Out front with building codes: become familiar with the building code issues that are important to the multifamily housing industry. (Fire Alarm).

It was that realization that led them to hire a building codes expert in 1992 to identify the issues most important to the apartment industry and act on them. Since then, NAA/NMHC has been an active member in the code development process, even though the issues discussed will not appear in codes for six, eight or even 10 years. This combination of early involvement and ability/authority to act on the spot has led to major success. In some cases, we have retained or added favorable provisions to the codes. In other instances, we have modified or removed restrictive provisions. To date, those victories add up to more than $4,200 in savings per unit, or approximately $1.2 billion in annual construction costs. Existing property owners also have benefited with savings of more than $1.7 billion thanks to NAA/NMHC defeating proposed requirements to retrofit existing properties.

Timing also was an important element in our success. We made the decision to actively engage in building codes in 1992. That meant we were in an excellent position to become a major player with the International Code Council (ICC) when it was formed in 1994 to merge the three existing building codes into a single, unified set of national codes. Another element is that our story is easy to sell--what is right for the apartment industry is also good for the consumer.

BUILDING CODES

Building codes often is a zero sum game, though. When we win, it means someone else loses. Our victories, in many cases, mean lost revenue for those who use the codes as a means to sell products. The best example of this is the electrical industry, particularly those who sell and install electrical conduit. They have fought us for eight years to retain provisions in the National Electric Code that limit the use of the less expensive non-metallic sheathed cable (Romex) to buildings three stories or less in height. They are not the only ones, however. Sprinkler manufacturers have a vested interest in provisions that add new sprinkler requirements, as do energy product providers for increased energy conservation requirements. Likewise the wood, steel, concrete and masonry industry have code issues concerned with the use of the products they produce.

To understand the context in which we operate and the background of our codes development process it is important to understand our 2002 program of work. First, once again we are expending the majority of our effort on issues that will not appear at the local level for many years. For example, the code changes we advocate during the April 2002 hearings of the ICC will be voted on in the fall, but they will not be published until the 2003 edition of the international codes. Because of the time needed to adopt the revised codes at the local level, adoption and enforcement usually lags several years. Realistically, apartment firms operating in the field will not feel the impact of the decisions made this fall until 2005 or later. Relatedly, NAA/NMHC are working with the groups updating the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers Inc. (ASHRAE) energy standards and the ANSI A117.1 accessibility standard, even though they will not be finalized until the 2006 IBC and will not be enforced much sooner than 2008. Thanks to NAA/NMHC's long-term view of this issue, however, the industry is not sitting on the sidelines, simply hoping nothing bad will happen.

It also is important to understand that we are opposed by numerous industries that are economically threatened by our victories. Because of our past success, we face a variety of code challenges in 2002, which will appear in the 2003 IBC. NAA/NMHC have successfully supported (and in some cases opposed) several provisions during the past two years of the code development cycle for the 2003 edition. This year is the final year for action before the code is finalized. Several of our past victories are being attacked. Some of the major issues are:

SPRINKLERS

NAA/NMHC have successfully included several sprinkler design option provisions in the 2000 IBC, and many are being challenged. These challenges are coming from two fronts--(1) from the industries that have lost in past code hearings, but also (2) from the building officials themselves. The industry-based challenge has been a constant through the IBC development process, so we expected it. The concerns of the building officials are new, however. NAA/NMHC worked hard to educate building officials on the code development committees about the safety of our provisions. But now that the 2000 IBC is being adopted across the country, building officials who did not participate in the code development committees are coming forward with questions and concerns. Officials from the south and west are leading the opposition because they have always operated under the Standard Building Code and Uniform Building Code, which does not allow design options with the NFPA 13R sprinkler.

NAA/NMHC and its consultants are taking to the roads to allay the fears of these officials. We are meeting with building and fire officials in Colorado, South Carolina and Florida. We are attending the Southern Code Action Committee meeting in Georgia to participate in discussions with building officials from the south and west as they develop their positions on the code changes being proposed this year. We are taking these opportunities not only to build support for the design tradeoffs already approved in the 2002 supplement, we also are discussing new changes we are proposing to help further allay their fears about the NFPA 13R system. For example, a major objection code officials have with allowing the NFPA 13R system with design options is that some fires start on balconies and spread to the attic, and attics are not protected with the 13R system. Therefore, we have submitted a proposal to require a sprinkler on combustible balconies in order to win support for our previously achieved victories. These are just some of the examples of the lengths to which we go to protect the apartment industry's interests.

