• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Disagreement On Occupant Load

The RDP should be stating the occupant load and provide that on the code summary and life safety page. Also withe occupant count for each room with cumulative total for the exiting pathways and components tot he exterior. The BO then reviews and confirms.
 
Our statutes don't offer a path to resolving a disagreement. The IBC says the Building Official shall establish the occupant load. The IFC says the Fire Marshal shall establish the occupant load. I have been blessed in that in both towns where I have worked as a [assistant] building official, I have had an excellent, cooperative working relationship with the fire marshals. We talk, and we resolve such discrepancies (if they occur) by discussion and consensus.

When our state building code was based on BOCA and there was no ICC IFC, it was less confusing: the Building Official established the occupant load, and the Fire Marshal posted it and enforced it after issuance of the CofO.
 
TheCommish said:
The RDP should be stating the occupant load and provide that on the code summary and life safety page. Also withe occupant count for each room with cumulative total for the exiting pathways and components tot he exterior. The BO then reviews and confirms.
Click to expand...
You are not answering the question. The FD and BD review the occupant load. If they disagree, how is that handled in your state?
 
jar546 said:
Yes, same here.

If there is no consensus, are there any laws, rules, etc, for resolution.
Click to expand...

Not in this state. Either the design professional has to live with the more restrictive occupant load, appeal to the State for resolution. If it goes to the State, the Office of State Building Inspector and the Office of State Fire Marshal will have to bang heads and see if they can reach a consensus.
 
I agree that the RDP does the plans and the BO reviews the plans and checks the OL. The OL can be calculated different ways and to complicate the calculation their are NET calcs and GROSS counts. Some round up the OL and some don't. If your doing a "B" or "M" Occupancy and the OL comes up 16 would you allow the OL to be 15 to avoid installing a service sink?

See 2021 IFC, Sec.102.3 Exception, allows the Fire Code Official (FCO) permission to change an OL without applying the IBC if the conditions are less hazardous.

See: 2021 IFC, Sec.103 Code Compliance Agency 103.1- 103.3

Our state does not have an adopted code but the RDP's I believe have a minimum starting code for design.

I would think the BO would yield to the FCO, a letter to the file should be presented if the BO and FCO disagree on the established OL, IMO.
 
In all the AHJ's I have ever been a part of or worked for except one, both a building permit and a fire permit are issued with distinct plans and each would be administered differently by whatever standards the issuing department uses. I have shown up on jobs and been handed fire department plans, at which point I hand them back and ask for the building department plans. It has only become an issue when the applicant tries to use one against the other. The few times this has happened the problems have been reconciled internally between departments, with one or the other demonstrating to the other where they have gone wrong, and a consensus is arrived at. Very few times do I recall an impasse that resulted in any major element being administered differently, but it can happen. In those times you end up with the more restrictive "interpretation" between the two entities.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
Our statutes don't offer a path to resolving a disagreement. The IBC says the Building Official shall establish the occupant load. The IFC says the Fire Marshal shall establish the occupant load.
Click to expand...
Naive questions:

Does either code say that the occupant loads have to agree? Could a project not have an IBC occupant load, and a different IFC occupant load, with each code referring only to its own occupant load? As long as this doesn't lead to conflicts like the IBC saying you must do X, and the IFC saying you may not do X, what's the problem?

Cheers, Wayne
 
Mr. Inspector said:
Easy, no fire marshals or fire code here.
Click to expand...
Here where? Townships?

In PA, many cities both small, medium and large have Fire Departments who enforce the NFPA standards adopted and sometimes the IFC which references many NFPA codes and standards. Reading, York, Wilkes-Barre, Scranton, Harrisburg, Allentown, Sharon, etc.

Some of these even have special fire districts within their city limits with even stricter rules and regulations such as no NM cable, no PVC conduit, and even more aggressive fire sprinkler requirements.
 
jar546 said:
Here where? Townships?

In PA, many cities both small, medium and large have Fire Departments who enforce the NFPA standards adopted and sometimes the IFC which references many NFPA codes and standards. Reading, York, Wilkes-Barre, Scranton, Harrisburg, Allentown, Sharon, etc.

