesting identifying examples of design and construction requirements in NFPA 1.  Dave said that if he receives a copy, he would compare the 2006 IBC to the 2006 NFPA 1 and 101, to identify design and construction requirements which are in NFPA 1 and 101 but not in the IBC.

Next meeting: The next meeting date was scheduled for February 1, at the same location and for the same time period (9 a.m. - 2:30 p.m.,  Thompson Commerce Center, Room 3B, 201 West Washington Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin), and was projected to include (1) discussion of an updated draft of revised Comm 14 and (2) discussion of remaining unresolved issues, including the National Fire Incident Reporting System.

Monday, November 15, 2005, 9 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., Thompson Commerce Center, Room 3B, 201 West Washington Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin

Council member attendance: John Ashley Present; Gregg Cleveland (Chair) P; Marty King P; Dave Lind P; John Periard Absent; Jim Stormer (Todd Blaser – Alternate) P
Guests: Ed Erickson,  Marshfield Fire Department
Department of Commerce staff: Bob DuPont P; Joe Hertel P; Terry Nolen P; Sam Rockweiler P

Gregg Cleveland opened the meeting with a review of the agenda. 

Draft progress report for the preceding meeting
In reviewing the draft progress report for the preceding, October 18th Council meeting, Greg noted a clear preference for the more-detailed format that had been used in preceding progress reports.  In reference to the report’s description of the fire-dues audit appeal process, Gregg recommended that the corresponding draft rules reflect (1) completion of the appeal process by August 1 each year, and (2) an option for holding a hearing at the appellant’s location.  Bob DuPont noted the draft rules could likewise reflect holding a hearing by teleconference.

In reference to the report’s description of draft revisions to Comm 7 and 9 for explosives and fireworks, Gregg asked whether the corresponding chapter 65 in the 2006 edition of NFPA 1/Uniform Fire Code would be included in the Comm 14 adoption of the 2006 NFPA 1.  Bob said it would, and that a few Wisconsin modifications may be made to chapter 65, such as clarifying in a Note that any associated fire inspections by fire inspectors would not be a substitute for the corresponding licensing and permitting requirements which are administered by the Department’s Mine Safety Section.
In reference to the report’s listing of Christmas-tree displays as an unresolved issue, Gregg recommended updating a corresponding brochure that the Department had previously issued, with emphasis on reflecting the current Comm 14.03 (15) requirements and Department practices.  There was agreement that adoption of section 10.14.2 in the 2006 NFPA 1 would provide local jurisdictions with latitude to authorize acceptable quantities of natural Christmas trees in any occupancy.  It was noted that NFPA interprets section 10.14.2 in the 2006 NFPA 1 as not providing such discretion for natural Christmas trees, and this issue may need to be revisited.
In reference to the report’s description of retaining the current Comm 14 allowance for using the International Fire Code in lieu of NFPA 1, Gregg noted the Council has not retreated from its preceding motion to discontinue that allowance.  Dave Lind said that although he appreciated Bob’s November 9th response to submitted questions about retaining the IFC option, a response is desired from the Department Secretary’s Office after getting input from the Commerce legal counsel.  Reference was made to the goal of having a uniform fire code.  Marty King questioned how 15 out of 1851 Wisconsin municipalities could have enough influence to make the Department allow use of an alternate fire code. 

Gregg commented that the report should have addressed discussion about a local jurisdiction’s duty to correct; properly citing code sections in correction notices and orders; issuing reports to owners where no violations are found; enforcement referral options, as a department deputy,  where no local fire prevention ordinance has been adopted; and discussion about developing a definition for “use, operation and maintenance.”  Terry Nolen noted that discussion of the fire inspection frequencies in Comm 14.47 (2) (c) and (d) was not addressed as well. 

A motion was made by Dave Lind, seconded by Todd Blazer, and passed unanimously, to accept the October 18th progress report, as amended through the November 15th discussion.

Department updates
Response to Dave Lind’s inquiry about allowing use of the IFC
Gregg asked whether Bob’s November 9th email to the Council, which responded to the IFC questions in Dave’s October 19th email, represented the Department’s position on the questions, or Bob’s position.  Bob explained that it was his response, and that other parties, such as the municipalities currently using the IFC, have viewpoints on this topic as well.  Gregg questioned who all the players were that are supporting the IFC.  He noted that the fire service still wants a full comparison of the two model code suites as originally agreed to by all the parties involved, and he noted it was the Department that made the decision to not do the comparison.  Gregg noted that the issue speaks to the heart of utilizing the democratic process and procedures within government.  He added that the Department appears to have a hidden agenda to ultimately end up with the International Code Council suite of codes.  Gregg commented that the Secretary’s Office could override Bob’s position on the topic, and indicated a concern that the Department is pursuing an agenda independent of what is in the best interest of the public.  According to Gregg, the Department would have rejected adopting the 2000 edition of NFPA 1, and adopted the IFC instead, if the fire service had not pushed for adoption of NFPA 1.

Dave commented that the fire service coalition has never wavered in preferring NFPA 1 over the IFC, and that needs of the many should outweigh needs of the few - but the minority of municipalities which have adopted the IFC are causing disruption across the State, such as for school districts that span multiple municipalities having different fire codes.  According to Dave, some fire inspectors in the 15 municipalities that have received a special order under Comm 14.004 (1) (b) to use the IFC are not applying the IFC in accordance with the conditions and limitations of the special order.  The IFC special order contains the same restrictive parameters found in Comm 14, including Subchapter III, and some of those municipalities are applying NFPA 1 in lieu of the IFC.  Some of the 15 municipalities are misapplying their IFC ordinance by extending it retroactively for design and construction requirements, and misapplying it by conflicting with the required uniformity for multifamily-dwelling occupancies.  Others are applying the IFC incorrectly in part because the Department is not providing administrative and educational assistance with that Code, as the Department is providing with NFPA 1.  Dave added that building owners generally do not want to oppose a fire inspector’s misapplication of code requirements, but some owners now realize that they are being treated differently than the other eighty percent of the State’s population.  Reference was made to the Department’s official code interpretation [dated May 27, 2003] relating to a municipality’s simultaneous use of the IFC and NFPA 1.

Bob commented that the proposed revisions to Comm 14 would replace applying the IFC through a Department special order, with simply applying the IFC through a local ordinance, and this ordinance could include applying portions of NFPA 1, as modifications of the IFC. 

Dave indicated such ordinances should instead apply any desired IFC elements as modifications of NFPA 1.  Many municipalities desire the more restrictive, regulatory layered effect, to achieve a policy of the safest rule, rather than being restricted to the State’s minimum codes. According to Dave, the International Building Code contains 38 [actually 65] references to the IFC, and the National Fire Protection Association has addressed each of those references, in NFPA 1.

Gregg agreed that municipalities can adopt what they want without having a State code acknowledge that ability.  He questioned why Comm 14 is singling out promotion of the IFC, and he commented that no other Department code allows this kind of alternative option.  Gregg inferred that this alternative fire code promotion is intended to advance an agenda of moving toward adopting the IFC, in place of NFPA 1, in Comm 14. 

Gregg commented that since municipalities can be more restrictive, the commercial building codes and fire prevention codes from both NFPA and the ICC could be applied, and whichever requirements are the most restrictive could be used.  John Ashley asked for an explanation of this approach, and Bob noted that Wisconsin’s Commercial Building Code and Fire Prevention Code are minimum codes – rather than uniform, minimum/maximum codes.  John indicated concern that during the public Hearing stage for revising Comm 14, regional opposition may arise to having two fire prevention codes.  John added that having two fire codes is more complex than having one, and may not best serve the regulated community. 

Dave emphasized that the goal of the State should be to provide the highest level of fire safety, as determined by the prevailing experts, namely, the fire service and NFPA.  Bob said he could not speak for the 15 municipalities that have adopted the IFC, such as Milwaukee and Madison, and he noted concern that substantial opposition could arise from those municipalities if the Department proposes deleting the IFC option from Comm 14.  Terry noted that the original reason the IFC option was inserted into Comm 14 was to accommodate concerns from the City of Madison.  According to Terry, a major reason why the 15 IFC municipalities have exercised the IFC option is because the IBC contained 65 references to the 2000 IFC, which are recognized in Comm 61.03 (13).  There was discussion that although the 2000 NFPA 1 Fire Prevention Code did not address some of those references, the 2006 NFPA 1 now addresses all those references and more. 

Bob suggested scheduling a meeting for local proponents and opponents of the IFC option to explain their viewpoints.  Dave commented that the municipalities which have adopted the IFC are considering only their interests, and the practice of having two fire codes has fractured the fire service.  John questioned whether the Department would provide leadership at the meeting Bob suggested, or whether the two sides would simply converse.  Gregg commented that the Department will proceed however it wants regardless of any public input.  Gregg added that the Department is promoting adoption of the IFC and is making accommodations to help that happen.  Gregg indicated he could accept that IFC option if the same option is established in the Building Code for an NFPA suite of building and fire codes.  Bob commented that having two building codes would create greater complexity than having two fire codes, because review of building plans would then have to address both building codes.  Dave noted that the complexity would be mitigated, because NFPA would provide free training and free code books to class attendees. 

Dave said he would be interested in the meeting Bob suggested if the questions presented in his October 19th e-mail are answered by the Secretary’s Office prior to the meeting.  Terry commented that the Department’s original leadership on the topic included an agreement with the fire service to conduct a comprehensive comparison of the NFPA and ICC building and fire code suites, but the Department subsequently rescinded that agreement.  Dave agreed that the Department appears to have an agenda of promoting the IFC regardless of public input.  Bob said the meeting he proposed could include a notice that the Department is interested in deleting the IFC option from Comm 14, and include an invitation for local proponents of the IFC option to explain any problems that would result from that deletion.  Gregg said he opposed the meeting because it would be nonproductive, since the Department has already made its corresponding decision and has a history of using these types of meetings to strengthen its position.  Gregg questioned why the Department established the Comm 14 Council and then allows the output of some city councils to override a Council recommendation, which the Department does not do with its other advisory councils.  Bob explained that administrative codes are an intersection of technical requirements and public policy, and he agreed to pursue consideration of deleting the IFC option from the public Hearing draft for revising Comm 14.  Gregg advised remembering that the Comm 14 revisions will be in the same Hearing draft as revisions for updating Wisconsin’s Commercial Building Code.

Recently adopted miscellaneous code changes 
Joe Hertel explained that recent changes to the credential requirements in Comm 5 include mandating continuing education for boiler inspectors.  Changes to the fee schedules in Comm 2 include adding a Department fee for investigating complaints about any inspector, rather than only independent inspection agencies.  Dave noted concern that this fee could be misused to generate revenues from municipalities.  Joe responded that the fee is too small for that potential, and that the fee has not been assessed on municipalities in the past.  Terry asked whether the fee could be assessed on independent inspectors who are contracted by agent municipalities, and Joe said it could.  The code changes also include newly applying the boiler code to historic boilers, such as requiring them to have annual permits to operate, due to a corresponding fatal explosion in Ohio.

School fire drills - fire department participation, and statewide record-keeping
Bob said questions have arisen on the role of fire departments in school fire drills.  The statutory requirements for fire drills, in section 118.07 (2), were noted as not mandating that a fire department witness a fire drill.  Bob explained that (1) the Department’s corresponding school fire drill report form states the local fire department should be present for at least one drill each year, and (2) fire departments have some responsibility in 2000 NFPA 1, as adopted in Comm 14, to ensure that the drills are conducted.  NFPA 1 addresses fire drill requirements, such as emergency egress and relocation drills, in other occupancies in addition to schools. Terry noted that for the school fire drill discussion, it is important to understand that since July 01, 2002, a parallel regulatory track has been taking place between section 118.07 (2) of the statutes and the 2000 NFPA 1, as adopted by Comm 14.  Bob reported that Sue Birren is compiling all the fire-drill reports from the past year, and will summarize the results, along with addressing any significant problems and best practices. 

Dave asked why a Department Fire Prevention Coordinator is handling the project rather than the Department of Public Instruction, and Bob explained that the Statutes require submitting the reports to the Department of Commerce.  Dave noted concern that fire departments could be portrayed as being delinquent.  Terry referenced the corresponding handouts from the May 5 Council meeting and a preceding Department brochure on the topic, which could be updated and reissued.  Dave recommended expanding the dialog between Sue and DPI, and encouraging local school districts to contact their fire departments accordingly.  Bob said he would pursue the topic further with staff and report back to the Council, and implementation of the outcome is targeted for the beginning of the next school year.

Mandating fire sprinklers in student housing
Proposed Assembly Bill 544, which would expand the range of student housing that must be protected with fire sprinklers, was reported as being amended to extend the compliance date.  Staff reported that this Bill parallels the Department’s movement toward adopting a recent requirement in the International Building Code to provide sprinklers throughout all newly constructed buildings having a residential fire area.

November 4th updated draft rules for repealing and recreating Comm 14
Sam Rockweiler led discussion of the updated draft rules for repealing and recreating Comm 14, which were emailed to the Council on November 8th.  Consistent with the earlier discussion, Gregg noted opposition to the proposed text for retaining the option to use the IFC as an alternate model fire code.  Bob said he would recommend deleting this text.  Dave recommended clarifying that the title of the incorporated NFPA 1 includes “Uniform Fire Code.” 

Terry and Sam noted that it would be helpful to the code reader to use standard terms and definitions.  Terry noted that Comm 14 is the State fire prevention code and it establishes the minimum fire prevention regulations for public buildings and places of employment.  As an example, Comm 14 contains the Wisconsin modifications of the adopted 2000 NFPA 1 Fire Prevention Code. The term fire hazard is referenced in both Comm 14 and NFPA 1, but defined only in NFPA 1.

In discussing proposed section Comm 14.01 (2) (a) 4., Terry asked whether requirements for use, operation and maintenance of fire department access roads should remain retroactive.  The resulting consensus was affirmative.  Consequently, there was agreement to delete NFPA section 18.2.4 from this proposed Comm 14 section, with recognition that the corresponding minimum width and clearance that are referenced from NFPA section 18.2.3.4 will not be retroactive - since they are nonapplicable, design and construction requirements rather than use, operation and maintenance requirements.

Dave recommended revising Comm 14.01 (2) (a) 2. to apply, rather than delete, any design and construction requirements in NFPA 1 that are not addressed in Wisconsin’s Commercial Building Code.  As an example, Dave cited the NFPA 1 requirements for school gymnasiums that are occasionally used for graduation ceremonies.  Bob noted such use is addressed by the general requirements for temporary uses, in the Building Code, but if those requirements are insufficient, they should be expanded there rather than inserted into Comm 14.  Gregg noted a preference to retain these NFPA 1 requirements in Comm 14 rather than create additional Wisconsin modifications in the Building Code.  Bob and Terry responded that local jurisdictions may adopt requirements which are more restrictive than the Building Code.

Dave questioned whether the Note proposed under Comm 14.01 (2) (b) 4. - for clarifying how to apply use, operation and maintenance requirements - should be modified to cite a need to comply with any of use, operation and maintenance requirements that are in the Building Code but are not in Comm 14.  Terry commented that this topic is complicated by not having a definition of design and construction requirements.  Dave noted a preference to not establish a definition of use, operation and maintenance requirements.  Bob said that in the absence of codified definitions, dictionary definitions apply.

In discussing the revised list of sections in chapter 1 of NFPA 1 that are to be deleted by Comm 14.01 (4) (a), there was agreement that NFPA sections 1.8 and 1.9.3 would be helpful and should instead be retained.  Gregg and Dave explained that according to NFPA, the local permit requirements in NFPA section 1.12 are not all-or-nothing mandates - instead, under 1.12.1, local jurisdictions can choose which permits, if any, are desired, and can then utilize the requirements corresponding to those permits.  Bob noted that municipalities have statutory authority other than in chapter 101 of the Statutes to require permits.  Consequently, there was agreement to retain section 1.12.  There also was agreement that the requirements in section 1.13 would likewise apply only where triggered by local jurisdictions, and consequently should be retained as well.

In discussing the revised criteria in Comm 14.01 (10) (b) 6. for reducing inspection frequencies through a local ordinance rather than having to request a special order, Dave asked whether the referenced, adopted local ordinances should be forwarded to the Department.  Bob responded that a better alternative would be to revise the draft text to require that the ordinance be made available during the Department’s audits.  Dave questioned whether a corresponding model ordinance should be included in the Comm 14 Appendix, and Marty King suggested posting the model on the Department’s Web site.  Bob explained that publishing a model ordinance in either of those forums could be misinterpreted as a promotion by the Department for reduced inspections, but the Department could comment on draft ordinances which are submitted for its review.  There was agreement to also revise the draft text to clarify that any corresponding special orders for reducing the fire inspection frequency, which are issued under the current code, would remain in effect until the sunset date specified in their issuance.  Greg suggested that the reduced inspection frequencies that are allowed elsewhere, as specifically listed under Comm 14.01 (10) (b) 5., could likewise be implemented instead through local ordinances.  There was interest in keeping the once-a-year fire inspection occupancy list in the code, for the fire departments that have trouble getting their local municipalities to adopt fire- prevention related ordinances.

Consistent with the earlier discussion, Gregg recommended revising the proposed audit-appeal process in Comm 14.01 (11) (f) to reflect completion of the process by August 1 each year, in order to be consistent with section 101.573 (3) (a) of the statutes.  Bob asked whether the draft text should be expanded to refer to the appeals board holding a hearing for an appeal.  Sam commented that an appeal could be based on either oral or written testimony; and the rule could be clarified to reflect that an appellant could request a hearing, in order to present oral testimony.  Gregg recommended clarifying the included listing of board-member representation, to reflect full representation from each of the listed categories.  There was agreement that the included deadline for the board to complete its action on an appeal should be revised to allow extension of that deadline, through mutual consent of the appellant and the board.

In discussing the informational Note proposed in Comm 14.10 for clarifying the application of the design and construction requirements in NFPA 101, Dave recommended expanding Comm 14 to include any design and construction requirements that are in NFPA 101 or 1 but are not in the Commercial Building Code.

Terry commented that Comm 14.01 (2) (b) 4. continues a current Comm 14 requirement that causes problems by forcing any use, operation and maintenance requirements in the Building Code to prevail over corresponding use, operation and maintenance requirements in Comm 14.  Bob questioned whether this requirement should be deleted, and if it is deleted, the previously discussed Note proposed under this section could be deleted as well.  Sam cautioned considering whether the deletion would result in any undesired retroactive applications of Comm 14, as triggered by the requirement in Comm 14.01 (2) (b) 1. to apply whichever rule is most restrictive.  Terry commented that any remaining code-conflict rules should be rearranged to flow more naturally for the code reader.

Local issuance of correction orders
Dave reported that his municipal legal counsel has advised him that if a correction order specifies a period of time to accomplish the correction, the enforcement staff must inspect the target of the order, after the end of that time period, to verify whether the correction occurred.  There was recognition that some fire departments are using compliance cards which are signed by the owner and mailed back to the fire department upon corrections being made.  It was recommended that an enforcement policy be established before implementing any enforcement actions.  Bob commented that the Department generally does not intervene in municipal applications of municipal law, but does assist where corresponding local ordinances are not in effect and a fire department consequently acts as the Department’s deputy.  Terry commented that the Department has provided substantial code-enforcement training on this topic in the past, and further training may be needed whenever a newly appointed fire chief begins acting as a Department deputy.  The fire chief may appoint additional fire inspectors to assist in the code enforcement efforts and may need additional training.