NM CABLE

Last year, NAA/NMHC secured provisions in the 2002 IBC supplement to allow NM cable in all buildings without any height restriction. These provisions also will be included in the 2003 IBC, unless they are successfully challenged at this year's ICC hearings. Opponents have already filed proposals to eliminate the expanded use of NM cable from the 2003 IBC, so we again must mobilize to protect our prior achievements. We are bolstered by a recent decision by the unaffiliated National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Board of Directors that the 2002 National Electrical Code should include NAA/NMHC's proposal to allow NM cable in buildings permitted to be of Type III, IV and V construction. The NFPA Board ruled that the prior NM cable height restrictions were unfair and not technically justified.

CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS

This is an old issue that has been discussed at virtually every code hearing for the past 10 years, and it is back. In the past, proposals to require carbon monoxide detectors in every dwelling unit were defeated because there was no direct carbon monoxide source for most units. This year's proposal has been revised and now would only require carbon monoxide detectors in dwellings with fuel fire appliances, fireplaces or attached garages. This means that many of the objections used in the past no longer apply, and the proposal will be considered under different circumstances. The proposal also has retroactive requirements with proposed changes to the International Fire Code and International Property Maintenance Code. If approved, they would require retroactive installation of carbon monoxide detectors in all dwelling units with sources of carbon monoxide.

NFPA BUILDING CODE

The NFPA is in the process of developing its own building code to compete with the ICC's International Building Code. The code is on a fast track it will be voted on in May by the NFPA membership and published in September. NAA/NMHC continue to support the ICC code over the NFPA code since the ICC code is a unified set of codes and since the ICC codes contain the provisions required to be ruled a safe harbor for complying with federal accessibility requirements. Nevertheless, NAA/NMHC have participated in the NFPA development process to protect the apartment industry. We are unsure of the apartment provisions in the code at this date, though, because the final committee report and updated draft are not yet available. In addition, the NFPA staff is doing a major reformatting. This means we will have a short amount of time to review and develop comments on the draft before the group's membership meeting in May.

ASHRAE ENERGY STANDARDS

ASHRAE is in the process of updating its energy standards. These standards are important because they are used as the basis for energy conservation requirements in the ICC codes and the new NFPA building code. The recently updated ASHRAE standard 90.1 (covering multifamily buildings with four or more stories) has a stated goal of identifying cost-effective and affordable means of achieving energy savings by increasing the standard's stringency by up to 20 percent. NAA/NMHC have been able to use the "cost effective and affordable" requirement to contest several proposed changes already. First, was a change approved in 1999 and incorporated into the 2001 edition of the code changing the requirements for slab-edge insulation. The 1999 code required slab-edge insulation at 3,000 heating degree days (Atlanta and north). Based on the NAA/NMHC calculations the requirement for slab-edge insulation in the 2001 edition has been moved to 9,000 heating degree days (almost the Canadian line). In 2000 and 2001, we opposed window upgrades and had them sent back to committee for reconsideration. After further review, the committee recommended the proposal be withdrawn.

Meanwhile, the ASHRAE standard 90.2 (covering apartments three or less stories in height) is going into a major updating. For the first time, at NAA/NMHC's insistence, the updated requirements for multifamily structures will be based on economics, cost data and design considerations reflective of multifamily investment properties. In the past, the economics were based on considerations reflective of single family or commercial office building. The economic analysis, based on figures supplied by NAA/ NMHC, is being performed by Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Wash., under a contract with the Department of Energy. The analysis is to be completed in the spring of 2002 for consideration at the committee meetings in June.

The apartment industry's work in the building codes arena is truly representative of the old cliche, slow and steady wins the race. It may not be the sexiest issue. Some might even call it boring. But it has the possibility of imposing millions of dollars in unnecessary costs on new construction costs and even existing properties. For that reason, we will once again log hundreds of thousands of miles crossing the nation to participate in code development hearings and to meet with building officials. And once again, we will know that the fruit of our labor will not be felt by the industry for six, eight or even 10 years. Member concerns about code issues and proposals for changes to the model codes and standards used in apartment construction should be e-mailed to Ron Nickson at [e-mail].

Ron Nickson is Vice President of Building Codes for the NAA/NMHC's Joint Legislative Program.