Some of these even have special fire districts within their city limits with even stricter rules and regulations such as no NM cable, no PVC conduit, and even more aggressive fire sprinkler requirements.
Click to expand...

Well, I never inspected in any of those places or any place that adopted the fire code, except for one township which did not budget any money to enforce it. I do have the state cert as a fire inspector but never used it. I only got the cert because I got a raise in pay for it.
 
Last edited:
jar546 said:
If there is no consensus, are there any laws, rules, etc, for resolution.
Click to expand...
Yes and it is in the codes and the proper application of the 2 codes. If you did not adopt Chapter One then you might be SOL
2018 editions

The building code addresses the means of egress which includes approval of the design occupant load. 101.4.5 specifically limits the use of the fire code in the design and construction process. Each code has a different definition/purpose for Construction Documents when used within the different codes.

IBC
[A] 101.3 Intent.
The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements to provide a reasonable level of safety, public health and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire, explosion and other hazards, and to provide a reasonable level of safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.

[A] 101.4 Referenced codes.
The other codes listed in Sections 101.4.1 through 101.4.7 and referenced elsewhere in this code shall be considered to be part of the requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each such reference.

[A] 101.4.5 Fire prevention.
The provisions of the International Fire Code shall apply to matters affecting or relating to structures, processes and premises from the hazard of fire and explosion arising from the storage, handling or use of structures, materials or devices; from conditions hazardous to life, property or public welfare in the occupancy of structures or premises; and from the construction, extension, repair, alteration or removal of fire suppression, automatic sprinkler systems and alarm systems or fire hazards in the structure or on the premises from occupancy or operation.
[A] CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. Written, graphic and pictorial documents prepared or assembled for describing the design, location and physical characteristics of the elements of a project necessary for obtaining a building permit.



The Fire Code 102.4 specifically requires the use of the building code for design and construction of new structures to be in accordance of the building code.
IFC 105.2 #2 limits when a construction permit by the Fire Department may be required.

IFC
[A] 101.3 Intent.
The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements consistent with nationally recognized good practice for providing a reasonable level of life safety and property protection from the hazards of fire, explosion or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures and premises, and to provide a reasonable level of safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.

[A] 102.4 Application of building code.
The design and construction of new structures shall comply with the International Building Code, and any alterations, additions, changes in use or changes in structures required by this code, which are within the scope of the International Building Code, shall be made in accordance therewith.

[A] 104.2 Applications and permits.
The fire code official is authorized to receive applications, review construction documents and issue permits for construction regulated by this code, issue permits for operations regulated by this code, inspect the premises for which such permits have been issued and enforce compliance with the provisions of this code.

105.1.2 Types of permits.
There shall be two types of permits as follows:

1. Operational permit. An operational permit allows the applicant to conduct an operation or a business for which a permit is required by Section 105.6 for either:

1.1. A prescribed period.

1.2. Until renewed or revoked.

2. Construction permit. A construction permit allows the applicant to install or modify systems and equipment for which a permit is required by Section 105.7.
[A] 105.7 Required construction permits.
The fire code official is authorized to issue construction permits for work as set forth in Sections 105.7.1 through 105.7.25.
[A] CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. The written, graphic and pictorial documents prepared or assembled for describing the design, location and physical characteristics of the elements of the project necessary for obtaining a permit.
 
As described, the IFC has many types of requirements for buildings and facilities. The applicability of these requirements varies. An understanding of the applicability of requirements, as addressed in Sections 102.1 and 102.2, is necessary. Section 102.1 addresses when the construction and design provisions are applicable whereas Section 102.2 addresses when the administrative, operational and maintenance provisions are applicable. Generally, the construction and design provisions only apply to new buildings or existing buildings and occupancies as addressed by Chapter 11. The administrative, maintenance and operational requirements are applicable to all buildings and facilities whether new or existing.
 