Credentials for fire inspectors
Bob reported that interest has arisen for issuing volunteer credentials to fire inspectors.  Bob commented that this credential could be conditioned on completion of an appropriate class at a regional technical school.  Proposed code language was requested.  One option would be to have the Comm 5 credential fees funded by the 2 percent fire dues.  Dave commented that the 2 percent dues funds should not be used for credential fees, and the credentials should have a renewal period.  Terry recommended obtaining additional input on the fire-inspector-credential topic and related credential fee reimbursement from the fire prevention program stakeholders, and exploring the appropriate relationship with the 2 percent dues funds.  According to Terry, attendance at the technical school classes has been optional, but the cost of the class has been covered by the 2 percent funds appropriation to the Wisconsin State Technical College.  

Bob suggested that credentials for fire inspectors not be included in the Comm 14 code change package now under consideration.  He recommended that the credentials instead be considered during a future revision of Comm 5.

Next meeting: The next meeting date was scheduled for December 13, at the same location and for the same time period, and was projected to include (1) discussion of an NFPA summary of changes in the 2006 NFPA 1/UFC and (2) discussion of a staff list of issues that remain to be addressed by the Council.
Submitted by Sam Rockweiler, code consultant to the Council

Tuesday,  October 18, 2005,  9 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., Thompson Commerce Center, Room 3B, 201 West Washington Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin
Committee Member Attendance: John Ashley - Excused; Gregg Cleveland, Chair - Present; Marty King - P; Dave Lind - P; John Periard - Absent; Jim Stormer - A; Todd Blazer - P.
Guests: Tod Doebler - Menomonee Falls Fire Department
Department of Commerce Staff: Bob DuPont, Joe Hertel, Terry Nolen, Jim Smith, Jim Quast
The council accepted the meeting agenda and the progress report of September 12 without revision.
Department updates

Fire Audit Appeal Process
Bob DuPont presented an outline of the major steps for an appeal process involving input for an outside advisory board relative to fire dues audits.  The staff will draft rules to reflect this outline.  The rules are to be discussed at the next council meeting.  The rules are to be contained in chapter Comm 14 as an addition or substitution to appeal rules referenced in NFPA 1.  The discussion included:
- Acknowledgment that the board’s findings are recommendations to the Department Secretary.
- The rules do not need to reflect the internal communication processing within the Department.
- Appeals are to be filed within 30 business days from audit decision.
- There are to be no fees for filing an appeal with the Department.
- The rules are to include a provision that the appeal hearing will be within (X, to be determined) number of days from the filing, unless another date is mutually agreed upon by the parties.
- Nominations for the board are to be solicited from the organizations and agencies involved with the fire inspection program.

Comm 7, Comm 9 and NFPA 495
A working draft revising chapters Comm 7, Explosive Materials, and Comm 9, Manufacture of Fireworks, was distributed.  In light of NFPA 1 referencing NFPA 495, Explosive Materials Code, staff is recommending that the current chapter Comm 9 be repealed and the revised rules of chapter Comm 7 focus on blasting resultants.  Also distributed was a draft of proposed modifications under s. Comm 14.65 to incorporate the provisions from the current chapters Comm 7 and Comm 9 dealing with the storage and handling of explosives, fireworks and model rocketry.  What still needs to be accomplished is an evaluation of the building code to determine whether any construction issues from chapters Comm 7 and 9 need to be incorporated.

A question was raised in citing violations relative to explosives whether the citation should reference Comm 14.65, NFPA 1 or NFPA 495 and the proper format.  Staff will research the matter and report back.

Unresolved Issues
Terry Nolen will combine and edit the 3 lists of issues and will format this to reflect the layout of NFPA 1 as well as identify the problem that needs to be addressed.
It was requested that the matter of Christmas trees be revisited at a future meeting.

Miscellaneous Updates:
Distributed was a draft article on Substantial Compliance to be sent to municipal organizations.
A Guideline for Special Amusement Structures was distributed.  A question was asked as to which code requirements apply to temporary uses, the building code defers to the discretion of the local fire or building official to impose addition safety requirements as trade off or the immediate discontinuance of the temporary use.  [See Comm 61.03 (11)]
Distributed was a copy of Wisconsin Burning 2003 which will be also posted on the division web site.

Comm 14 Draft
The discussion focused on modifications to Chapter 1 of NFPA 1 and included the following:
- At this time the Secretary’s office wishes to retain language allowing the option of an “Alternate Model Fire Code”, Comm 14.001.
Regarding this matter Dave Lind will be developing several questions which he will forward in writing and requesting responses prior to the next meeting.  (See enclosure for the “7” questions.)
- Suggestion of the insertion of a “Purpose Statement” for the code.
- A request that a note articulating the roles and enforcement of the fire official and the building be reinserted into the code, commercial building code and/or fire prevention code.  (See pre- 2002 edition of the building code.)
- A suggestion that the notes on the first few pages providing statutory definitions or information be relocated either under definitions or an appendix.
- Questioned the exemption of temporary construction job structures for fire prevention issues, Comm 14.01(1)(c).
- Questioned whether a conflict exists under Comm 14.01(2)(b)4.; with respect to issues or aspects where the Fire Prevention Code in conjunction with NFPA 1 addresses or goes into greater detail than the building code in referencing the IFC and the IFC is “silent” on the issue or aspect;  response - the application of the commercial building code including the referenced IFC provisions govern the design and construction of commercial buildings.
- A request that many of the proposed exclusions under s. Comm 14.01(4) be evaluated and retained.  Members believed that the NFPA provisions deal with fire matters covered under the scope of chapter 101 and other board statutory provisions.  Bob DuPont will discuss the issue with department legal counsel.  Proposed exclusions would be NFPA 1 sections: 1.7.10, except 1.7.10.3; 1.7.14; 1.9.1 and 1.9.2 with the possibility of substituting the 2 percent appeal process for 1.9.
- A request to retain the NPFA 1.12 dealing with permits as a model or guidelines for municipalities to utilize as an option.
- With respect to NFPA 1.16, a concern was raised whether a notice of inspection was required to be provided to the owner under the statutory obligation for reports of fire inspections, if no violations were discovered.  Bob DuPont will discuss the matter with department legal counsel.
The review of the draft ended at page 8.

The next meeting was reaffirmed for Tuesday, November 15 and a subsequent meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December 13.
Topics for discussion at the next meetings include:
- Frequency of fire inspections, one versus two.
- Inspection of seasonal occupancies when in use.
- Classification of IBC occupancies in relationship to NFIRS reporting.
- Defining or clarifying, “use, operation and maintenance”.

Monday, September 12, 2005, 9 a.m. -  2:30 p.m., Thompson Commerce Center, Room 3C, 201 West Washington Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin

Council member attendance: John Ashley Present; Gregg Cleveland - Chair P; Marty King P; Dave Lind P; John Periard Absent; Jim Stormer A.

Guests: Tod Doebler - Menomonee Falls Fire Department

Department of Commerce Staff: Bob DuPont, Joe Hertel, Terry Nolen, Sam Rockweiler; Jim Smith.

Gregg Cleveland opened the meeting with a review of the agenda and a round of introductions.  In reviewing the draft progress report for the preceding, August 8th Council meeting, Terry Nolen and Dave Lind agreed that the recommendation on page 5 to expand the Wisconsin Enrolled Commercial Building Code to include any design and construction requirements from the International Fire Code which are applied directly or indirectly through Comm 61 to 65, should have also included putting these requirements into the Wisconsin Enrolled Fire Prevention Code.  According to Terry, the recommendation was originally made due to the fact that the Department Secretary had decided to stay with the adopted International Code Council (ICC) codes and their included references to the IFC for design and construction.  The Council accepted the progress report, based on Terry and Dave’s agreement.

- Appeals board
As a follow-up to discussion that was postponed at the August 8th meeting, Bob reported that January 1, 2007, is the target date for implementing rules relating to an appeals board for the 2-percent-dues audits.  Gregg asked for a description of the general process for the appeals.  Bob responded that the process would be similar to the current appeals process for variances – where an appeal is initially considered by the Administrator of the Safety and Buildings Division, an appeal of that outcome is considered by the Department Secretary, and an appeal of that outcome follows the process in chapter 227 of the Statutes.  In the first two of these three steps, an appeal can be remanded back to a lower level if new information is presented that supports the appeal.  For appeals in the 2-percent-dues program, the supervisor of the Fire Prevention Coordinators, rather than the Administrator, could initially consider an appeal; and an appeal of that outcome could be considered by the appeals board, rather than the Secretary.  However, to shorten the timeframe for appeals, the supervisor could approve any negative determinations by the Coordinators before those determinations are issued, so that an appeal would initially be considered by the appeals board.

Gregg questioned whether rules would be needed for the appeals board.  Bob explained that chapter 227 of the Statues requires State agencies to codify their policies, and prescribing the  process in rules should make it more useful.  Gregg asked where an appeals-board finding would be directed to, and Bob said the Secretary would receive it.  Terry noted that the number of appeals should be relatively small due to the flexibility built into the definition of “substantial compliance” for the audits.  Gregg questioned why the proposed board membership no longer includes a Fire Prevention Coordinator.  Bob responded that the Coordinator who is involved in an appeal could attend the board’s meeting and provide information regarding the reasons for the original decision.  Dave noted that having the supervisor approve any negative determinations by the Coordinators would make having a Coordinator on the board a moot point.  Bob noted that the Fire Prevention Coordinators would receive uniform training on the new audit procedures.  Gregg asked that the appeals process be documented in further detail and sent to the Council prior to the next meeting, and Bob agreed.

- Wisconsin Fire Inspectors’ Association 2005 fall conference
Bob reported that the Department’s technical presentations at the conference would also be distributed to the attendees on compact discs.  The 2003 issue of Wisconsin Burning will also be made available by the time of the conference, the 2004 issue should become available early next year, and the 2005 issue should become available in time for the 2006 fall conference.  Terry noted that the Department still needs to produce and distribute compact discs for the Department’s technical presentations at last year’s conference.  Terry conveyed staff concerns with whether additional class handouts will be needed, and with whether enough coordination will occur among the presenters and the Association’s 2005 fall conference committee.  Joe Hertel explained that any additional handouts will be included in the conference CD.  PowerPoint presentations will also be distributed as handouts. 

- Timeline for adopting the 2006 edition of NFPA 1, Uniform Fire Code
Bob distributed an outline and revised timeline for adopting the 2006 edition of NFPA 1/UFC, in the same rule package as adopting the next edition of the Wisconsin Commercial Building Code - chapters Comm 61 to 65.  The rule package will also include a new chapter Comm 66 for transitioning buildings, which include existing buildings that are undergoing a change of use.  Draft versions of the 2006 edition of NFPA 1/UFC were also distributed, and Terry noted that the draft is posted on a corresponding NFPA Web site.  Bob explained that combining the adoptions into a single rule package would be more efficient - and that this combination also resulted from an interest in moving the fire prevention criteria for explosives and fireworks in Comm 7 and 9 to Comm 14, along with moving the design and construction criteria in Comm 7 and 9 to the Commercial Building Code.  The vibration and noise requirements for explosives may be retained in Comm 7, rather than moved to Comm 14, to avoid making fire departments responsible for enforcing those requirements.  Bob said a draft of the corresponding rule changes for Comm 7 and 9 should be available by the next meeting.

Bob noted that the corresponding 2006 requirements from the International Code Council should be available in early October for review by the Commercial Building Code Council.  Gregg asked which design and construction requirements would move into Comm 61 to 65 from Comm 7, and Bob referred to the construction requirements for storage magazines for explosives.  Gregg asked whether Comm 14 rather than Comm 61 to 65 would include the design and construction requirements for any outdoor magazines that are not within the scope of Comm 61 to 65, and he noted that the corresponding criteria in NFPA 1/UFC could be used.  Gregg noted that locations for storing explosives range from permanent, full-time-use buildings to temporary, portable magazines.  Gregg indicated that fire departments are routinely involved in blasting operations, and seismic concerns and problems.  Dave Lind commented that although fire departments respond to problems from blasting operations, most local departments are not equipped to resolve corresponding complaints.  Terry noted staff concerns with how design-and-construction-related inspections and plan review for these types of special, high-hazard occupancies would be addressed, and with which advisory Councils would be assigned to review the issues and concerns.  Joe explained that the Department’s mining inspectors, and federal inspectors, would continue to perform their inspections of magazines.  Bob commented that subcouncils may be helpful if major changes occur in corresponding referenced standards, but the related details have not been developed yet.  Bob agreed to send the Council members a comparison that staff have developed for Comm 7, Comm 9, NFPA 495, and NFPA 1124.  Terry emphasized concern for objects that would not be regulated under Comm 61 to 65, and would likewise not be regulated by the 2006 edition of NFPA 1/UFC if the corresponding design and construction requirements there are deleted in Wisconsin.  Terry also stated that many of the current provisions in Comm 61 to 65 are limited to only buildings and structures, and consequently many outdoor areas of premises are not addressed by Comm 61 to 65.  Bob noted a need to review the related NFPA terminology.  Gregg referenced the Comm 7 fire department notification requirements, and explained that an ambulance service area can differ substantially from a fire department service area.  He cited a deep tunnel rescue situation where the fire department was not originally notified.

- Related code projects
Bob reported that minor changes to the Comm 2 fee schedule would become effective on November 1, 2005; and minor changes to the credential requirements in Comm 5 became effective on August 1 for welders, electricians, and plumbers.  A Comm 16 update that adopts the current National Electrical Code has an effective date of September 1.  A Comm 41 update that adopts the current national boiler requirements has an effective date of November 1, and includes mandatory continuing education for boiler inspectors.

- Process for concluding unresolved issues
Gregg noted concern for problematic issues that are addressed during Council meetings but are not fully resolved; and as an example, he noted that references to secondary standards have been determined to be enforceable, but the determination has not yet been documented for widespread use.  Terry cited a list he has of unresolved issues, problems, and concerns that have accumulated since the 1999 edition of Comm 14.  Gregg emphasized a need to establish a process for publishing routine questions and appropriate answers for such issues, particularly where official code interpretations are not appropriate.  Marty King agreed and noted that a less formal process should allow more timely answers.  Dave noted a preference for the widespread consistency that results with official code interpretations.  Bob agreed the issues should not be left behind.  He explained that official code interpretations are issued where a code requirement is not clear - whereas a question-and-answer forum typically addresses where a requirement can be found in a code, along with the Department’s interpretation of the requirement.  There was interest in posting a fire code Q&A forum along with the Commercial Building Code Q&A forum that is currently posted on the fire prevention program Web site, at http://commerce.wi.gov/sb/SB-FirePreventionProgram.html; and the forums could be helpful for training.  Dave said a Q&A forum can be effective if it is identified as stating the official position of the Department.  Terry noted concern for future difficulty in reconstructing the code of the day, if the Q&A forum is not adequately archived.  He said the Commercial Building Code historically has not been applied retroactively, and difficulties often arise when recreating what the Department’s position was at a given point in time, as based on approved plans, variances, material approvals, alternative designs, and other documentation.  John Ashley questioned whether the Department has a duty to archive the material.  Bob explained that by statute, a building owner is responsible for providing a safe place and maintaining related documentation, but the Department should be able to confirm what a Q&A stated on a given day.  Bob agreed to review the topic with Division Web staff.  Gregg asked for a list of unresolved issues, and Terry agreed to send his list to Bob.   

- Repeal and recreation of subchapter III of Comm 14
Sam Rockweiler distributed and discussed a draft rewrite of subchapter III.  The draft primarily contained the modifications that the Council previously discussed and accepted for the 2003 edition of NFPA 1/UFC.  Sam explained that the included italicized text indicates where further review is still needed.  Bob noted that modifications for NFPA 1 chapter 65 are still being developed, in conjunction with the revisions which staff are developing for Comm 7 and 9. 

Terry indicated that if Comm 14 continues to delete the design and construction requirements in NFPA 1, those requirements will continue to be lost unless they are also contained in Comm 61 to 65.  As examples of such lost requirements, he referred to any that are not for public buildings or places of employment, or that are for the outdoor areas of a facility’s premises.  Sam noted that the scope of Comm 14 likewise extends only to public buildings and places of employment, except as the Department has proposed to expand it to address flammable, combustible, or hazardous liquids which occur beyond that extent.  Terry commented that the 2000 edition of NFPA 1 is the State Fire Prevention Code except as otherwise modified by Comm 14.  As an example, he cited the 2000 NFPA 1 definitions for fire hazard and imminent danger as they relate to the scope and application of Comm 14. 

Bob noted that the draft 2006 edition of NFPA 1 does not include sidebars showing where changes are being made to the 2003 edition.  Joe explained that the sidebars were omitted because the 2006 edition will be a complete revision of the 2003 edition.  However, NFPA likely has a summary of what is being changed - and Joe agreed to send it, if it is available, to the Council members before the next meeting.

- Remaining requirements in 2003 NFPA 1
2003 NFPA 1 sections 65.11.4 to 65.11.10.3.7.3 – design and construction requirements for retail sales of consumer fireworks
As a follow-up to the corresponding discussion at the August 8th meeting, Jim Smith reported the results of his comparison of the design and construction requirements in NFPA 1 sections 65.11.4 to 65.11.10.3.7.3, to the related design and construction requirements in the 2006 edition of the International Building Code.  According to Jim, the IBC generally is more restrictive in some ways, but less in others.  Jim explained that for a proposed new use in an existing building, the current Commercial Building Code would apply - and a preexisting use would be limited to what the building was approved for.  Jim noted the current version of the CBC addresses how to manage a building’s contents to prevent them from being a high hazard, whereas previous versions instead addressed only what to do with high hazards.

Terry asked how the CBC would address a temporary use, and Jim explained that Comm 61 largely defers temporary uses to local control.  Terry commented that many municipalities do not have a certified building inspector, and many fire departments do not have a copy of the IBC or the International Fire Code.  Terry asked how the Department’s advisory Council for alterations and changes of occupancy would address the topic, and Jim said that was not yet known.

Gregg asked whether the retail-sales requirements in NFPA 1 chapter 65 would apply.  Jim said those that are for design and construction would not, but the others would - except for the permit requirements, as are currently deleted in subchapter I of Comm 14.  Gregg asked how a proposed small shed for selling fireworks would be addressed by the IBC, and Jim explained that the IBC would limit the quantity of fireworks which could be contained in the building.  Terry questioned how the commercial building program would apply the CBC if the contents are kept below the quantity threshold and if the building is below the threshold for needing plan review.  Jim explained that the fireworks quantity would determine which CBC requirements would apply, and that the plan-review threshold does not determine whether the CBC applies.  Bob commented that once the Building and Fire Codes are updated to include the 2006 editions of the model codes, the Department plans to focus efforts to improve the code implementation process, such as wherever the Department is short on inspection resources.  Bob noted that the building-grading system which is used by the Insurance Services Office currently requires 30 inspections before occupancy, but the Department is only inspecting new buildings about 3 to 4 times before occupancy.  There was agreement that this type of occupancy should have 2 fire inspections per calendar year.  There was concern that the public safety program is not inspecting all public employers annually.

Jim reported that two specific design and construction requirements would be lost in applying the IBC instead of NFPA 1 chapter 65 - i.e., the 3,000-square-foot threshold in NFPA 1 section 65.11.5.3 for fire alarm criteria would not apply, and the 3 exits required in NFPA 1 section 65.11.8.3 would decrease to either 2 or 1.  Gregg asked whether aisle width is a design and construction topic, and Jim said it can be - e.g., movable shelving that creates an aisle width is not a design and construction element; but a constructed, fixed wall is.  However, uncertainty remained about which other NFPA 1 requirements would be considered as addressing design and construction rather than use, operation, and maintenance.

- Subchapter IV of Comm 14
In recapping corresponding discussions at preceding meetings, Bob noted that the major topics relating to subchapter IV include (1) defining fire inspections, (2) clarifying the required annual number of fire inspections, (3) reviewing the once-a-year inspection exceptions for municipalities that are not first-class cities, (4) clarifying seasonal occupancies and the corresponding requirements, (5) reviewing the requirements and process for a Department special order, and (6) improving the reporting of fire incidents to include electronic reporting for the National Fire Incident Reporting System.  Terry noted other topics include (1) completing and recording a fire inspection report, and when to provide the report to owners; (2) developing and maintaining a fire department inspection list that Fire Prevention Coordinators can review during audits; (3) considering stop-use and stop-work provisions; (4) reviewing code topics missing from the 1999 edition of Comm 14; (5) reviewing inspection fees; (6) establishing an appeals process; and (7) reviewing State and local processes for revoking approvals.

Dave and Gregg agreed that the requirements in NFPA 1 chapter 1 should be revisited, such as those for (1) public fire education in section 1.7.14, (2) stop-work or evacuation orders in section 1.7.12, and (3) duties and powers of incident commanders in section 1.8.  Gregg said chapter 1 contains extensive desirable language, which could be moved to wherever it fits best in Comm 14.  Terry noted a preference to rely on global references, and to not cut up the chapter 1 requirements.  There was reference to a fire service goal of keeping everything in one place, and reference to a preceding Council motion corresponding with that goal.  Bob said the scope of NFPA 1/UFC should not pose a conflict.  He suggested considering whether to combine subchapters 1 and IV of Comm 14, and whether to use NFPA 1 chapter 1 as the base for those subchapters.  Dave recommended minimizing the modifications of NFPA 1 by retaining chapter 1, with any needed changes - rather than deleting chapter 1 and then reprinting any desired excerpts in Comm 14.  He further recommended reviewing how NFPA 1 addresses the governing authority, as compared to the authority having jurisdiction, and considering whether to further codify the distinction between the two terms.  Bob agreed the Department would review chapter 1, for identifying any portions that are not wanted - and Sam suggested likewise reviewing the chapter from a local perspective, for identifying any portions that are not wanted there as well.  There was agreement that this review could also identify any portions of subchapters I and IV of Comm 14 which are then no longer needed.

Dave commented that a fire inspection report which requires correction of something does not necessarily need to reference the code section that contains the corresponding requirement.  Gregg said an official code interpretation from the Department mandates referencing the applicable code section when formally requiring correction of something.  [See Comm 14 Fire Program Letter dated June 20, 2003, as posted on the Fire Prevention program Web site at http://commerce.wi.gov/sb/SB-FirePreventionProgram.html.]  Terry said the practice of the Fire Prevention Coordinators has been to include reference to the corresponding code section in any orders or reports that require corrections.  Dave indicated that formal local orders for correction typically reference the code section; but an inspection report can be less formal, and frequently functions more like a warning.  Bob noted that NFPA 1 section 1.16 requires issuance of a written notice whenever a violation of the Code is determined. 

Terry questioned whether the Code should require fire departments to maintain an accurate list of buildings and occupancies that are to be inspected annually.  Gregg commented that under Comm 14.47 (2) (b), the fire chief is responsible for determining the number of places to be inspected, and the determination can, for example, specify whether an inspection will address a shopping mall rather than each of the stores in the mall.

Dave suggested an inspection checklist for scheduling inspections less often than twice per year.  Bob suggested replacing the current special-order process for these inspections with a process that remains activated unless turned off by a local ordinance, as is used in the Department’s one- and two-family dwelling program.  Bob asked whether that ordinance should be sent to the Department.  Gregg and Dave agreed it should, and Terry noted that section 101.14 (2) (f) of the Statutes puts fire inspections under the supervision of the Department.  Terry added that the special-order language in Comm 14.47 (2) (d) 3. was adopted in the early nineties, under 1991 Wisconsin Act 187, and was later revised, in 1999, to require the fire chief to perform a fire-safety risk analysis in addition to filing a written request with the Department.  Joe asked whether reducing the number of fire inspections would affect ratings from the Insurance Services Office.  Dave responded that the ratings should not change unless fire-based performance changes.  Todd Doebler reported that a recent ISO audit looked only at his department’s fire suppression capability.  Gregg reported that a recent ISO audit looked at his department’s fire inspection frequency.  Bob said a draft of the applicable draft rules could be sent to ISO for review and comment.

Greg Jones was introduced as the new Administrator of the Safety and Buildings Division.  He briefly described his 27 years of service in 6 State agencies and 2 University of Wisconsin campuses, and said he looked forward to working with the Wisconsin fire service.

- The next meetings were reaffirmed for October 18 and November 15.  

Monday, August 8, 2005, 9 a.m. - 2:30 p.m., Thompson Commerce CenterRoom 3C, 201 West Washington Avenue, Madison Wisconsin

Council member Attendance: Gregg Cleveland - Chair (Dave Lind - Alternate Present; Ken Cole Excused; Marty King (Tod Doebler - Alternate P; John Periard Absent; Jim Stormer Absent.  

Guests: Dave Bloom - Town of Madison Fire Department 

Department of Commerce Staff: Ron Acker; Bob DuPont; Joe Hertel; Terry Nolen; Sam Rockweiler; Jim Smith.

Dave Lind opened the meeting with a review of the agenda.   In reviewing the draft progress report for the preceding, June 16th Council meeting, Terry Nolen noted that not all of his comments relating to fireworks safety were included in the report, and he requested that the correction be included in the next progress report for publication and archive purposes.   Terry emphasized that the Department and any deputy has the authority to ascertain and cause to be corrected any condition liable to cause fire, or any violation of any law or order relating to the fire hazard or to the prevention of fire. Terry noted that the State Fire Prevention Code, Comm 14, has adopted the 2000 NFPA 1 Fire Prevention Code. NFPA 1, in Chapter 16-10, deals with the sale, handling, and storage of consumer fireworks.  Terry said that the ERS Division management and its legal counsel had earlier ruled that this NFPA 1 rule, after deletion of the permit text there, is not in conflict with section 167.10 of the Statutes. Terry said that the Wisconsin Fireworks Law originated in 1929, and that the current law very clear for those who routinely work with it. Public misunderstanding stems from the lack of adequate fireworks safety information reaching the public, inconsistent enforcement by state and local authorities, and misinformation coming from the fireworks industry and temporary fireworks stands.

The Council accepted the draft progress report for the June 16th meeting, after agreeing that the fireworks-safety discussion at that meeting also included a reference to prior assurance from the Department that the criteria which remains in 2000 NFPA 1 section 16-10 after deletion of the permit text there does not conflict with section 167.10 of the Statutes.

Department updates
Surplus State computers
As a follow-up to the corresponding discussion at the June 16 meeting, Bob reported that the Department is no longer pursuing distribution of surplus State computers to local fire departments. Those computers are part of a larger project for surplus property at the Department of Administration, which includes assessment of resources and competitive bidding. One of the main DOA concerns focused on which non-profit groups would be eligible if the concept of free computers for fire departments is implemented. Dave asked whether the corresponding date will be adjusted for converting to only electronic-based reporting for the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). Bob explained that this date has not yet been firmly established because a code change would be needed to mandate this conversion.  Bob noted that past failures of small fire departments to participate in the reporting have skewed the resulting reports. Terry commented that these failures have been due to a combination of common, long-standing implementation factors – such as high fire department staff turnover, education of new replacement staff, continuing education of existing staff, not having a dedicated NFIRS computer in every fire station, lack of Internet access, and lack of technical frequently-asked-questions support - and resolving these issues or fixing the weakest links would be needed to avoid implementation failures in the future. Bob emphasized that NFIRS generally addresses all the activities of a fire department, rather than reporting only structure fires as required by section 101.141 of the Statutes, and that some means of accomplishing uniform electronic-based reporting is needed. It was also noted that fire departments which are awarded grants must have reported their fire-incident information during the grant period.

Notifications for the Comm 7, 9, 40, and 45 Councils
As a follow-up to the corresponding discussion at the June 16 meeting, Bob reported that notifications of the applicable pending changes to Comm 14, for the Comm 7, 9, 40, and 45 Councils, are being delayed pending resolution of whether the design and construction requirements in Comm 7 should be moved to Comm 61 to 65. Moving the fire-prevention requirements from Comm 7, 9, 40, and 45 to Comm 14 should be less problematic. Comm 7 is primarily based on older NFPA standards and federal explosive rules, and updating those standards and rules in conjunction with moving them to the Building and Fire Codes should not be a problem. There also are some administrative and credential issues that need to be addressed in the final decision.

Ron Acker distributed and discussed an August Scope Statement for updating Comm 7 and 9, and explained that the previous update for Comm 9 did not include input from an advisory Council. Dave asked whether the update of Comm 9 would address fireworks sales and permitting, and Bob responding that this topic would be included in the Comm 14 review of NFPA 1. Dave emphasized that tightening the requirements for shooters of fireworks is needed due to incompetence and accidents, and there are corresponding restraint-of-trade concerns.

Training for upcoming audits
Bob reported that about 95 percent of fire departments have received training for the 2-percent-dues audits for next year.< Although further codification of the process may not be in place by next year, if any non-compliance audit determinations are made, the Department will still pay dues for that calendar year to the municipality. Non-compliance audit determinations could be remanded back the Fire Prevention Coordinator to be decided based upon any new information that is provided. Bob distributed a draft table showing entities that could be represented on an appeals board for the audits. The appeals board would receive appeals that are not resolved by the supervisor of the Department’s Fire Prevention Coordinators. Any appeals that are not resolved by the appeals board could proceed to a contested case hearing under chapter 227 of the Statutes. Bob noted that any appeals to the appeals board would likely be by municipalities, rather than fire departments, since the municipality would receive the denial of funding. Code language for establishing this appeals process will likely be based on other appeal processes in other Departmental codes.

Timely resolution of any appeals may be needed due to the annual, statutory June 30 deadline for allocating the funding from the 2-percent dues. Dave suggested holding any contested funding in abeyance to avoid the restrictions from the June 30 deadline. Terry indicated this abeyance would not be an option for a funding denial that is being appealed, because under section 101.575 (1) (am) of the Statutes, the Department must still pay the dues for that calendar year to the municipality, and must issue a notice of noncompliance to the chief of the fire department, the governing body, and the highest elected official of the municipality. If, after one year or by the time of the next audit of the fire department, whichever is later, it cannot be demonstrated to the Department that the statutory requirements have been met, then the municipality would be ineligible to receive fire dues for that year and any subsequent years until the statutory conditions have been satisfied.

Dave asked whether a fire department that fails an audit one year will then be moved to the top of the list for field auditing by a Fire Prevention Coordinator in the following year.Bob and Terry responded yes, and explained that implementation of the substantial-compliance process from 2003 Act 219 should avoid having an unwieldy number of fire departments assigned to that priority auditing. Terry commented that the new substantial-compliance audit process will likely result in no appeals rising to the appeals board. However, the difficulty for the Fire Prevention Coordinators may be in finding out the details behind a local self-certification of noncompliance, and then helping to rectify the problems before August 1 of the second year. Bob noted that the Fire Prevention Coordinators could visit those noncomplying fire departments sooner than before the next scheduled annual Department audit. Terry emphasized that those fire departments needing assistance should contact their Fire Prevention Coordinator, and Bob added that any self-certification of noncompliance should be followed up with a Departmental offer to help. According to Terry, for some fire departments, the funding from the 2-percent dues is too little to justify much effort by those departments and municipalities to comply.

Dave Lind questioned whether the upcoming 2-percent-audit presentation at the fall conference for fire inspectors could be expanded to include common questions and answers. Dave also questioned whether there would be any corresponding communication with the municipalities. Terry responded that a list of frequently asked questions and resulting Department answers had been compiled from the audit training, and could be made available for the presentation. Bob noted that the Department has posted corresponding information on a 2-percent-audit Web page, and a related mailing will be sent to municipal associations in the near future. Dave suggested recording all the Department presentations on a compact disc that could be included in the conference packet for each inspector, and he recommended discussing further plans for the fall conference at the next Council meeting.

Timeline for adopting the 2006 NFPA 1/UFC
Sam Rockweiler distributed and discussed a revised timeline for updating Comm 14 to include the 2006 NFPA 1/UFC. The timeline showed that public Hearings could be held as early as February 2006, and a 3-month delayed effective date could occur as early as January 1, 2007. Bob indicated that the Commercial Building Code Council wants a 6-month delay in the effective date for updating the Commercial Building Code (chapters Comm 61 to 65), and has had no concerns with what the Fire Code Council has done thus far. Terry asked whether future Building and Fire Code updates are expected to follow the three-year update cycle of the model codes.  Bob explained they are, but interim code changes may occur as well, such as for updating the Comm 5 credential code to include requirements for fireworks shooters. Specific-issue trends could also be on a faster timeline than 3 years.

Dave recommended that if NFPA 1 regulates a design and construction topic for the purpose of prescribing the minimum requirements necessary to establish a reasonable level of fire safety and property protection from the hazards created by fire and explosion - and if that topic is not addressed in the International Building Code, as adopted in Comm 61 to 65, then there should be consideration of whether to apply the NFPA 1 criteria in Wisconsin. Bob responded that the forum for that consideration should be in the discussions for updating Comm 61 to 65 rather than the discussions for updating Comm 14, and those discussions for Comm 61 to 65 should focus on the 2006 version of the IBC. There was discussion that Building Code references should be made to NFPA 1 instead of the International Fire Code. It was noted that the Fire Code Council previously passed a motion to eliminate the option in Comm 14 to locally adopt the IFC in lieu of applying NFPA 1. There also was discussion that the most restrictive fire-hazard design and construction rule in either NFPA 1 or the IFC should apply. Dave recommended that any design and construction requirements from the IFC which are applied directly or indirectly through Comm 61 to 65 should be included in the Wisconsin Enrolled Commercial Building Code. Bob reported that the Department Secretary has decided to stay with the adopted International Code Council (ICC) codes and their included references to the IFC for design and construction.

Dave recommended that any local governmental units which want to apply the IFC instead of NFPA 1 for use, operation, and maintenance should do so through a local ordinance rather than through an option specified in Comm 14. Comm 14 would then be a uniform fire code, by including only NFPA 1.

Terry commented that under section 101.14 of the Statutes, the Department should be providing local fire departments with all the tools which are needed – including training, manuals, and other materials and services – to perform the activities that the Department expects from local units. According to Terry, too much confusion is occurring when determining whether any particular NFPA 1 rule relates to design and construction and is therefore superseded by Comm 61 to 65 – or whether the rule relates instead to use, operation, and maintenance, which is addressed by Comm 14. Terry noted that Comm 14.003 (1) (a) 2. and (2) (d) are the current rules causing most of the conflicts with fire code users. Bob asked whether eliminating the most restrictive reference in Comm 14.003 (2) (a) would help eliminate some of the Building and Fire Code conflicts. There was discussion that this would be a step in the right direction. Bob agreed the Department should attempt to provide further guidance on this topic. Jim Smith questioned whether keeping the approved construction documents at the site, in a controlled-access location, would help. Dave agreed it would, and said those documents should also include any State-level letter of approval specifying the conditions which are part of any conditional approval of a plan or variance.  There was agreement that for local-level requirements which are imposed in addition to State-level requirements, the local governmental unit is the Authority Having Jurisdiction, as this phrase is used in NFPA 1. There was interest in having the Department develop further guidance on the AHJ topic, especially from the perspective of how this phrase would affect or be utilized by a Department deputy, certified agent, or authorized representative of the Department.

Requirements that would be applied by 2003 NFPA 1/UFC
2003 NFPA 1 chapter 65 – Explosives, fireworks and model rocketry
Terry reminded everyone that the fireworks articles which were distributed at previous Council meetings should be reviewed by the Council members and distributed to the organizations represented by each member.

There was agreement that an unfunded mandate would result if Comm 14 is changed to no longer delete the local permits which are required in NFPA 1.

Bob asked whether any of the new requirements in NFPA 1 chapter 65 would create problems. It was noted that the conflict about design and construction versus use, operation, and maintenance would be a factor in this topic. Dave questioned whether the criteria in sections 65.11.4 (1) and (2), which address the buildings or structures where fireworks can be sold, would be interpreted as design and construction requirements. Bob noted that the criteria could instead be interpreted as allowing this use in a building or structure which already exists and complies with these sections. There were questions on how Comm 61 to 65 and NFPA 1 chapter 65 would apply to permanent buildings versus temporary use of buildings. Jim Smith explained that the current criteria in Comm 61 to 65 allows local latitude for temporary uses, such as for seasonal fireworks sales. Dave asked whether these NFPA criteria would be lost if they are more restrictive than corresponding criteria in Comm 61 to 65, and Bob said they would, but the 2006 IBC should be reviewed before the next Council meeting to verify whether anything would be lost. There was interest in similarly reviewing the criteria for exits in section 65.11.8.3, and in clarifying how a permanent or temporary, hazardous use would be classified. Dave recommended reviewing all of sections 65.11.4 to 65.11.10.3.7.3. If the 2006 IBC adopts and applies all of NFPA 1124, then the IBC likely will not be dissimilar to those sections.

Dave asked whether Comm 7 and 9 would then continue to be needed. Ron Acker said Comm 9 could be reduced to a small number of requirements for administration, recordkeeping, and reporting; but Comm 7 has additional technical requirements beyond NFPA 495. Ron referred to a comparison he had done between Comm 7, Comm 9, NFPA 495, and NFPA 1124; and he said that Comm 8 is basically a training chapter for mines, pits, and quarries. Bob noted that Comm 9 could be merged with Comm 7.

Remaining chapters of 2003 NFPA 1
Bob invited the Council to point out any potential problems with the remaining chapters of 2003 NFPA 1. Dave commented that some of the administrative elements of chapter 1 may be needed, and review of that chapter should include discussion of any of the code’s conflicts with Comm 61 to 65. Terry said the stop-work elements could be helpful, and some of the elements that were deleted from the 2000 NFPA 1 could have been helpful from 2002 to the present as well. Bob said any Department decisions concerning NFPA 1 chapter 1 would be based upon how the Department chooses to manage the fire hazard risks regulated by NFPA 1. Dave recommended scheduling a detailed review of chapter 1 for the next Council meeting. 

Dave recommended keeping all of chapters 2 and 3.

Dave commented that section 4.5.1.2 may be too broad in allowing the Authority Having Jurisdiction to create and impose requirements which are not included in NFPA 1. Terry said the rule would be limited by the purpose, scope, and application sections of Comm 14 and NFPA 1. The burden would be on the AHJ to demonstrate that the added requirements are essential for the safety of the occupants, protection of the structure, or protection of the contents.  Terry said that based upon the original intent of the NFPA 1:4.5.1.2. code rule proposal [NFPA Report on Proposals] the Department’s field staff did not object to this rule. There was agreement that chapter 4 should be adopted.