This is not all-inclusive, but ours says this:

[A] 101.4.5 Fire prevention. For provisions related to fire prevention, refer to the Florida Fire Prevention Code. The Florida Fire Prevention Code shall apply to matters affecting or relating to structures, processes and premises from the hazard of fire and explosion arising from the storage, handling or use of structures, materials or devices; from conditions hazardous to life, property or public welfare in the occupancy of structures or premises; and from the construction, extension, repair, alteration or removal of fire suppression, automatic sprinkler systems and alarm systems or fire hazards in the structure or on the premises from occupancy or operation.
 
mtlogcabin said:
Yes and it is in the codes and the proper application of the 2 codes. If you did not adopt Chapter One then you might be SOL
2018 editions
Click to expand...

Intent is one thing, but when this state adopted the ICC model codes, we adopted the ICC building codes (IBC, IRC, IEBC, IMC, IPC, and IECC) for enforcement by building officials, and we adopted the IFC for enforcement by fire marshals specifically for new construction. Chapter 1 is heavily amended in both the IBC and the IFC. This leaves us with dual, overlapping jurisdiction over issues such as egress and occupant load.

I cases of disagreement, the stricter wins. However, it's not a good look when one AHJ approves something and the other AHJ looks at the excat same provision in his/her code and denies the permit, so both departments (in the town where I work) agree that it's batter for averyone to discuss differences of opinion and arrive at an understanding that both offices can live with.
 
mtlogcabin said:
The IFC is not a construction code for buildings. It has requirements for specific uses and systems/equipment within a new building.
Click to expand...

Yes. And my state has adopted it as the fire safety code for new construction, enforced by the fire marshals. And since many portions of the IFC are identical to portions of the IBC, that means we have two code officials enforcing the same things. Occupant load is one of those things where we have joint/overlapping jurisdiction.

IFC:
102.1 Application. This part of the code shall apply to all buildings, structures, or portions thereof, or facilities, for which application for an initial building permit was made on or after January 1, 2006, as outlined below, except as specifically provided for in the wording of a section.
Click to expand...

[BE] 1004.1 Design Occupant Load. In determining means of egress requirements, the number of occupants for whom means of egress facilities are provided shall be determined in accordance with this section.
Click to expand...

IFC Table 1004.5 is exactly the same as IBC Table 1004.5.

Our fire marshals only use the IFC for new construction. For annual or biennial inspections of existing occupancies, they use the existing occupancy chapters of NFPA 101.
 
jar546 said:
You are not answering the question. The FD and BD review the occupant load. If they disagree, how is that handled in your state?
Click to expand...

The Building Official has the say, if the fire official is aggrieved they can appeal to the Building Code Appeals Board

MA 527 CMR fire code
1.1.1 Massachusetts General Law and State Building Code
Applicable Massachusetts General Law and requirements of the 780 CMR: State Building Code, also referred herein as the Building Code, and specialized codes as referenced in Chapter 2 and defined in Chapter 3 shall be adhered to in the design and construction of buildings, structures, and equipment.

780CMR Building Code

101.4.5 Fire Prevention
Reference to sections of the International Fire Code (IFC) for fire prevention requirements shall be considered reference to 527 CMR: Board of Fire Prevention Regulations. The fire official enforces the provisions of 527 CMR. Reference to sections of the International Fire Code ("IFC") for building code requirements are adopted, except that retroactive requirements of the IFC are not adopted. The building official enforces 780 CMR and all adopted IFC requirements. Modifications, alterations, additions, or deletions to fire protection systems are any changes which affect the performance of the fire protection system. Such changes require a building permit and are subject to other permitting requirements pursuant to applicable provisions of M.G.L. c.148,§ 27A.
 
jar546 said:
If the Building Official and Fire Marshal disagree on occupant load, per your state statutes, how is this resolved?
Click to expand...
Our state board says the building code is the starting document and the fire code is a reference document. Also the building official is the final judge on any code interpretation.

I also agree with above - we approach that the building code relates to building design and fire code is for after they are constructed.

Fortunately in our jurisdiction the Fire Marshal and I get along pretty well and he differs to me (building official) on most issues and I rely on his expertise on anything fire related.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top