In reviewing the performance-based design criteria in chapter 5, Dave said the review requirements in sections 5.1.4 and 5.1.5 would not be a problem if the Department performs the reviews. Bob said those sections are deactivated by the code-application criteria in Comm 14.003 (1) (b). Dave suggested modifying Comm 14.003 if needed to retain any desired criteria in chapter 5, such as those in section 5.4.2.1.1 for an occupancy-specific fire design scenario. Bob agreed that chapter 5 should be reviewed in more detail.

Dave suggested adding an informational note for alerting readers that Comm 61 to 65 supersedes all of the design and construction requirements which are included in the reference under section 10.1.2 to complying with NFPA 101, Life Safety Code

There was agreement to retain all of the fire-drill requirements in section 10.6.

There was tentative agreement that the signage requirements in section 10.13 would not conflict with Comm 61 to 65 and should be retained.

There was agreement that the criteria in section 10.14 for vacant buildings should be retained, and that these criteria do not conflict with the criteria in section 66.0413 of the Statutes, for unsafe buildings. Terry commented that Fire Code users commonly confuse vacant buildings with dilapidated or unsafe buildings. Terry said that NFPA 1 treats each category as a separate aspect of a building’s fire safety condition and status.

There was agreement that the criteria in section 10.15.2 for allowing limited quantities of combustible vegetation should provide adequate latitude for using Christmas trees in churches and similar occupancies.

After brief discussion of permanent wiring that is abandoned in place, temporary wiring, and elevator upgrades which include new firefighter elevator recall service, there was agreement to retain all of the remaining criteria in chapter 10, and all of the criteria in chapter 11.

Next meetings
Dave asked what preparations the Council members should make for the next Council meetings. He referenced an outline of code-change recommendations he distributed at the June 2004 Council meeting; and he offered to identify all of the design and construction requirements in NFPA 1 and then describe any that are more restrictive than Comm 61 to 65. The results could then be considered by the Commercial Building Code Council, and by the Alteration and Change of Occupancy Council.

Terry requested further clarification on the decision by the Department Secretary to stay with the referenced IFC for fire-hazard design and construction instead of referencing the NFPA 1 Uniform Fire Code. Terry questioned why the IFC is being retained, if NFPA 1 is equivalent for fire-hazard design and construction. Bob said some of the reasons are that the designers, builders, and architects are now accustomed to using the ICC codes, and the code sections and numbers correlate better.  Terry stated the same could be said for the correlation of the NFPA model code suite code sections and numbers. Terry said by referencing the NFPA 1 Uniform Fire Code instead of the IFC, many of the current conflicts could be avoided. Todd Doebler commented that just as the Department has made efforts to assist designers by not applying the design and construction requirements in NFPA 1, Departmental efforts should also be directed to assisting fire inspectors by minimizing modifications of NFPA 1. Bob said he is ready to advance the remaining 2003 NFPA 1 requirements to public Hearings, without further review.

There was agreement that the next Council meeting should include further review of (1) subchapters IV and V of Comm 14, (2) chapter 65 of NFPA 1 for design and construction equivalence and maintenance of existing buildings constructed under the preceding Commercial Building Code - Comm 50 to 64; (3) subchapters I and II of Comm 14, and chapter 1 of NFPA 1; and (4) subchapter III of Comm 14, for any modifications or additions to definitions, and review of missing 1999 code items.

Prior to the meeting, the Council should receive a summary of what has been reviewed in subchapters IV and V of Comm 14 to date - and what has been identified as needed, such as review and clarification of (1) inspection frequencies and exceptions; (2) the corresponding special orders from the Department, and their process and limitations; (3) the enforcement process and fire inspection reports to owners; and (4) the audit appeals board and its representation and procedures. Bob suggested that the requirement to request special orders be replaced with a codified process which includes more community involvement and local governmental action. Dave raised concerns with this concept and referenced a similar situation in his fire district where a local public hearing produced undesirable results.

The next meeting was reaffirmed for September 12, at the same location and time period as the August 8 meeting.

Thursday, June 16, 2005, 9 a.m. - 2:30 p.m., Thompson Commerce Center, Room 3C, 201 West Washington Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin

Council Member Attendance: Gregg Cleveland - Chair, Present;  Ken Cole P; Marty King (Tod Doebler - Alternate) P; Dave Lind P; John Periard Absent; Jim Stormer (Todd Blaser - Alternate) P.

Department of Commerce Staff: Bob DuPont; Joe Hertel; Terry Nolen; Sam Rockweiler.

Gregg Cleveland opened the meeting with a review of the agenda, and the Council accepted the draft progress report for the preceding, May 5 Council meeting.

Department updates

Miscellaneous updates

Thursday, May 5, 2005, 9 a.m. - 2:30 p.m., Thompson Commerce Center , Room 3B, 201 West Washington Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin

Council Member Attendance: Gregg Cleveland, Chair Present; Ken Cole P; Marty King Exc; Dave Lind P; John Periad (Michelle Feldman – Alternate) P; Jim Stormer (Todd Blaser – Alternate) P

Guests: Dave Bloom Town of Madison Fire Department; Tod Doebler Menomonee Falls Fire Department

Commerce Staff:  Sue Birren, Bob DuPont, Joe Hertel, Terry Nolen, Luann Robb, Sam Rockweiler, Jim Smith
Gregg Cleveland opened the meeting with a round of introductions, and the Council accepted the draft progress report for the preceding, April 5th Council meeting.

Portable tanks over 110 gallons
Sam Rockweiler discussed the draft informational Notes for Comm 14.002 (5) that were sent to the Council prior to the meeting, in response to the corresponding discussion at the previous meeting. Note (2) describes the fire-safety requirements that Comm 10 would apply to portable tanks (including intermediate bulk containers) which have a capacity of 110 or more gallons, are used for flammable or combustible or hazardous liquids, and are not excluded under Comm 10.020 (5). Terry recommended expanding the Note to state that detailed fire-safety requirements for these portable tanks can be found in chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7 of NFPA 30 as adopted by Comm 10. The processes that are being excluded under Comm 10.020 (5) and moved to Comm 14.002 (5) may include use of any-size portable tank, in the manner regulated by NFPA 1 and the other NFPA standards referenced therein, such as NFPA 30.

Note (3) explains which of the corresponding inspections under Comm 10 must be conducted by individuals who are certified as tank inspectors under Comm 5. Sam indicated that an additional Note may be helpful to explain how Comm 48 also regulates containers which have a capacity of under 275 gallons and which are used for storing gasoline or any other petroleum product having a flash point of less than 100°F. Terry recommended expanding the Note to include a reference to section 101.14 (2) of the Statutes, to reflect the duty of fire chiefs to provide fire inspections in public buildings and places of employment.

Ken Cole questioned whether concerns would arise about the extent of the Notes being proposed in Comm 14, and he asked whether the Notes convey any authority or contain requirements. Sam explained that informational Notes in a code are appropriate if they are helpful, but they cannot impose any requirements.

Ken asked for clarification of the interaction between Comm 10 and Comm 14. The response was that Comm 10 is aimed more at environmental regulatory issues while Comm 14 is focused on fire safety issues. Gregg Cleveland commented that combining Comm 10 and Comm 14 into one code may be desirable as a long-term goal.

Sam commented that the informational Notes – in combination with the draft changes to Comm 10 and 14 which were developed in response to discussions at the Council’s meeting on January 25, and which were discussed at the subsequent meeting on March 8 – are expected to resolve the Council’s concerns that were reflected in the corresponding motion at the January 25th meeting. There was agreement that with this resolution, relaying those concerns to the Department’s Comm 10 advisory committee, as requested in the January 25th motion, would no longer be needed.

Relocatable power taps
In a follow-up to the corresponding discussion at the April 5th meeting, Joe Hertel explained that a formal Code Interpretation is being developed to replace the current Interpretation for relocatable power taps which is out-of-date because of recent changes to the use and application requirements in the product listing by Underwriters Laboratories. According to Joe, the new Interpretation would be expected to remain in effect only until Comm 14 is revised to include the corresponding requirements from the 2003 edition of NFPA 1, and the Interpretation will not apply the overcurrent protection that is required in 2003 NFPA 1. Terry questioned whether any conflicts are likely to result because of NFPA 1 (or because of the International Fire Code, in municipalities that have adopted it instead) being either more or less restrictive, and Bob DuPont agreed the potential for such conflicts should be reviewed. Luann Robb questioned whether the new Interpretation would be issued in time for the fire chiefs’ conference in June. Terry noted that this topic was included on the agenda in order to develop clarification which would avoid having some fire inspectors strictly enforcing the out-of-date Interpretation while others are not. Municipalities that have adopted newer editions of NFPA 1 or the IFC can be more restrictive, but not less restrictive, in addressing the use, operation, and maintenance of these relocatable power tap devices.

Fire drills and fire alarms in schools
Sue Birren explained that of the 365 schools she is aware of in the Milwaukee school district, 160 are public or charter schools, another 100 are private and religious-based, and the remainder are private and choice schools that generally are in buildings which were not originally built to include school occupancies. Sue reported that fire department staff who participate in statutorily required fire drills at schools are not clear about how these drills should be performed in buildings which do not have a fire alarm system. She added that the Milwaukee Fire Department was aware of only 220 of the 365 schools on her list. Ken Cole explained that alternative schools are often exempted from various requirements, but are never exempted from health and safety requirements.

Dave Lind noted that an existing building which is changed to include a school occupancy must comply with the change-of-use requirements in Wisconsin’s Commercial Building Code - chapters Comm 61 to 65. Jim Smith agreed, but noted that revisions to the Code in 2002 included elimination of a requirement to provide a fire alarm system under certain conditions for fewer than 50 occupants [see IBC Section 907.2.3]. Sue questioned whether the 50-occupant threshold includes all of a building’s occupants, or only the occupants of the portion of the building that includes the school. And wherever a fire alarm system is not provided, Sue emphasized that there is a need for guidance on how to conduct a fire drill. Ken commented that most of the private, choice schools start with less than 50 students, and some of these schools hope to expand beyond 50. Ken added there is a growing trend toward locating these schools in multi-use buildings. Gregg questioned whether the topic would be addressed by the Department’s advisory council for alterations and changes of occupancies.

Terry commented that the problem is compounded by several other factors as well: the statutory definition of a school or an educational occupancy is different than the definitions in the Commercial Building Code and the Fire Prevention Code; and there are differences between the fire-drill requirements in section 118.07 of the Statutes and the requirements for emergency egress and relocation drills in NFPA 1 (or the requirements for emergency-evacuation drills in the IFC, where it is adopted locally). Terry circulated an excerpt of various requirements relating to fire drills, from chapters 115 and 118 of the Wisconsin Statutes, from NFPA 1, and from the International Building Code and International Fire Code. He also circulated an informational notice the Department published in 2003 to alert owners and managers of new requirements for emergency egress and relocation drills in NFPA 1 for other occupancies besides schools.

Luann reported that the Department’s Fire Drills Report form for schools is being revised, and she distributed copies of the current form.

Ken commented that the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction issues a license to schools which receive State funding, and that the private, choice schools are only permitted in the Milwaukee school district. There was interest in asking the DPI to enclose a notice with the license that is issued to each of these schools, for informing them that the Commercial Building Code and the Fire Prevention Code have additional requirements that may apply to the school, including the requirements that apply to mixed-use buildings. There also was interest in asking the DPI to notify the corresponding fire department when these new school licenses are issued. Bob and Sue agreed to contact the DPI accordingly.

Records for fire incidents, and surplus State computers
Bob explained that the Department is required under section 101.141 of the Statutes to maintain records of all fires in the State, and that although the Department encourages local participation in the broader, more comprehensive National Fire Incident Reporting System, the Department does not have authority under section 101.141 to require that participation. Bob noted the Department does not have adequate resources to electronically file a large number of paper-based reports from fire departments. Bob stated that several large fire departments are currently not reporting to the Department, and he questioned whether the Department should ask fire departments to provide an annual summary of fires rather than a report of each incident. Luann distributed copies of an annual report form the Department used for 1998, and the current Wisconsin Fire Incident Report System form.

Bob noted the Department has about 80 surplus computers, which could be given to local fire departments who do not have computers, for electronically reporting fire incidents or annual summaries. Additional surplus computers may be available from other Departments.

According to Gregg, the fire chiefs believe all fire departments should participate in electronic data entry for NFIRS, and distributing the surplus computers through the Fire Prevention Coordinators would be good. Gregg suggested that the Department request written assurance from each prospective recipient that they do not have a computer, and the Fire Prevention Coordinators could look for the computers during the 2 percent-dues audits. Dave Lind questioned whether the recipients would need to purchase software and modems. Bob indicated those purchases could be fundable by the 2 percent-dues monies; and for volunteer fire departments, the computers could be located within a home.

Terry commented that the Coordinators support statistical reporting as a fundamental basis for identifying problem areas. Future limited resources could then be focused on those identified problem areas. He noted that reporting of fire incidents has been a longstanding problem, and agreed that 101.141 of the Statutes does not require NFIRS reporting. As currently codified in Comm 14.47 (3), each fire chief must submit written fire-incident reports to the Department no later than April 1, for the previous year. The reports must contain at least the information specified in subsection (5), which only lists the time, date, and location of fires and number of firefighters responding to each fire. Terry noted that several longstanding, fundamental issues need to be overcome. These include the unfunded mandate in Comm 14 to annually submit the reports to the Department, the lack of a corresponding statutory mandate to submit the reports, an inability of average volunteer fire departments to keep up with the complicated NFIRS reporting system, a high turnover rate in the fire-department reporting staff, and the corresponding training needs of new staff replacements.

Bob indicated a preference for having Department staff serve as a help desk for NFIRS rather than perform the corresponding data entry, in part because local staff will not be encouraged to fully participate if they expect Department staff will do the data entry. Dave agreed that broad participation in NFIRS is in the best interest of the fire service. Dave questioned whether the Department should ask fire departments who are not participating why they are not. Gregg said they may respond by asking why they should participate, and he noted the Department has not issued a corresponding annual report of the fire incidents since 1993. Gregg suggested revising that report to be more of a summary – similar to the annual summary of woodland fires that is published by the Department of Natural Resources - which would be more helpful with local elected officials. Bob suggested that the fire departments who are not participating may be more likely to submit a condensed, annual summary to the Department.

Ken Cole suggested the Department move more toward providing materials free through online resources, but charging for all paper-based versions. Dave recommended that the Department establish a date after which only electronic-based reporting will be accepted. Bob said electronic reporting could be mandated in the 2007 edition of Comm 14, and take effect in 2008. Dave noted the fire inspectors could support electronic reporting, but only the fire chiefs can decide to do it. Gregg agreed with establishing a cutoff date for paper-based reporting, and agreed that the Council and the fire chiefs would need to support moving to only using electronic-based reporting.

Continued review of Subchapter III of Comm 14
Comm 14.16 – fireworks and explosives
Bob explained his preference to postpone convening the Department’s Comm 9 and 7 advisory councils for fireworks and explosives, and his expectation that those two codes could move more toward use of NFPA 1 as a base set of requirements. According to Bob, that movement could include having the Comm 9 and 7 Councils function as subcouncils for the Comm 14 Council.

Terry commented that the current text in Comm 14.16 deletes the corresponding requirements in 2000 NFPA 1 section 16-4 for fireworks manufacturing and section 16-8 for explosives, and instead refers the reader to Comm 9 and 7, where the NFPA 1 requirements are then applied again - which causes the reader to come full circle to the same requirements that were initially deleted.

Bob noted that Comm 9 and 7 have not yet been fully reviewed for consistency with the revised Commercial Building Code that became effective in 2002. Terry added that some of the requirements in Comm 9 have been superceded by federal regulations which have taken effect since 2001. There was recognition that the NFPA 1124 standard for manufacture, transportation, storage, and retail sale of fireworks is referenced in both the 2000 and 2003 editions of NFPA 1. Bob suggested deleting the Notes under Comm 14.16 that refer to Comm 9 and 7, because a general Note under Comm 14.003 (6) includes the same reference. Joe Hertel recommended reviewing any corresponding new requirements in the 2003 edition of NFPA 1 before adopting them.

Bob said the Department could notify the Comm 9 and 7 Council members and their nominators that the Comm 14 Council is recommending applying the 2003 NFPA 1 chapter 65 requirements for fireworks and explosives, in addition to the requirements in Comm 9 and 7. The notification could include corresponding excerpts from chapter 65, and could give the recipients a one-month period to respond with any concerns. Terry recommended emphasizing in the notification that any responses to the Comm 14 recommendations should focus only on concerns related to the minimum requirements necessary to establish a reasonable level of fire and life safety and property protection from the hazards created by fire, explosion, and dangerous conditions - because that is the focus of NFPA 1. There was recognition that 2003 NFPA section 65.11.2 contains requirements for retail sales of consumer fireworks, as extracted from the 2003 edition of NFPA 1124, and that those requirements extend beyond what was required in the 2000 edition of NFPA 1, which referenced the 1998 edition of NFPA 1124. There was interest in reviewing where section 167.10 of the Statutes supercedes the 2003 NFPA 1 requirements for these sales.

Comm 14.17 - flammable and combustible liquids
Dave recommended that for the short-term, the Council should support the changes to this section which are included with the Department’s draft changes to Comm 10, as presented to the Council at its January 25th meeting. However, when the 2003 and 2006 NFPA 1 requirements are adopted in Comm 14, chapter 66 of NFPA 1 will apply additional criteria to these liquids – and the Department’s Comm 10 advisory committee should likewise consider applying those additional criteria to the flammable-, combustible-, and hazardous-liquid containers that are addressed in Comm 10.

Comm 14.21 - liquefied petroleum gases and liquefied natural gases
Dave recommended that the Department send a notification to its Comm 40 Council and corresponding nominators, similar to the previously discussed notifications for the Comm 9 and 7 Councils. Bob noted that in the long-run, the Comm 40 requirements could similarly be subsumed into Comm 14. As in the notifications for Comm 9 and 7, Terry recommended emphasizing that any responses should focus only on concerns related to the minimum requirements necessary to establish a reasonable level of fire and life safety and property protection from the hazards created by fire, explosion, and dangerous conditions.

Comm 14.23 - mechanical refrigeration
Bob indicated that a notification similar to the notifications for Comm 9, 7, and 40 could be sent to the Department’s Comm 45 Council and corresponding nominators. As in those notifications, Terry recommended emphasizing that any responses should focus only on concerns related to the minimum requirements necessary to establish a reasonable level of fire and life safety and property protection from the hazards created by fire, explosion, and dangerous conditions.

Comm 14.27 - manufactured-home and recreational-vehicle sites
Bob explained that Comm 95, as referenced in this section, was recently updated. There was agreement to postpone modifying this section until Comm 95 is updated again.

Comm 14.28 - refueling
There was recognition that the requirements in this section are being modified in the Department’s draft changes to Comm 10, and there was interest in having the Department similarly notify its Comm 10 Committee that the Comm 14 Council is recommending adoption of the corresponding requirements in 2003 NFPA 1 chapter 45. As in the notifications for Comm 9, 7, 40, and 45, Terry recommended emphasizing that any responses should focus only on concerns related to the minimum requirements necessary to establish a reasonable level of fire and life safety and property protection from the hazards created by fire, explosion, and dangerous conditions.

Comm 14.29 - fire hose threads and fittings
There was agreement that the exclusion in this section should be deleted, because the corresponding requirements in 2003 NFPA 1 section 20.15.7.6 do not conflict with the hose-thread requirements in section 213.15 of the Statutes. However, the informational Note is helpful in repeating the requirements from section 213.15, and should be retained.

Comm 14.30 - service stations and repair garages
There was agreement that the exclusion in this section should be deleted, because the corresponding requirements in 2003 NFPA 1 chapters 30 and 66 desirably address service stations, repair garages, and flammable and combustible liquids. There was interest in having the Department similarly notify its Comm 10 Committee that the Comm 14 Council is recommending adoption of these requirements. As in the notifications for Comm 9, 7, 40, and 45, Terry recommended emphasizing that any responses should focus only on concerns related to the minimum requirements necessary to establish a reasonable level of fire and life safety and property protection from the hazards created by fire, explosion, and dangerous conditions.

Terry raised concern with whether a design or construction requirement in NFPA 1 chapter 30 or 66 should be disregarded if Comm 61 to 65 is silent on the topic, and Bob responded that it should be disregarded unless a Wisconsin modification specifically applies the requirement. Terry recommended that the Council discuss this topic further as it relates to the minimum requirements necessary to establish a reasonable level of fire and life safety and property protection from the hazards created by fire, explosion, and dangerous conditions.

Comm 14.31 (1) - maintenance of membrane structures
There was agreement that the requirements in this subsection should be deleted because they are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 section 25.6.6.2. This deletion would replace the current, general requirement to maintain these structures as they were constructed, with requirements to have them annually inspected by a qualified person, and maintained accordingly.

Comm 14.31 (2) - vehicle parking near tents
There was agreement that the requirements in this subsection should be deleted because they are adequately addressed by modern vehicle manufacturing and fuel injection versus older carburetors and backfiring.

Comm 14.31 (3) - flammable and combustible liquids near tents
There was agreement that the requirements in this subsection should be deleted because they are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 chapter 66.

Comm 14.31 (4) and (5) - abatement of special hazards, and combustible materials near tents
There was agreement that the requirements in these subsections should be deleted because these requirements are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 section 25.2.4.1.

Comm 14.31 (6) - smoking and open flame in tents
There was agreement that the requirements in this subsection should be deleted because they are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 section 25.2.4. There was agreement that this deletion would place more responsibility on an authority having jurisdiction, and that this additional responsibility is acceptable.

Comm 14.31 (7) - maintenance of outdoor grandstands
There was agreement that the requirements in this subsection should be deleted because they are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 section 25.3.6. This deletion would replace the current, general requirement to maintain these grandstands as they were constructed, with requirements to have them periodically inspected by a qualified person, and maintained accordingly.

Comm 14.31 (8) - maintenance and operation of folding and telescoping seating
There was agreement that the requirements in this subsection should be deleted because they are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 section 25.4.3. This deletion would replace the current, general requirement to maintain this seating as it was constructed, with requirements to have it periodically inspected by a qualified person, and maintained accordingly.

Next meeting
The next meeting was confirmed for June 16 in Conference Room 3C, for the same time period as the May 5 meeting, and is expected to focus on requirements that would be newly applied by 2003 NFPA 1.

Tuesday, April 5, 2005, a.m. to 2:30 p.m., Thompson Commerce Center, Room 3B, 201 West Washington Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin

Council member attendance:  Gregg Cleveland, Chair (Dave Lind, Alternate) Present; Ken Cole P; Marty King P; Dave Lind (Tod Doebler, Alternate) P; John Periad (Michelle Feldman, Alternate) P; Jim Stormer (Todd Blaser, Alternate) P

Department of Commerce staff: Darrell Christy, James Daniels, Bob DuPont, Joe Hertel, Dan Meneguin, Terry Nolen, LeRoy Nordmeyer, Sam Rockweiler, Sheldon Schall; Bill Shane, Jim Smith.

Dave Lind opened the meeting with a round of introductions. In reviewing the progress report from the preceding, March 8 meeting, Bob DuPont commented that the reference on page 3 to a Department advisory group for inspecting one- and two-family dwellings should have explained that the group’s purpose was to assist in developing contracts which independent inspection agencies will execute with the Department in conjunction with performing inspections in municipalities that choose to not perform the inspections. Terry Nolen commented that past progress reports had addressed several unresolved issues which are still pending; and he indicated that the reports should contain enough detail to reflect the status or resolution of each issue brought before the Council. Terry explained that progress reports serve as a valuable archive tool for establishing the original purpose and intent of a council’s decision on an issue.

A motion was made by Ken Cole, seconded by Tod Doebler, and passed unanimously, to accept the progress report from the March 8, 2005, meeting, as revised to reflect Bob’s comment about the advisory group for inspecting one- and two-family dwellings.

Intermediate bulk containers and portable tanks over 110 gallons
Sheldon Schall explained that local fire departments have authority to enforce the fire-safety requirements which are now in Comm 10 and which are being developed for these vessels in conjunction with updating Comm 10.

Terry commented that the 2000 NFPA 1 Chapter 17 requirements which apply to these vessels are specifically excluded from Comm 14; a note in Comm 14 then directs the reader to see Comm 10 for requirements for flammable and combustible liquids; and Comm 10 then applies the same NFPA 30 requirements that are excluded from Comm 14. Terry indicated this creates frustration with fire inspectors because it causes them to come full circle to the same NFPA 30 requirements they were originally informed not to use.

According to Terry, another problem is that the text for flammable and combustible liquids that has been proposed for adding to Comm 14 is limited to tanks and containers under 110 gallons. Many intermediate bulk containers and tanks that are used for distribution and industrial processes fall between 110 and 660 gallons. The fire inspector will be the code enforcement person most likely to come into contact with these vessels during the required twice-a-year fire inspections. What the fire inspectors want is a single code book that prescribes the minimum requirements for a reasonable level of fire safety and property protection from the hazards created by fire and explosion. A single code book would assist them in performing their day-to-day field inspections.

Sheldon commented that NFPA sometimes refers to these vessels as intermediate bulk containers and sometimes as portable tanks - and NFPA is having difficulty in addressing them, partly because they are sometimes used for liquids that are not fire hazards. Consequently, according to Sheldon, a variety of acceptable industry practices have developed over time for using these vessels with those liquids, which fire inspectors may not be familiar with and may not view as being acceptable, particularly when these vessels are used for liquids that are fire hazards.

Bob and Sam Rockweiler suggested adding an informational note to Comm 14 that would summarize the corresponding fire-safety requirements in Comm 10. Dave recommended also adding an informational note to Comm 14 that would alert readers to which of the corresponding inspections under Comm 10 must be conducted by individuals who are certified as tank inspectors under Comm 5. Dave added that during the current updating of Comm 10, consideration should be given to whether its requirements are consistent with the requirements for flammable and combustible liquids in chapter 66 of the 2003 edition of NFPA 1/UFC. Bill Shane commented that corresponding training is very important for fire inspectors and local program operators, and the suggested informational notes in Comm 14 would be helpful. Ken Cole commented that the clarifications should not be a problem, but he would want to know if the regulatory requirements are proposed to be changed.

Joe Hertel asked how many Wisconsin modifications of NFPA 30 are included in the proposed Comm 10 changes. Sheldon estimated they number between 12 and 24, and mostly relate to environmental issues.

Sheldon explained that a 2005 effective date is desired for the update of Comm 10. Terry asked what cycle is expected for future updates of Comm 10, and Sheldon said it should match the update cycle for the requirements for flammable and combustible liquids in NFPA 30, which is every three years. Sheldon added that the 2006 edition of NFPA 1/UFC could be considered in relation to Comm 10 when it becomes available as well. Terry indicated there is a problem with code harmony and uniform application, because the update cycles for Wisconsin’s codes for commercial buildings, fire prevention, and flammable and combustible liquids, and the adopted NFPA codes and referenced NFPA standards, currently are not synchronized with each other.

Relocatable power taps
In a follow-up to the corresponding discussion at the March 8 meeting, Joe distributed and discussed a revised draft informational notice for clarifying acceptable uses of relocatable power taps, as based on current guidelines from Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Joe explained that the taps are similar to an appliance in that although they can be moved around or relocated, they may remain in one place for a long time. Joe added that they must have overcurrent protection if they include four or more connectors, unless the attached circuit is sized for that number of connectors - but knowing that this sizing is in place is generally not likely. In reviewing the corresponding literature, Joe found no mention of whether the taps are prohibited for heavy-duty equipment, because a requirement for overcurrent protection in that usage applies instead, and is generally reflected in the UL listing.

Terry explained that the present problem with the power taps is that the corresponding requirements in Comm 14 and the NFPA 1 and IFC code commentaries are no longer consistent with the UL guidelines. According to Terry, the explanatory language for temporary use that was added in the revised draft would still be unclear to most fire inspectors, and should be clarified in order to resolve ongoing arguments about permanent versus temporary use. Dave said training on the topic is needed, such as at the Fall fire inspectors’ conference, and further efforts at keeping the Fire Prevention Coordinators informed for consultation purposes, along with posting a clear-enough notice on the Department’s Web site, should occur soon. Joe agreed to further clarify the notice, and Dave asked that the next revision be sent to the Council with the next progress report.

Status of other unresolved topics from previous meetings

Fire-dues audit appeals
Bob explained that the Department wants to have an appeals board for the fire-dues audits; the board should be established by April 1, 2006; and a proposed process for the appeals should be available for the Council to discuss by August 2005. According to Bob, the appeals process will likely have three parts: (1) an initial appeal to the Department, such as to the auditor’s supervisor; (2) an appeal to the appeals board, in the event that an appeal to the supervisor is unsuccessful; and (3) a judicial appeal under chapter 227 of the statutes, in the event that an appeal to the appeals board is unsuccessful.

Ken asked why the appeals board will be needed, since the audits will now be looking for substantial compliance rather than the absolute compliance that was previously looked for. Dave explained that the fire service is concerned that in the future the audits could move again toward looking for absolute compliance.

Bob recommended that this topic be discussed further when the Council’s review of Comm 14 advances to the subchapter which addresses the fire department dues program.

Defining what constitutes a fire inspection
Bob recommended that this topic be discussed further when the Council’s review of Comm 14 advances to the subchapter which addresses fire department duties, and he noted the review should include consideration of how the model codes address this topic. Dave agreed, but noted concern that the topics of what constitutes a “fire inspection” and what constitutes “cause to be corrected” (including reinspection options, reinspection timelines, and reinspection documentation) be resolved before the 2006 audits begin, to prevent a local unit from failing an audit because of improper application of the broad, substantial-compliance target. To address the concern, Bob indicated the Department would publish guidance for fire departments, directing that each required fire inspection report must (1) describe violations which are found, (2) require correction of the violations, and (3) state by when the correction must be made. Dave suggested that the guidance also address the owner’s responsibility to make the correction, and the extent of the fire department’s responsibility to verify that the correction occurs. Dave recommended also addressing this topic at the Fall fire inspectors’ conference.

Benchmarks for substantial compliance
Bob emphasized that benchmarks should not be developed which specify a certain, minimum percentage of buildings that must be inspected; and he recommended that further discussion of this topic occur during the training sessions the Department provides for the audits, and when the Council’s review of Comm 14 advances to the code sections which address fire department dues, audits, and substantial compliance. There was agreement that there is a distinction between substantial compliance and due diligence under section 101.14, of the Statutes - namely, the corresponding Comm 14 sections do not reduce the duty of municipalities to annually inspect 100 percent of public buildings and places of employment, but do provide more flexibility in determining whether that duty has been met, so as to establish eligibility for fire dues funding. Dave agreed that looking for due diligence during the audits will be better than looking for a minimum percentage of inspections.

Comm 14 problematic issues
There was agreement that further discussion of these issues should occur when the Council’s review of Comm 14 advances to the portion which addresses them. Terry indicated these issues include some missing topics that were in the previous edition of Comm 14, and topics that have been a problem since the current edition of Comm 14 became effective in 2002.

Comm 14 rules for the National Fire Incident Reporting System
Bob and Dave agreed that further discussion of these rules should occur when the Council’s review of Comm 14 advances to the portion which addresses them. Terry asked if Gregg Cleveland and the fire service had approved of the proposed new NFIRS initiative and the related cover letter that will be mailed to each fire chief. Terry recommended that if the NFIRS modifications which are referenced in the letter are implemented before the Council discusses the corresponding portion of Comm 14, the Council should discuss and approve them accordingly. Bob responded that a subsequent draft of the letter is being developed for review by the fire chiefs, and he agreed to distribute the draft to the Council as well. Bob also distributed a brochure describing upcoming NFIRS training in May that the Department is sponsoring, and he noted that corresponding compact discs are being produced for each fire department in conjunction with converting to electronic reporting of the NFIRS data. In practice, the Department will be encouraging local units to use the new NFIRS processes prior to developing associated changes in Comm 14, which should aid the development of those changes. According to Bob, there is still an issue with NFIRS paper reporting, because until the code is changed, Commerce will have to accept paper reporting. However, any future NFIRS paper submittals should be on the new paper form. Dave recommended also discussing the topic further at the Fall fire inspectors’ conference, and with the Fire Chiefs Association.

Inspection of seasonal occupancies, and special-order requirements
Bob recommended discussing these topics further when the Council’s review of Comm 14 advances to the portion that addresses them. Dave agreed, provided they are resolved before they have a potential to cause problems during the 2006 audits. Bob noted that the code change which was recommended at the preceding Council meeting - for making inspection of seasonal occupancies a once-a-year inspection, that would have to occur during the occupancy - will not become effective in time for the 2006 audits, and a final decision on this topic has not yet occurred.

Dave indicated the fire service wants Comm 14 to identify and list all of the criteria that are needed for obtaining a special order, such as the risk analysis which is currently required by Comm 14. Bob said he would also like to see this codified but in such a way that the fire departments would not need to continue asking Commerce for a written special order. For example, a fire department could meet the stated code criteria, and record and maintain that in their fire department records, which would avoid requesting and granting a special order.

According to Terry, this portion of Comm 14, and the included list of occupancies that can be inspected once per year, has been reviewed for possible additions or deletions in every code cycle since being created in the 1992 edition. Terry indicated that for the purposes of this portion of Comm 14 and NFPA 1, vacant buildings are distinctly different from buildings which are not open for business when a fire inspector is there.

Stop-use rules for local Department deputies
Dave indicated the fire service wants Comm 14 to be expanded to include stop-use rules that would be similar to those which are currently in and proposed for Comm 10. Dave further noted that the fire chief as a Commerce deputy should be able to enforce and issue orders under any future stop-use rules that are placed in Comm 3, just as any other Commerce deputy will have authority to do. Dave said formalizing these rules is critical, and Bob noted a preference for doing so when the Council’s review of NFPA 1/UFC advances to the portion that addresses this topic. Bob reported that the Justice Department has decided it is not interested in having the Comm 14 program transfer to their jurisdiction, so developing these rules will no longer be delayed pending that decision. According to Bob, discussion is needed about whether credentials should be created in Comm 5 for fire inspectors who would be authorized to issue stop-use orders as deputies of the Department. Those credentials would provide for in-house control, and could be phased in or include a grandfather clause. As an example, Bob referenced the private-sector elevator inspectors who have an associated credential under Comm 5 and can consequently issue Department-level orders to correct elevator violations.

Comm 61 to 65 compliance orders from Fire Prevention Coordinators
Dave commented that issuing orders for Comm 61 to 65 compliance is not a Comm 14 review topic. Bob agreed, and reported that the position descriptions for the Fire Protection Coordinators are being revised to reflect the Coordinators’ ability to issue orders for correcting violations of the Commercial Building Code. Bob added that the Coordinators would receive program-overlap training on the Building Code in June, and further training on fire-related aspects of the Building Code could be developed for state and local staff as well. Bob said that any Commerce program staff will have authority to issue orders for serious health and safety issues. Dave emphasized that the Coordinators need to be able to determine when a Building Code violation should be turned over to a building inspector.

Review of Subchapter III of Comm 14

Comm 14.04 (1)
Jim Smith explained that this subsection’s modification of NFPA 1 was intended to substitute that Code’s reference to construction requirements in NFPA 101 with the applicable construction requirements in Comm 61 to 65, for self-closing devices on egress doors. There was agreement to move toward fewer modifications of NFPA 1 by repealing section Comm 14.04 and any similar sections. In discussing code format, the Council noted a preference to use a global approach rather than make a direct reference to Comm 61 to 65 in each Wisconsin modification of any future NFPA 1/UFC edition. The Council felt that any code conflict concerns are already adequately addressed in the application section, Comm 14.003, and do not need to be addressed throughout the code. There was recognition that repealing Comm 14.04 (1) and any similar sections would place more reliance on the application section, which states that (1) the design and construction requirements in NFPA 1 which apply to public buildings and places of employment are not included as part of Comm 14; and (2) where differences occur between Comm 14 and Comm 61 to 65, Comm 61 to 65 governs. Bob noted that the same issue is addressed for the plumbing code in the definition section, and that could be done here - such as by stating that wherever a reference is made to NFPA 101, it means Comm 61 to 65. Terry commented that the global format makes more sense, but since 2002 there has been an ongoing question and debate of how the reader is to determine whether an NFPA 1 rule is a design and construction requirement or a use, operation or maintenance-of-fire-safety requirement.

There was agreement that the requirements in Comm 14.04 - for self-closing devices on egress doors, and for maintaining unobstructed egress - are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 sections 3.3.173, 4.4.3, 12.8.3.5, 12.9.4.4, 14.4, 14.5.4, 63.2.14.1.3, A.12.9.4.4, A.14.4.1, and A.14.5.4.1.

Comm 14.05
There was agreement that the requirements in this section - for testing fire, smoke, and ceiling dampers - are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 sections 12.9.5.4 and 12.9.5.3, and should be repealed.

Comm 14.06 (1)
There was agreement that the requirements in this subsection - for extension cords and relocatable power taps - are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 section 11.1 and should be repealed.

Comm 14.06 (2)
There was agreement that the requirements in this subsection - for heating, ventilating, and air conditioning - are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 section 11.2 and should be repealed.

Comm 14.06 (3)
There was agreement that the requirements in this subsection - for elevators, escalators, and conveyors - are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 section 11.3 and Comm 61 to 65, and should be repealed.

Comm 14.06 (4)
There was agreement that the requirements in this subsection - for portable unvented heaters - are adequately addressed for new construction in Comm 61 to 65 and 2003 NFPA 1 section 11.5; but should be retained as an addition to that section, for previously constructed buildings. Terry reported there is confusion in the field between what is permitted and what is prohibited, with regards to portable versus permanent installation, and fuel-fired versus fuel-gas heaters. Terry indicated that Comm 64 and 65 could be more clear in stating whether permanently installed, unvented gas-fired heaters are permitted; and the Comm 14 allowance for temporary use of portable, unvented fuel-fired heaters during construction or demolition appears to conflict with their prohibition in Comm 64 and 65.

Comm 14.06 (5)
There was agreement that the requirements in this subsection - for emergency and standby generators - are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 section 11.7 and Comm 61 to 65, and should be repealed.

Comm 14.06 (6)
There was agreement that the requirements in this subsection - for smoke control equipment - are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 section 11.8 and should be repealed.

Comm 14.07 (1) (a)
There was agreement that the requirements in this paragraph - for the responsibility to maintain fire protection systems - are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 section 13.1.2 and should be repealed.

Comm 14.07 (1) (b)
There was agreement that the requirements in this paragraph - for cross-connection control devices in water-based fire protection systems - are not addressed in Wisconsin’s Plumbing Code, as applied through Comm 61 to 65, because in this application these devices are excluded from the definition of plumbing in Wisconsin’s statutes. There also was agreement to clarify the paragraph, after further review of the details.

Comm 14.07 (2)
There was agreement that the requirements in this subsection - for standpipe and hose systems - are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 section 13.2.3 and should be repealed.

Comm 14.07 (3) (a) and (b)
There was agreement that the requirements in these paragraphs - for fire sprinkler systems - are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 section 13.3.3 and should be repealed; except that the reference in paragraph (b) to credential requirements in Comm 5 is still needed and should be added to the informational note under paragraph (b).

Comm 14.07 (3) (c)
There was agreement that the requirements in this paragraph - for shutting down a fire sprinkler system - are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 sections 13.1.8 and 13.1.9 and should be repealed.

Comm 14.07 (4) (a), (b), and (c)
There was agreement that the requirements in these paragraphs - for portable fire extinguishers - are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 sections 13.6.6.8, 13.6.1.1, and 13.6.5.2, respectively, and should be repealed.

Comm 14.07 (5)
There was agreement that the requirements in this subsection - for fire alarm systems - are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 section 13.7.4.4.1 and should be repealed; except that the informational note should be retained because it is helpful in conveying the statutorily defined roles of landlords and tenants in maintaining smoke detectors in residential buildings.

Comm 14.07 (6) (a) and (b)
There was agreement that the requirements in these paragraphs - for alternate automatic fire protection systems - are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 section 13.8 and should be repealed.

Comm 14.07 (6) (c)
There was agreement that the requirements in this paragraph - for manual wet sprinkler systems - are not addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 and should be retained, but an informational note should be added that refers to Wisconsin’s unique design and construction requirements for these systems in Comm 61 to 65.

Comm 14.08
There was agreement that the requirements in this section - for seating in assembly occupancies - are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 section 20.1.4.8 and should be repealed

Next meetings
The next meeting was confirmed for May 5 in Conference Room 3B, but the June 7 meeting was rescheduled for June 16, in Conference Room 3C; for the same time period as the April 5 meeting.

Tuesday, March 8, 2005, 9 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., Thompson Commerce Center , Room 3B, 201 West Washington Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin

Council member attendance: Gregg Cleveland - Chair (Keith Anderson - Alternate) Present; Ken Cole P; Marty King (Rick Gale - Alternate); Dave Lind P; John Periad (Michelle Feldman - Alternate) P; Jim Stormer (Todd Blaser - Alternate) P

Department of Commerce staff: Bob DuPont; Joe Hertel; Dan Meneguin; Terry Nolen; Sam Rockweiler

Keith Anderson opened the meeting with a round of introductions and a review of the agenda. During the introductions, Bob DuPont reported that the Fire Prevention Section was transferred to the Program Development Bureau on March 1.

Dave Lind asked to expand the agenda to include discussion of the Department’s participation in the Spring Fire Inspector’s conference. Dave explained that public education will be a focus of the conference, and although only one of the Department’s Fire Prevention Coordinators is scheduled to participate, the other four Coordinators also provide oversight for public-education efforts. Bob DuPont responded that the Coordinator who is participating has the district in which the conference will be held, and Joe Hertel added that the agenda topics for the conference do not relate strongly enough to the Department’s activities to justify having all five Coordinators participate. Dave asked whether the Inspector’s Fall conference will likewise have only one Coordinator participating, and Bob responded that a need may arise for more than one to attend.

Dave asked to also expand the agenda to include discussion of the statutory authority for fire chiefs to cause correction of fire hazards. According to Dave, the statute is sometimes being interpreted to mean that a fire department must conduct a follow-up, verification inspection after issuing an order to correct a fire hazard or violation relating to fire prevention. Bob responded that to achieve substantial compliance in the fire-dues audits, local fire departments must perform various initial inspections, but the departments can decide whether any follow-up, verification inspection is needed prior to the next statutorily-prescribed inspection. Terry Nolen added that during performance of the fire-dues audits, the Fire Coordinators generally look at whether local orders from fire departments include adequate direction for correcting hazards and violations.

Dave commented that defining what constitutes an inspection has not been done for many years, but should be, such as clarifying whether participation in a public-education effort at a school should count as one of the statutorily-prescribed inspections. Bob responded that the Department currently relies on the corresponding judgement of local fire departments, as based on the range of cooperation they may expect or encounter from individual property owners. There was interest in looking at how the model fire codes define inspection. Dave said a concrete, overly restrictive definition is not desired, but a level playing field is. As an example, Dave questioned whether substantial compliance is achieved if an inspector repeatedly visits a building that is not open, and each time the inspector leaves a note asking for a telephone call to schedule an inspection, but the call never results.

Dave asked to also expand the agenda to include discussion of whether the transfer to the Program Development Bureau will result in changes to the Fire Prevention Section. Bob responded that he is committed to improving the Fire Prevention program - and he commented that the program is a model for other programs in the Safety and Buildings Division, in part because the ratio of 5 field staff to about 850 local units is one of the highest ratios of any S&B program. According to Bob, the model is particularly effective when field and local staff have adequate input in the program, as a partnership with the Department - otherwise, local units may choose to drop out of the program. In comparison, Bob referenced an advisory group the Division has assembled for improving cooperation from small municipalities that have opted out of inspecting one- and two-family dwellings.

Terry asked whether ongoing topics that were not included on the agenda would be addressed, such as developing an appeals process for the fire-dues audits, and creating stop-use rules in Comm 3 or 14. Bob responded that development of stop-use rules in Comm 3 is under way for Departmental staff, but development of similar rules in Comm 14 for local staff awaits resolution of whether the Fire Prevention Section and administration of Comm 14 will transfer to the Department of Justice - in part because that Department has a different definition of which individuals are authorized to be Department deputies. Terry asked if development of the stop-use rules in Comm 14 would be revisited if the transfer to Justice does not occur. Bob responded that it would, during the update of Comm 14 which is expected to replace the 2000 version of the incorporated NFPA 1 with the 2006 version.

Ken Cole noted concern for the extent of the foregoing discussion, since the corresponding topics were not announced in the official public notice for the meeting, and he recommended that such discussion be instead scheduled on an agenda of a future meeting.

A motion was made by Ken Cole and seconded by Rick Gale, to accept the progress report from the January 15, 2005, meeting. Terry commented that the portion addressing the National Fire Incident Reporting System should have included a comment that field staff are concerned about moving from a four-part reporting system to a single reporting system. The motion passed with no opposition, and with an understanding that the field staff’s concern for moving from a four-part NIFIRS reporting system to a single reporting system would be reflected in the progress report for the March 8 meeting.

Governor’s Budget Bill  Bob reported that the Governor’s proposed budget bill includes the Department’s response to the Governor’s request for a ten-percent reduction in funding and in positions. That response includes reducing the number of positions in the Fire Prevention Section from 7.6 to 6.6, which should parallel the efficiency gains that are expected from implementing the substantial-compliance methodology in the fire-dues program. Bob added that the funding which is saved by eliminating the position will revert to the local level rather than lapse into the State’s general fund. Dave asked for the rationale in eliminating the position. Bob responded that because Wisconsin’s average per capita earnings rate is low compared to other States, Wisconsin’s per capita ratio for cost of government versus average earnings is relatively high. Reducing the number of positions should reduce the cost of government, which should then reduce the high ratio. Bob added that if the Fire Prevention Section transfers to the Department of Justice, the number of authorized positions is expected to remain at 7.6, to facilitate the corresponding start-up activities in that Department - and a position elsewhere in Safety and Buildings would be eliminated instead
.
Training for 2-percent-dues audits  Dan Meneguin reported that the Fire Prevention Coordinators have begun conducting training sessions for the two-percent-dues audits, and the Division is creating a Web site for tracking the status of the training for all 862 fire departments throughout the State. Bob noted the Division’s goal is to complete the training by July 1, 2005.

School-hallway storage  As a follow-up to the corresponding discussion at the January 25 meeting, Joe reported that the Department’s position is to not pursue a code change for storage of combustibles in egress hallways for schools. Joe commented that enabling the storage by providing a smoke-detection-and-alarm system should be a cost-effective option. Bob agreed that if a school chooses to begin or to continue the storage, some construction requirements may be triggered.

In response to a clarification request from Terry, Joe explained that this option, or the option to provide fire sprinklers, could include providing smoke detectors or fire sprinklers only in the hallway rather than throughout the building. Bob explained that the Commercial Building Code would treat either option as an alteration, and therefore not require retrofitting the entire building.

Relocatable power taps  In a follow-up to the corresponding discussion at the January 25 meeting, Joe distributed and discussed a draft informational notice for clarifying acceptable uses of relocatable power taps, as based on current guidelines from Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Joe explained that UL generally does not rescind a listing for a product if the product’s benchmark standard changes, but a product recall could occur if a potential for significant problems develops. Terry commented that UL interprets the guidelines to mean relocatable power taps cannot be used in place of any required wiring, or where tools would be needed for removal.

Joe explained that the power taps have no history of causing fire hazards, and the UL guidelines do not prescribe a limit on the length of time that the taps can be used. Terry suggested expanding the draft to include reference to how NFPA 1 and the International Fire Code addresses temporary usage. Joe noted the UL guidelines permit usage with certain, prescribed light-duty equipment “and other equipment,” but although “other equipment” is not defined, it is not expected to include heavy-duty items such as washing machines and refrigerators. Joe agreed to expand the draft to address short-term versus long-term use, and to clarify that they are not intended for equipment which draws a heavy load, and to further clarify how the taps are not a substitute for fixed wiring.

Web posting of the Wisconsin Enrolled Commercial Building Code  As a follow-up to the corresponding discussion at the January 25 meeting, Bob distributed and discussed a printout of a Safety and Buildings Web site showing directions on how to access a free, online version of the WECBC, at the International Code Council Web site. According to Bob, a more robust online version may become available at a prescribed cost, but that cost has not been determined yet. Bob noted there may be about a two-month delay before the online version includes a link to the changes in the Wisconsin Commercial Building Code that became effective on January 1, 2005. Bob added that the compact disc version of the WECBC cannot be updated to include the January 1 changes, which further motivates the Department to keep its rules current with the ICC model codes and to minimize modifications to those codes.

Transfer of rules from Comm 10 to Comm 14, and new rules for Comm 14  As a follow-up to the corresponding discussion at the January 25 meeting, Sam Rockweiler summarized the draft rules and analysis that were transmitted to the Committee on the preceding Friday and Monday, for clarifying the requirements which are transferring from Comm 10 to Comm 14. As described in the analysis, Sam noted that the draft change for Comm 14.002 would expand the scope of Comm 14 to include nearly all of the tanks and other containers which are being excluded from Comm 10 and which involve storage, transfer, or dispensing of flammable, combustible, or hazardous liquids. Tanks that are being excluded from Comm 10 because they are regulated under ACTP 32 or 33 would not be included in this expanded scope of Comm 14.

Sam explained that although Comm 14.002 (1) currently applies Comm 14 only to public buildings and places of employment, the expanded scope for the included tanks and containers would extend beyond that limit, because Comm 10 likewise now extends beyond that limit. However, the expanded scope would not extend to Indian reservation land, or to facilities that are either leased to the federal government or exempted by federal statutes or treaties. The expanded scope would also apply retroactively to any of these tanks and other containers that exist on the effective date of the rule change, because Comm 14 otherwise now applies retroactively to existing conditions.

Sam explained that the draft changes for Comm 14.47 (2) would clarify that Comm 14 does not restrict the statutory authority of Department deputies, including local fire chiefs, to investigate and cause correction of any condition - anywhere, not just at public buildings or places of employment -  which is either liable to cause fire, or will endanger or hinder fire fighters in case of fire.

Sam explained that the draft Note for Comm 10.210 (2) would clarify how Comm 61 to 65 addresses existing, unchanging public buildings and places of employment - in addition to addressing new construction for public buildings and places of employment.

Terry commented that the draft rules and analysis are helpful, by addressing scope, application, design and construction conflicts, the Commercial Building Code, and retroactivity. There was agreement that the draft rules and analysis adequately address and clarify the evolving interface between Comm 10 and Comm 14, and the corresponding fire prevention requirements and statutory authority.
In distributing a listing of the membership of the Comm 10 advisory committee, Sam reported that the committee is not likely to meet again until after public hearings are held for proposed changes to Comm 10, and he noted there is a vacant position for representing the Wisconsin Fire Chiefs Association.

Construction/use-and-maintenance enforcement coordination  Bob explained that the current framework of having one suite of model codes address design, construction, and maintenance of commercial buildings - along with having a different model code address fire prevention in those buildings - came about late in the process of adopting those model codes, which tended to segregate building inspectors and fire prevention inspectors into those two areas. According to Bob, current efforts are focusing on reintegrating fire inspection and building inspection activities. For example, fire inspectors should be able to go as far into the commercial building code as they are comfortable with and knowledgeable about, and the Department understands that fire departments may routinely prefer to contact the Fire Prevention Coordinators for assistance - rather than the Division’s Building Inspectors, who have extensively scheduled work lists.

Keith Anderson commented that a substantial number of new local building inspectors are not familiar with how the Fire Prevention Coordinators were helpful with inspections prior to the segregation Bob described. Dave agreed that fire inspectors have an established comfort level in working with the Coordinators rather than the Division’s Building Inspectors, and he noted that the reference to reintegrating fire inspection and building inspection activities fits well with the recognition earlier in the meeting that the fire prevention program is a model for other programs in the Safety and Buildings Division.

Inspection of seasonal occupancies  Keith questioned how inspection of seasonal occupancies should be addressed in relation to the two-percent dues audits, because the buildings are frequently closed. Bob explained that an exterior-only inspection could count as one of the two required annual inspections. Terry commented that although local fire departments have an option to obtain a special order to conduct less frequent inspections, such as for these occupancies, that option generally is not utilized. Bob noted that Comm 14.47 (2) (d) 2. m. allows reduced inspections for vacant buildings, and there was interest in addressing seasonal occupancies in a similar manner. Terry commented that similar concerns occur with large buildings which are constructed to conceal items from aerial surveillance photography, and warrants may be needed to gain access to those buiildings.

Dave recommended changing Comm 14 for seasonal occupancies, to require one interior inspection per season of occupancy. There was agreement this change should be created as Comm 14.47 (2) (d) 2. s., with an understanding that exterior inspections can also be conducted where desired.

Review of Subchapter III of Comm 14  Bob explained that as Comm 14 is updated to incorporate the 2003 and 2006 versions of NFPA 1/UFC, the Department does not want to inadvertently leave some things behind. Dave commented that the update should move more toward how Comm 16 incorporates the NFPA National Electrical Code. Dave and Terry noted that at previous Council meetings, several documents had been distributed which could be helpful as references during the update: (1) a tabular listing and narrative, by John Anderson, for comparing the content of the current Comm 14 with the content of the preceding version of Comm 14; (2) a Microsoft Powerpoint printout by Terry on fire code history; and (3) an overview by Dave of relevant Wisconsin statutes, Comm codes, and NFPA 1/UFC.

Ken asked what the overall objective of the update is, and Bob responded that it is to move toward adopting the next version of NFPA 1. Ken asked whether that includes looking at what changes may be needed for the next version, and Bob said yes. Ken asked whether parts of that version could be deleted, and Bob said yes, such as if a requirement is overkill and has a benefit which is not worth the cost. Ken commented that one objective should be to minimize modifications of NFPA 1, and Keith agreed.

Terry commented that discussions at previous meetings had dealt with definition issues, such as whether long-standing definitions in model codes for fire hazard and eminent danger differ from how those two terms are addressed in Wisconsin’s statutes. Bob recommended applying the definitions in Comm 14 to the entire code, rather than only to the modifications of NFPA 1, in subchapter III.

Comm 14.03 (2)
Dave suggested deleting the outdated requirements for manufacture, storage, and distribution of matches - which essentially are a reprint of the corresponding requirements from section 167.07 of the statutes. A motion was made by Ken Cole and seconded by Dave, to advise the Department to recommend repeal of section 167.07 of the statutes. Ken and Dave subsequently amended the motion, to recommend repeal of Comm 14.03 (2), and the motion passed unanimously.

Comm 14.03 (1)
Dave recommended repealing any of the general prohibitions in Comm 14.03 (1) which are now in the 2003 version of NFPA 1/UFC, or which will be in the 2006 version - and Bob agreed. Terry suggested that if the general prohibitions are deleted for that reason, there may still be benefits to retaining the included statutory penalties for interfering with either fire prevention or fire fighting.

Comm 14.03 (3)
There was agreement that 2003 NFPA 1 section 20.1.4.2 adequately addresses the requirements in subsection (3) - for open flame or light - except subsection (3) applies to all occupancies, whereas 20.1.4.2 applies only to assembly occupancies. There was agreement to modify 20.1.4.2 so that it would apply it to all occupancies.

Comm 14.03 (4)
There was agreement that the requirements in subsection (4) - for resurfacing of bowling lanes - are outdated and no longer needed, and should be repealed.

Comm 14.03 (5)
There was agreement that the requirements in subsection (5) - for lumber yards - are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 chapter 31, and should be repealed.

Comm 14.03 (6)
There was agreement that the requirements in subsection (6) - for woodworking plants - are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 chapter 31, and should be repealed.

Comm 14.03 (7)
There was agreement that the requirements in subsection (7) - for negligent handling of burning material - are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 section 10.1.4, and should be repealed.

Comm 14.03 (8) through (10)
There was agreement that the requirements in subsections (8) through (1) - for burning of buildings or property, open burning, and bonfires - are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 section 10.11, and should be repealed.

Comm 14.03 (11)
There was agreement that the requirements in subsection (11) - for hot ashes and other materials liable to spontaneous ignition - should be repealed, because they are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 section 16.2 for safeguards during building construction, alteration, and demolition operations; in section 10.11 for ashes; and in sections 19.1.3 and 19.2 for oily rags.

Comm 14.03 (12)
There was agreement that the requirements in subsection (12) - for use of incinerators - are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 sections 10.11.6 and 10.11.8, and should be repealed.

Comm 14.03 (13)
There was agreement that the requirements in subsection (13) - for fire lanes - are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 chapter 18, and should be repealed. There also was agreement that the requirements for this topic in the Commercial Building Code should also be reviewed in relation to chapter 18, which could result in reducing Wisconsin’s corresponding modifications of chapter 5 of the International Building Code.

Comm 14.03 (14)
There was agreement that the requirements in subsection (14) - for dilapidated or vacant buildings - and the corresponding requirements in 2003 NFPA 1 section 10.14 - for vacant buildings and premises - should be compared to Wisconsin’s deletion of IBC section 115 - for unsafe structures and equipment. That review could result in repealing subsection (14) and deleting section 10.14, because the deletion of IBC 115 was based on its overlap with the authority and requirements for local governments, in section 66.0413 of the statutes, for addressing unsafe buildings and structures.

Comm 14.03 (15)
There was agreement that the requirements in subsection (15) - for combustible vegetation - are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 section 10.15 and elsewhere in NFPA 1, and should be repealed. There also was agreement that section 10.15.2 provides adequate flexibility for using limited quantities of combustible vegetation.

Comm 14.03 (16)
There was agreement that the requirements in subsection (16) - for nuisance vegetation - are adequately addressed in 2003 NFPA 1 section 10.15.10 and elsewhere in NFPA 1, and should be repealed.

Next meetings:  The next three meetings were scheduled for April 5 in Conference Room 3B, May 5 in Conference Room 3B, and June 7 in Conference Room 3C; for the same time period as the March 8 meeting.

Tuesday, January 25, 2005, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., Thompson Commerce Center, Room 3C, 201 West Washington Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin

Council Member Attendance: Gregg Cleveland, Chair, Present; Ken Cole, P; Marty King, P; Dave Lind, P; John Periad, Absent; Jim Stormer (Todd Blaser, Alternate), P.

Guests: Dave Bloom, Town of Madison Fire Department; Tod Doebler, Menomonee Falls Fire Department; Rick Gale, West Allis Fire Department.

Department of Commerce Staff:: Bob DuPont, Joe Hertel, Duane Hubeler, Dan Meneguin, Terry Nolen, Sam Rockweiler.

Gregg Cleveland opened the meeting with a review of the agenda and a round of introductions.

Progress reports from preceding meetings
A motion was made by Marty King, seconded by Dave Lind, and passed unanimously, to accept the progress reports from the August 26 and October 13, 2004, meetings, as transmitted by e-mail on January 11, after adding “UFC” to the reference to NFPA 1 in the second last sentence of the October 13 report.

Transfer of rules from Comm 10 to Comm 14, and new rules for Comm 14
Duane Hubeler distributed and discussed excerpts from a Working Draft of Proposed Rules for chapter Comm 10, which includes moving some requirements from Comm 10 to Comm 14. According the Duane, the scope of Comm 10 is being changed to focus more toward regulating tank storage, which will result in some current requirements, such as criteria for motor vehicle exhibition, fitting better in Comm 14 instead of remaining in Comm 10. Marty asked whether the criteria for motor vehicle exhibition are a repeat of requirements in NFPA 1 or 101, and Duane responded that the 2000 NFPA 1 does not contain the requirements.

Duane explained that the draft rule changes also include some newly proposed requirements for Comm 14, such as criteria for defueling of aircraft. Duane noted those criteria were developed because of concern that the topic is not adequately addressed in NFPA 410, and the criteria reflect input from Midwest Express, Mitchell Field Airport, and the Waukesha Fire Department.

In reference to the included revision of section Comm 14.17, Duane explained it would undelete some of the criteria in chapter 17 of NFPA 1 that were deleted when NFPA 1 was adopted in 2002, but any of that criteria which fits better within the scope of Comm 10 will be placed in Comm 10 instead of Comm 14.

Gregg noted concern that the draft rule changes would increase complexity by making additional references to other codes, whereas the rule changes should instead decrease complexity. Gregg also indicated concern for whether the scope of Comm 10 is being narrowed to address only public buildings and places of employment, and concern that the rules which are being transferred to Comm 14 would then have the narrower scope in Comm 14 of applying only to public buildings and places of employment.

Bob DuPont explained that Comm 10 has a tradition of applying to all premises, including one- and two-family dwellings, whereas Comm 14 has traditionally been applied only to public buildings and places of employment. However, the rules that are transferring from Comm 10 to Comm 14 could carry their current Comm 10 scope with them. Bob added that moving the rules to Comm 14 would have an added benefit of putting them under the direct purview of the Comm 14 Council. An alternative of transferring some of the rules to the one- and two-family dwelling code would be less desirable because that code does not have the retroactive application that Comm 14 has.

Duane referred to proposed new criteria in Comm 10.115 (2) (a) that would more clearly address the authority which fire inspectors have for fire prevention and for response to fire hazards. Dave Lind commented that the new criteria in Comm 10.115 (2) (a) should also be included in Comm 14, and likewise be applied there to more than just public buildings and places of employment, and Marty agreed. Dave referred to the motion from the preceding meeting to adopt the 2003 edition of NFPA 1/ UFC, and recommended comparing the corresponding criteria there to the proposed criteria for Comm 10 and 14.

Gregg questioned whether the proposed rules would address conflicts with construction requirements. Duane responded that since 1991, Comm 10 has referred to the Wisconsin Commercial Building Code, Comm 61 to 65, for design and construction of public buildings and places of employment, and he explained that draft section Comm 10.210 (2) would substitute the applicable provisions of Comm 61 to 65 for NFPA 101, 220, and 221. Dave questioned whether Comm 61 to 65 applies only to new construction, and Sam Rockweiler responded that Comm 61.03 (12) requires existing buildings to be maintained to conform with the building code requirements which applied when the building was constructed. Dave suggested adding an informational note under Comm 10.210 (2) about the Comm 61.03 (12) requirements.

Terry Nolen commented that (1) the broad application of Comm 10 since 1931 has been to regulate flammable and combustible liquid commodities rather than a building in which they are contained; (2) the Working Draft does not clearly show which parts would be new requirements; (3) the Comm 14 Council may want to consider whether its purview should include the fire prevention criteria that will remain in Comm 10, such as regulation of containers during shipping; and (4) unclear references to secondary standards can cause dilemmas when determining which standards should apply.

Gregg asked whether adopting the 2003 edition of NFPA 1/UFC now would be better than adopting circuitous references now. Bob responded that adopting the 2003 edition of NFPA 1 will take substantial time, and the interim adoption of the proposed rules can happen significantly sooner. Rick Gale noted concern for a lengthy period for adopting 2003 NFPA 1, and concern for the costs to local officials of purchasing a variety of codes rather than purchasing one code or one set of codes. Joe Hertel emphasized the benefits of carefully reviewing national standards before adopting them, and cited as an example the difficulties that were avoided in Wisconsin by not adopting recently developed NFPA requirements for arc-fault circuit interrupters until after the marketplace had adapted to the new requirements. Dave noted interest in adopting the interim proposed rules sooner rather than later.

A motion was made by Dave Lind and tabled, to have Department staff relay the concerns expressed about the proposed rules to the Comm 10 advisory committee, and to then present that committee’s response back to the Council.

Fire chief representative on Dwelling Code Council
Bob reported that the Department is recommending expansion of the Governor-appointed council for one- and two-family dwellings, to include a representative of the Wisconsin Fire Chiefs, as is included in the Multifamily Dwelling Code Council.

Stop-work/stop-use rules, and potential transfer of Comm 14 to Justice
Bob indicated rule text is expected to be refined soon for Comm 3 for Safety and Buildings Divsion staff who would issue stop-work or stop-use orders - but including stop-use text in Comm 14 for local officials, that would be similar to the current text in Comm 10, could take longer.

Bob reported that discussions with the Department of Justice are continuing on whether administration of Comm 14 will be transferred to the State Fire Marshal’s Office. Gregg recommended that development of the stop-work, stop-use rule text should proceed rather than be held up pending the outcome of the discussions with DOJ. Bob agreed Commerce would consider developing stop-work, stop-use rules for local officials, that would apply to all the requirements in Comm 14, rather than only the rules which are transferring from Comm 10 to Comm 14. Terry asked for further discussion of the impacts on staff if (1) Comm 14 transfers to DOJ or (2) stop-work, stop-use rules are implemented.

Hallway lockers in schools
Joe noted that section 8.2.2.3.5 in NFPA 1 has design and construction restrictions on how coats and other outerwear can be stored in school hallways, and he indicated the restrictions were reported as interfering with a proposed electrical upgrade project in a school. Terry distributed and discussed Departmental correspondence from 2003 and a Web site informational notice that address the restrictions. Marty emphasized that the restrictions must be considered in conjunction with the scope of the upgrade work, particularly where combustible materials are stored in a hallway that is the primary and only means of egress from a building. Terry commented that the project illustrates the ongoing uncertainty of determining when something is a design and construction issue versus a use and operation issue. Bob agreed to review the distributed information as it relates to the project, and report back to the Council. Gregg noted the review could include consideration of any corresponding information in recent NFPA and Minnesota reports on school fires.

Relocatable power taps
Joe distributed a previously issued Official Code Interpretation addressing the requirements in Comm 14.06 (1) (e) 4. for relocatable power taps, and he discussed a fire marshal’s inquiry that arose because the UL guidance which is referenced in and attached to the Interpretation was revised after the Interpretation was issued. Joe explained the power taps should not be a problem if they comply with (1) a general requirement in the Electrical Code, in Comm 16.18, to be used in accordance with their listing instructions; and (2) a UL requirement to not be linked together into a series. Joe asked whether the Interpretation should be revised and reissued, to reflect the updated UL guidance. Marty and Gregg agreed it should. Dave offered to distribute the reissued version by e-mail to fire inspectors, and Gregg offered to distribute it to fire chiefs. Terry agreed there has been longstanding concern for the power taps. Rick Gale asked why criteria for this topic can be updated through a revised code interpretation, whereas formal code changes are needed for other updates. Bob responded that Official Code Interpretations can be used where the code contains general references rather than detailed specificity. Terry recommended considering how NFPA addresses retroactivity for older equipment that may not comply with current listing requirements. Gregg suggested clarifying whether the Interpretation applies to all tested and listed relocatable power taps.

Portable heaters
Joe explained that portable electric heaters can be utilized wherever their use is consistent with applicable testing and listing requirements, employer or building-owner requirements, and any local requirements. However, unvented, fuel-fired portable heaters are prohibited by Comm 61 to 65 and by the one- and two-family dwelling code, Comm 20 to 25.

Training issues
In conjunction with development of training materials, Dave asked whether the price for the compact-disc version of the Wisconsin Enrolled Commercial Building Code can be reduced significantly. Bob responded that the cost to the Department is $130 each, and the Department is selling the CD outside of the training for $240. Bob reported that as an outcome of a recent judicial decision in another state, the International Code Council is beginning to expand its Web site to include adopted versions of codes, and a basic form the WECBC should be posted there eventually. Bob agreed to contact the ICC for an estimate of how soon that posting will occur. Dave asked whether bulk purchases would have a lower unit price, and Bob explained they likely would not, because (1) the Department’s cost was based on the ICC assuming all of the risk for any financial loss in the event the CD sales do not cover the development cost, and (2) most of the cost is associated with the included Folio Views software, which provides the search capabilities. Terry asked whether the Department’s code-development cost has been recouped yet, and Bob responded it probably has not. Terry questioned whether the Department is meeting its obligation to provide free training to fire departments, and he questioned how much of the WECBC is actually needed by fire inspectors. Terry added that most fire departments do not have the WECBC, and Bob indicated the Department wants them to have it if they want it.

NIFIRS reporting
Dan Meneguin distributed and discussed a draft cover letter and revised report form for fire chiefs, for complying with the requirements for the National Fire Incident Reporting System. Dan explained that the paper form will be accepted throughout 2005, but after that all of the reporting must be accomplished electronically. Dan noted the letter refers to an enclosed CD that contains the current edition of the NFIRS program, and municipal managers will receive a copy of the letter. As emphasized in the letter, participation in the NRIRS program is required in order for a fire department to be eligible for fire grants through the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Gregg asked what cost the Department would incur for distributing the CD, and Dan explained that other than the mailing costs, the only cost would be for each blank CD. According to Dan, this reporting mechanism would only be for the fire departments that do not report directly to the federal level. Bob noted the Wisconsin statutes require the Department to collect the data, and Comm 14 requires fire chiefs to submit the incident reports to the Department, but Dan said only 38 percent are currently doing so.

Dave recommended listing the minimum computer-system requirements in the transmittal, and enclosing a copy of Comm 14. Terry said field staff support statistical reporting and want to see its outcome, but the lack of a statutory mandate to submit the reports may be a topic the Council wants to address. Gregg noted he had not received the Department’s Wisconsin Burning publication for the past several years, which previously summarized the submitted reports. Bob cited problems with the nonstatistical nature of the previous reporting, which led to discontinuing the Burning publication. Dave suggested polling fire departments on whether they have the needed computer equipment, and Dan said that had already been done. Gregg agreed to distribute a summary from Dan to fire chiefs for their input, and to then report back before the finalized materials are sent to the fire chiefs and municipalities. Terry indicated this process would be similar to the audit process, and building consensus through it would be more helpful than the piecemeal approach in the past that was ineffective.

Fire-dues audits
Dan reported that the fire-dues audit forms and their instructions had been finalized - through the fire-dues task force - and corresponding training materials are being developed. Gregg requested sending the finalized forms and instructions to the Council members, along with details for the associated appeals board. Marty commented that any no answer on the forms should indicate that substantial compliance had not been achieved during the year being audited.

Gregg reported that at a December 2004 meeting with Senator Ron Brown, the Department’s Deputy Secretary, and the Safety and Buildings Administrator, there was discussion of whether to convert the fire-dues audit program to a block-grant program. According to Gregg, Senator Brown would not support the conversion, the Deputy Secretary said the concept would go no further, the Fire and EMS Legislative Liaison Coalition does not want it to go further, and there was agreement that the substantial compliance concept is instead the best approach to achieve an appropriate blend of enforcement and funding.

Previous motion to adopt 2003 NFPA 1/UFC
In reference to the motion from the October 13, 2004, meeting to adopt 2003 NFPA 1/UFC generally verbatim, Bob reported that the Department’s concern about adopting the standard in that manner is that such adoption would result in needing to perform a cover-to-cover comparison between the Wisconsin Commercial Building Code and the design and construction requirements in NFPA 1/UFC - and the Department will not perform that comparison. However, the Department does agree with the portions of the motion that are directed at moving toward adoption of more of NFPA 1/UFC, which may include a longer-term effort to consider more of NFPA 1/UFC for explosives and fireworks. In addition, when updating the design and construction requirements in the WCBC, the Department may consider how some individual topics are addressed by the NFPA design and construction criteria, such as the requirements in chapter 15 of NFPA 5000, for existing buildings. Bob added that the Department’s Alteration and Change of Occupancy Advisory Council would begin meeting on the following day, to consider updating the Department’s requirements for existing buildings.

Ken Cole reiterated that the Department has emphasized growing Wisconsin’s economy in part by minimizing regulations wherever appropriate. Gregg commented that substantial costs could have been avoided if the NFPA building code suite had been adopted instead of the ICC suite. Bob said that 80 to 90 percent of building code officials throughout the country previously operated under one of the three model building codes that were the predecessors to the ICC suite. Dave commented that an NFPA mainstay for many years has been its criteria for existing buildings, whereas the ICC criteria for existing buildings, in the International Existing Building Code, have been published for only about three years. Bob noted that the scope of Comm 14 is limited to requirements for use and maintenance, and if design and construction ideas arise during updating of Comm 14, they can be referred to the Commercial Building Code Council and the Multifamily Dwelling Code Council.

Gregg asked if the Department is not going to proceed with the motion’s recommendation to apply the most restrictive requirement wherever any conflicts occur between NFPA 1 and Comm 61 to 65. Bob responded that the Department is not going to proceed with applying that concept in a blanket manner, but individual design and construction requirements in NFPA 1 may be considered in relation to updating Comm 61 to 65. Dave recommended that the Alteration and Change of Occupancy Council closely review NFPA 1, which deals extensively with existing buildings.

Bob said that the Comm 14 Council would be kept updated with relevant items from the Department’s other advisory groups, such as the Commercial Building Code Council. Rick Gale asked whether joint meetings with the other councils have been or would be considered. Bob responded that joint meetings could be helpful if the councils begin moving in divergent directions. Dave commented that conflicts can be expected as the Alteration and Change of Occupancy Council begins looking at the IEBC and NFPA 1.

Coordination of construction inspections and use and maintenance inspections
Gregg commented that better guidance is needed for coordinating construction inspections and use and maintenance inspections. Bob noted the Department can communicate the roles and assignments for its staff, but local roles and assignments are established locally. Gregg cited as an example a recent University remodeling project that failed to include enclosing a stairway, and he indicated that prior to adoption of Comm 61 to 65 in 2002, building inspectors and fire inspectors had more joint authority to effect correction of such failures. Dave noted that certified building inspectors now have more weight than fire inspectors in enforcing the Commercial Building Code. Bob explained that credentialing is a complex issue, with various corresponding statutory limits, and municipalities that want to become certified to locally perform some of the Department’s functions must employ certified commercial building inspectors. According to Bob, more proven competency features could be beneficial for both building inspectors and fire inspectors.

Gregg said a key question is whether the Department’s Fire Prevention Coordinators can issue orders to enforce compliance with Comm 61 to 65. Terry commented that in the past the Coordinators could address basic, general enforcement for Comm 61 to 65, but the Department is moving more toward having the Coordinators enforce only Comm 14. Dan explained that the Integrated Services Bureau is clarifying staff roles through a team that studied overlaps between Safety and Buildings programs. Gregg said the Fire Coordinators should be able to work freely within Comm 61 to 65, which could include making referrals to other staff, such as referring electrical problems to electrical staff. According to Dave, a significant change occurred in 2001, when the Fire Coordinators were no longer authorized to receive formal training for Comm 61 to 65 - and that training had improved their capability to assist fire departments as a first stop in obtaining compliance with Comm 61 to 65. Bob noted that the Department’s commercial building inspectors receive assigned-work lists for inspecting construction projects, and must also assist local building inspectors - but in the commercial buildings program, the Department does not have district staff who are primarily assigned to assist local staff, as does exist in the plumbing program and in the private sewage program. Terry commented that prior to the change in 2001, the Fire Prevention Coordinators provided that assistance.

A motion was made by Gregg Cleveland, seconded by Dave Lind, and passed with no dissenting votes, to revert back to the pre-2001 practice of having the Department’s Fire Prevention Coordinators able to (1) assist local fire departments in addressing fire prevention aspects of buildings and (2) receive training on the Commercial Building Code.

Dave Lind resurrected his previously tabled motion, with a second from Gregg Cleveland, to have Department staff relay the Council’s concerns about the proposed fire prevention rules in the Comm 10 Working Draft, to the Comm 10 advisory committee, and to then present that committee’s response back to the Council. The motion passed, with a dissenting vote from Ken Cole.

Timeline for updating Comm 14
In distributing a revised timeline for completely updating Comm 14, Bob explained that the 2006 edition of NFPA 1/UFC should be available in January 2006, and addressing that edition along with the 2003 edition in the current update of Comm 14 should be less extensive than the review that was needed prior to adopting the 2000 edition of NFPA 1. Consequently, expecting the associated public Hearings for the draft update in May 2006 seems reasonable.

Next meeting
Bob suggested that at the next meeting, the Council begin a detailed review of NFPA 1/UFC in a three-phased approach which includes consideration of (1) any Wisconsin modifications that are needed because of statutory requirements; (2) any other Wisconsin modifications that are needed, based on judgement; and (3) any new aspects of the 2003 edition of NFPA 1/UFC, such as topics which were advanced by the Western Fire Chiefs association and which the Department considered during its earlier review of the International Fire Code. The next meeting was scheduled for March 8, 2005, at the same location and time.

Wednesday, October 13, 2004, 9 a.m. to Noon, Thompson Commerce Center, Room 3C, 201 West Washington Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin

Council Member Attendance: Gregg Cleveland, Chair, Present; Ken Cole, P; Marty King P; Dave Lind, P; John Periad (Jennifer Cape, Alternate), P; Jim Stormer (Steve Krause, Alternate), P.

Guests: Dave Bloom, Town of Madison Fire Department; Tod Doebler, Menomonee Falls Fire Department; Edwin Erickson

Department of Commerce Staff: Debra Bresser, Bob DuPont, Joe Hertel, Dan Meneguin, Terry Nolen, Sam Rockweiler

Gregg Cleveland opened the meeting with a round of introductions and a review of the agenda.

Progress reports from preceding meetings
In discussing the draft progress report from the preceding, August 26 meeting, Dave Lind commented that the report should be expanded to include statements from Bob DuPont then that (1) the Comm 14 Council is a stand-alone council, rather than a specialty council which provides input to the umbrella councils for the Safety and Buildings Division; and (2) the newly developed definition of “substantial compliance” in Comm 14 will be applied to all aspects of fire-dues audits.

A motion was made by Marty King, seconded by Dave Lind, and passed with no dissenting votes, to accept the progress report from the August 26 meeting, as amended by the preceding discussion.

A motion was made by Marty King, seconded by Dave Lind, and passed with no dissenting votes, to accept the revised progress report from the May 18 meeting, as transmitted by email on October 5.

Division and Department updates
Training
Joe Hertel distributed and discussed a schedule of upcoming, at-cost training sessions that (1) the Division would be conducting for the electrical requirements in the National Electrical Code and the International Building Code and (2) the Division would be conducting with the National Fire Protection Association for NFPA standard 70E, on electrical safety for employee workplaces. Joe added that the Division was planning to conduct joint, at-cost training with the NFPA on a new set of NFPA natural gas codes - NFPA 54 and 58, and NFPA 50A and 50B, along with NFPA requirements for liquefied natural gas - NFPA 59A, which are all adopted by reference in Comm 40.

Dave Lind suggested additional training for fire inspectors that focuses on electrical issues. Joe agreed the Division could develop the training, and Dave agreed to contact Joe accordingly after discussing the topic further with other members of the fire service.

Terry Nolen noted that section 101.14 of the statutes requires the Department to provide training to fire inspectors, and asked whether any free training is being developed. Joe responded that free training has been discussed, including evening training for volunteer fire departments. Joe circulated a Division handbook that enrolls the NEC requirements with the electrical requirements from Wisconsin’s Commercial Building Code - chapters Comm 61 to 65 - and suggested posting the handbook on the Division’s Web site. Dave suggested also distributing the handbook at the 2004 fall conference for fire inspectors.

2003 Wisconsin Act 219
Sam Rockweiler distributed and discussed a timeline for the steps remaining in promulgating the Comm 14 rule changes required under Act 219. Gregg noted he expected the legislative review period would conclude by the end of October, with no objection to the Department’s request for a germane modification of the included definition of “administrative expenses.” Gregg acknowledged Debra Bresser’s clarification of the direct and indirect costs that correspond to administrative expenses. Gregg asked whether any changes had been made to the previously included definition of “substantial compliance,” and Bob responded no.

Comm 14 audit procedures
Gregg distributed and discussed a packet of information for implementing a revised fire-dues audit process, corresponding to the Comm 14 changes under Act 210. Gregg noted that several meetings had been held with associated stakeholders, and he addressed the interaction that should occur between municipal clerks and fire departments during the audits. Gregg emphasized a need for the Department and the fire service to jointly develop training materials for the audits, and he suggested that the fire-dues task force and Department staff jointly begin developing a step-by-step process for the auditors to follow. Gregg also recommended establishing a corresponding 3-member appeals board that would consist of 1 Department representative, 1 fire chief, and 1 fire inspector; and he noted that the legislature’s Joint Finance Committee is interested in the outcome of the audit-revision process. Dave recommended that any output from the fire-dues task force be presented to the Comm 14 Advisory Committee, and Gregg agreed.

Ken Cole noted an understanding that there was a need for an appeals process under the previous audits, which were based on whether 100 percent compliance was achieved, but questioned whether an appeals process would still be needed under the new concept of “substantial compliance.” Bob explained that a reliance on substantial compliance should result in fewer failures, and that although all Department determinations are subject to a statutory appeal process, a separate, additional appeals process for the fire-dues audits might be helpful.

Bob distributed and discussed a draft fire-dues self-certification audit form and corresponding instructions. Bob said the draft audit form and instructions could be referred to the fire-dues task force for their review and advice, and Gregg agreed. Bob explained that the draft audit form incorporates the substantial-compliance concept - and includes a separate section for input from local clerks, which Dave agreed would be helpful. Dave liked the form’s citation of the statute sections that the audited requirements devolve from, but emphasized that fire inspectors need to be reminded that they have other statutory responsibilities as well. Dave also liked the proposed audit-explanation sheet in Gregg’s handout, and indicated an appeals process will still be needed under the substantial-compliance concept because although the auditors will receive detailed guidance, they will still make subjective decisions.

For a local unit that certifies on the form that substantial compliance was not achieved, Gregg asked whether a physical audit by the Department should be expected in the following year, and Bob responded yes.

Ken recommended continuing to emphasize that 100 percent compliance is still the statutory duty and the goal, but the substantial compliance concept should be helpful.

A motion was made by Gregg Cleveland, seconded by Dave Lind, and passed with no dissenting votes, to refer the draft audit materials to the fire-dues task force for its review and response back to the Committee.

Terry asked whether the task force would address input or concerns from out-state stakeholder sessions, and Gregg responded the task force should address that as well any concerns from the legislature.

Comparison of NFPA 1 2000 to NFPA 1/UFC 2003
Dave reported he had received correspondence from NFPA staff explaining that the most significant difference between the 2003 and 2000 editions of NFPA 1 is that the corresponding fire inspection language throughout other NFPA standards and codes has been consolidated into the 2003 edition, and additional detail has been included, such as for the individual types of building occupancies.

A motion was made by Dave Lind, and seconded by Gregg Cleveland for discussion purposes, to revive a previously tabled motion to adopt the 2003 edition of NFPA 1 in its entirety, except where Wisconsin’s statutory requirements override; and to include in that adoption a clause that for design and construction, if any conflicts occur between NFPA 1 and chapters Comm 61 to 65, the most restrictive requirement shall apply.

Ken asked whether passage of the motion would constitute a recommendation from the Committee to the Department Secretary, and Dave responded yes.

Ken asked whether the net effect of adopting the 2003 edition would be more regulation. Dave responded he did not believe that adopting the 2003 edition would require schools to do more, and commented that the 2003 edition would be more user-friendly, for both regulators and owners. Gregg estimated that 90 percent of the fire-safety maintenance requirements for schools are contained in the 2003 edition. Ken asked whether the public would be subjected to additional regulation if the motion is implemented, particularly as a result of the clause that would apply the most restrictive requirement, wherever conflicting criteria occur. Gregg responded that the implementation could result in different design and construction outcomes than under the current requirements, but the costs should not increase significantly, and may, in some cases, be less. Dave indicated that some costs could increase and some could decrease. Ken noted the current widespread interest in growing Wisconsin’s economy in part by minimizing regulation, and he stated that adopting additional regulation which is more user-friendly would not make more regulation more acceptable. Marty King commented that the adoption as proposed would make the current regulation more user-friendly, rather than create additional regulation.

Gregg commented that clauses for applying the most restrictive requirement in the event that conflicting criteria occur have been utilized for over 100 years.

Jennifer Cape asked whether the adoption as proposed would apply retroactively to existing conditions, and Dave responded the retroactive application would be no greater than in other codes. Bob responded that since the adoption would be in Comm 14, which applies to all current and proposed uses, the adoption would apply retroactively to all current uses. Dave commented that NFPA 1 includes provisions which allow the authority having jurisdiction to determine that a compliant building at the time of construction can remain noncompliant with a subsequent code if no hazard occurs. Bob noted that Wisconsin’s construction requirements generally since the 1930’s have applied only to proposed construction, except where the statutes have imposed retroactive requirements, and he explained that alterations sometimes occur to accommodate new use restrictions.

Bob commented that adoption of the 2003 edition of NFPA 1 might not have a big impact on the Division, but the broad scope of the motion raises a bigger question of what the relationship should be between the Fire Prevention Code and the Commercial Building Code, particularly where the Building Code would allow an existing building to remain unchanged but the Fire Code would require the building to change. Gregg suggested that the proposed adoption could include an effective-date clause which would result in applying any future retroactive aspects only to buildings constructed after that date.

Dave estimated that the 2003 edition of NFPA 1 is in use in about 23 states, and usually in combination with the International Building Code (IBC). According to Dave the 2003 edition allows a building owner or occupant to perform a life-safety evaluation, and if the results indicate the building is safe enough, no new requirements apply.

Ken asked whether Department recommendations were available for the motion. Bob responded that there would be concern for the motion’s impact on the relationship between the Building Code and the Fire Code, and although the effective-date clause which Gregg suggested might resolve some of that concern, there would still be concern that a building designer would have to consider design requirements in both codes during the design stage. Dave suggested consolidating the competing/most restrictive criteria into one document, and he noted that a performance-based design option is available in both codes. Terry commented that the Department’s field staff do not share the concern Bob described, and cited an example where the proposed adoption would have prevented a building owner from becoming disadvantaged.

The motion passed, with dissenting votes from Jennifer Cape and Ken Cole.

Rules transferring from Comm 10 to Comm 14
Dan Meneguin distributed copies of chapter 17 from the 2000 edition of NFPA 1, relating to storage, handling, and use of flammable and combustible liquids. Dan explained that Comm 14 currently excludes chapter 17 from applying in Wisconsin, and instead refers to the requirements in Comm 10 for these liquids; and those requirements apply the criteria in chapter 17, except for the criteria that relate to design and construction of buildings. Dan noted the Department is developing changes for Comm 10 that include moving rules for small containers of flammable and combustible liquids from Comm 10 to Comm 14. Consequently, Comm 14 would then no longer exclude chapter 17 of NFPA 1, except that the criteria which relate to design and construction of buildings, as marked in the handout, would continue to not apply.

Marty King indicated that a fire inspector would then continue to not be able to apply the design and construction requirements for buildings, in chapter 17 of NFPA 1, for spray-painting within a school. Marty asked whether the IBC includes those requirements, and Terry Nolen responded that if the spray-painting would not be within a spray booth, the entire room would need to comply with the IBC requirements for that use. Terry noted concern for whether moving the rules from Comm 10 to 14 would result in (1) losing a corresponding retroactive effective date, and (2) lessening the applicability of the rules, because Comm 14 applies to public buildings and places of employment, whereas the scope of Comm 10 is broader, such as applying to containers during shipping. Terry suggested retaining the rules in Comm 10 until Comm 14 is modified as outlined in the motion that was adopted by the Council’s preceding action.

A motion was made by Dave Lind, seconded by Marty King, and passed with no dissenting votes, to delay the proposed transfer of rules from Comm 10 to Comm 14 until Comm 14 is updated to include adoption of the 2003 edition of NFPA 1, as outlined in the previous motion.

Proposed stop-work and stop-use rules
In reference to the draft rule changes for Comm 3 that were transmitted prior to the meeting, Dan questioned whether only Department staff would be authorized to apply them, and Bob responded that the draft rules refer only to orders issued by the Division of Safety and Buildings. Terry commented that the initial interest was to develop stop-work and stop-use rules for Comm 14 which would be similar to the stop-use rules currently in Comm 10, i.e., those Comm 10 rules (1) can be applied by Department staff, local staff, or certified tank inspectors, and (2) have three levels of enforcement conditions: immediate shutdown, shutdown after investigation, and shutdown after long-term violation.

Gregg commented that as deputies of the Department, fire inspectors could apply rules in Comm 3, but having the rules in Comm 14 might be more effective. Bob noted the scope in proposed section Comm 3.12 could be expanded to be more universal, as it is in Comm 10, but there could then be concern for how resulting appeals to local orders would be addressed. According to Terry, local units that adopt Comm 14 could address those appeals at the local level, and appeals in local units that do not adopt Comm 14 could be addressed by the Department.
Gregg summarized that there is consensus for developing stop-work and stop-use rules for fire prevention, which fire inspectors can apply in enforcement conditions similar to those in Comm 10, and Comm 14 may be a better location for the rules than Comm 3. Gregg asked for further clarification, at the next meeting or sooner, of the authority local units would have if the rules are included in Comm 3, and he commented that if the authority there would be adequate, an informational note in Comm 14 could refer to those rules in Comm 3.

Next meeting
Gregg commented that topics for discussion at the next meeting could include (1) input from the fire-dues task force, on revising the fire-dues audits; and (2) the Department’s reaction to the motion for adopting the 2003 edition of NFPA 1. Bob suggested considering the coordination of that adoption with the Department’s efforts toward adopting the 2003 and 2006 changes in the IBC and related codes. Dave suggested coordinating those efforts with adoption of the 2006 edition of NFPA 1, UFC. The next meeting was scheduled for January 25, 2005, at the same location and time.

Submitted by Sam Rockweiler, code consultant to the Council

Thursday, August 26, 2004, 9:30 a.m. to noon, Thompson Commerce Center, Room 3C, 201 West Washington Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin

Council Member Attendance: Gregg Cleveland, Chair, Present; Ken Cole, P; Marty King, P; Dave Lind, P; John Periad (Jennifer Cape - Alternate), P; Jim Stormer (Todd Blaser - Alternate) Absent.

Guests: Dave Bloom - Town of Madison Fire Department; Tod Doebler - Menomonee Falls Fire Department.

Department of Commerce Staff: Ron Buchholz, Bob DuPont, Joe Hertel, Dan Meneguin, Terry Nolen, Sam Rockweiler, Kimberly Walker.

Sam Rockweiler opened the meeting with a round of introductions, and he distributed and summarized an Advisory Council Manual produced by the Safety and Buildings Division.

Dave Lind asked why Terry Nolen was not serving as chairperson, and why a tape recording of the meeting was not being made, as were agreed to at the previous meeting. Ken Cole commented that a tape recording was suggested at the previous meeting, rather than agreed to.

Bob DuPont explained that the Council members are appointed by the Department, and that although Department staff attend the Council’s meetings in order to receive the Council’s input, the Division’s policy is that the chairperson must be a member of the Council, and the Council cannot expand its membership to include Department staff. Bob added that since the Council serves an advisory role, the Department will also consider minority viewpoints that occur when consensus is not achieved.

A motion was made by Dave Lind, seconded by Marty King, and passed unanimously, to have Gregg Cleveland serve as the Council Chairperson.

Progress reports from preceding meetings
Gregg noted concern with whether everything at the preceding meetings had been captured in the preceding progress reports, and explained that a thorough record is helpful in maintaining continuity. Marty King asked whether recommending tape recording of the meetings is within the role of the Council. Bob responded that the progress reports are not minutes of every detail, and he noted belief that the Department had not previously resorted to taping for any other advisory committees or councils. Bob added that identifying whatever had not been captured in the previous reports would be helpful.

Gregg offered to provide recording equipment if the Department could not, and Dave Lind offered to have his staff transcribe recorded tapes and then return the tapes to the Department. Gregg noted that the members who had issues with the previous reports are compiling the issues and will have them at the next meeting.

Ken Cole said he had no problems with any of the previous reports. He added that the role of the Council is to provide advice, and he did not see why the level of precision desired by taping would change whether or how that advice is accepted. Gregg said that taping would record the proceedings so that later if representatives of included groups change, the new reps could go back to the recordings to get all of the details. Jennifer Cape suggested that anyone who wanted to could bring their own recorder.

Marty King said the Department has a duty to maintain records, and members can submit letters disputing the reports. Ken added that such letters could be attached to the reports.

Ron Buchholz noted that the Division’s process of utilizing written progress reports has worked for 30 years, without taping.

Dave Lind asked whether a vote to accept a progress report is an endorsement of the contents. Bob responded that acceptance of the report means it is an accurate summary of what happened, but does not necessarily convey agreement with included positions on issues.

A motion was made by Ken Cole, seconded by Marty King, and passed unanimously, to accept the progress report from the preceding, June 15 meeting.

Ken noted his understanding that any issues with the reports for the two meetings preceding the June 15 meeting would be presented at the next meeting. Dave Lind noted concern for running counter to the reports.

A motion was made by Dave Lind and seconded by Jennifer Cape, to table discussion of the progress reports for the two meetings preceding the June 15 meeting.

Ken noted desire to amend the motion to reflect that if the Council is not presented at the next meeting with the issues for the reports for the two meetings preceding the June 15 meeting, then those two reports would be accepted. Dave disagreed with the proposed amendment.

The motion passed, with a dissenting vote from Ken Cole.

Division and Department updates
General
Gregg asked whether the Department dropped its definition of “administrative expenses,” which had advanced to the Public Hearing stage. Bob responded that the draft Hearing Summary, which was distributed with the agenda prior to the meeting, states that proposed definition would not be advanced for legislative review.

Gregg asked whether a different definition of the term would not be advanced for legislative review until after August 31, and then not be accepted for review there until after the first session day of next year’s legislature. Bob responded that a definition of “substantial compliance” is expected to be advanced to legislative review prior to the August 31 cutoff, and a definition of “administrative expenses” would be advanced later, after it is revised to include more detail, in order to arrive at a definition that is acceptable.

Gregg stated the fire service does not want the two definitions split apart and advanced separately. Bob explained that the Department’s rules cannot bind the legislature from passing legislation in the future, and previous lapse legislation has protected some fund sources, but not others, from lapses. Bob added that the Department is looking at whether not lapsing money from the fire dues fund would be precedent-setting for other fund sources, and he said there may be unique aspects of the statutory appropriation for the fire dues fund that enable avoidance of setting such precedence.

Bob distributed and discussed pages from the Department’s Web site showing (1) how to subscribe to the Division’s various email distribution groups, such as the Fire Prevention group, for receiving occasional email alerts to news of potential interest; (2) a listing of all of the Division’s Advisory Councils; and (3) how to access online details for the Councils, such as each Council’s function, and their corresponding agendas, meeting summaries, and membership list.

Bob distributed and discussed a chart showing a projected schedule of meetings of the Division’s specialty councils and umbrella councils, for developing the next comprehensive update of the Wisconsin Commercial Building Code. Bob explained that (1) the Transitioning Buildings Specialty Council was newly created, to develop more specificity for these buildings than is contained in the current code; (2) the Fire Protection and Fire Safety Specialty Councils were likewise newly created; and (3) the Comm 14 Council is a stand-alone council, rather than a specialty council that provides input to the umbrella councils.

Bob reported that the Division’s Electrical Code Council would begin meeting in the fall to review the 2005 edition of the National Electrical Code, and adoption of corresponding updates to Wisconsin’s Electrical Code is expected in mid 2005.

Gregg asked for the total cost of the recent redesign of the Department’s Web site, and for the extent of the fire dues money that was used for the redesign. Bob agreed to obtain the data and provide it to Gregg.

Stop-work and stop-use rules
In reference to the Comm 14 Scope Statement, Bob reported that although it included discussion of developing stop-use rules for Comm 14, the Division has been developing stop-work and stop-use rules for other Division codes in Comm 3, and plans to make those rules applicable to Comm 14 rather than expand Comm 14 to include the topic. According to Bob, a corresponding administrative forfeiture or citation process for license violations is being discussed, and authorizing legislation could be enacted in 2005.

Dave Lind indicated the citations would be a good idea, and asked how state staff could handle the accompanying workload. Bob agreed that handling the workload is a concern.

Gregg asked whether a draft of the stop-work and stop-use rules would be considered at the next meeting, and Bob said yes. Marty King asked whether the draft would be distributed prior to the meeting, and Bob said yes.

Final rule draft for “substantial compliance”
In reference to the rule draft that was transmitted with the agenda prior to the meeting, Bob summarized the changes that had been made after the public hearing in July, including (1) deletion of a lengthy note in response to a recommendation from the Legislative Council’s Rules Clearinghouse, and (2) alteration of the text in section Comm 14.48 to provide reference to “substantial compliance” rather than “compliance.”

A