Proposed Code Change Number

Recommended

Action

Comments

Impact

M67-06/07

AS

Correct standard and verbiage

Correction

M68-06/07

AS

More correctly reflects actual conditions

We get reports rather than witnessing a test

M69-06/07

AS

This will allow for a more practical cleanout opening seal and cover.

None

M70-06/07

AS

This seems like a more logical format and is user friendly and easy to understand. Should be approved with M71 as recommended below

Code easier to use

M71-06/07

AM

I would recommend picking up the language in M71 and adding it as #3 to M70 exceptions.

Puts back the listed and labeled duct

M72-06/07

D

We have always had space around this duct for inspection purposes

Negative impact. Takes away some of our inspection ability.

M73-06/07

D

This section is speaking to things contained in the enclosure. The added verbiage is not.

Not necessary.

M74-06/07

D

In favor of M 70

M75-06/07

AS

This addition should pose no problems.

Allows for terminations to be closer horizontally to buildings and property lines.

M76-06/07

D

I feel this is adequately covered in chapter 4. This will add too many different requirements

Nothing gained. No special hazard.

M77-06/07

AS

This allows for the installation of appliances as they are listed and manufactured.

Will eliminate appeals in this area.

M78-06/07

AS

I think this is aimed at stores like Sub-Way that bake bead in their location w/o hoods

Clarifies intent.

M79-06/07

AS

If this is a problem, we should approve this proposal. Literal enforcement would cause this to be an issue.

In most cases no impact.

M80-06/07

AS

Assuming the standard is approved.

Definitive reference.

M81-06/07

AS

No harm done here. May be better language.

Wordsmith

M82-06/07

D

Has merit, however, should be energy code requirement and wording not good “vise-versa”

If needed, should be in the Energy Code.

M83-06/07

D

This requirement is not a part of the UL710 listing and labeling. It provided the installer and the inspector with the air flow requirements so the hood will function properly.

OK as is we need this information

M84-06/07

D

If the air is clean to acceptable levels, we should permit it to be re-circulated. The balance is unnecessary work smithing.

This would take away design flexibility and in some cases cause unnecessary usage of energy.

M85-06/07

AS

The introduction of this standard would be appropriate if the standard holds up.

New standard in Code.

M86-06/07

AS

Allowing combustible dust to be collected allows for an unnecessary explosion hazard and at a minimum should have minimum design standards if permitted.

Presently this exception is not and should not be in Ohio

M87-06/07

D

Unnecessary change

None

M88-06/07

AS

Good Change to clarify intent.

Eliminates conflicts

M89-06/07

AS

Possibly clarifies code language

None

M90-06/07

D

Presently is and should remain in the building code.

Potential conflicts between IBC &IMC

M91-06/07

AS

Fills void in IMC about # of fasteners required and has more practical application language

IMC and IRC will be consistent

M92-06/07

?

Gives minimum requirement, but I’m not sure this is necessary

AS or D either one works

M93-06/07

AS

Brings in appropriate standards and eliminates unnecessary language

None

M94-06/07

AS

Introduces appropriate standards

None

M95-06/07

AS

Installation instructions already apply, but someone needs this additional guidance

None

M96-06/07

D

Not practical or enforceable

Trying to inspect for something we can’t control

M97-06/07

AS

Clarifies requirement

None

M98-06/07

AS

If standard holds up

Fills void in code

M99-06/07

D

This requirement is already addressed in Chapter 4 (403.3.4) If standard is desired, it would more appropriate to put it in Chapter 4

M100-06/07

AS

Recognizes, introduces another product into the code.

End results with this product will be the same.

M101-06/07

?

Haven’t experienced any problems with the present language.

Introduces new standards.

M102-06/07

?

I have no experience with Radon

M103-06/07

AM

Leave two openings as an option

Alternative method.

M104-06/07

D

In favor of 103

M105-06/07

AM

Leave two opening requirements

See AM on 104

M106-06/07

D

In favor of 103 & 105

M107-06/07

AM

Leave two opening option and add single opening option

Companion Change

M108-06/07

D

We’ve seen this several times before.

Why have the IMC?

M109-06/07

D

We need the manufacturer’s installation instructions required. Fireblocking is already addressed in the building code.

M110-06/07

D

I think this is already addressed the way it is.

Ain’t broke

M111-06/07

D

This is addressed in the manufacturer’s installation instructions.

M112-06/07

D

Draft system may be necessary for the appliance to function properly.  The installation and inspection should be governed by this code.

M113-06/07

AS

Introduces appropriate standard If the standard holds up.

Appropriate reference

M114-06/07

AS

Introduces appropriate standard If the standard holds up.

Appropriate reference

M115-06/07

AS

Adds two appropriate standards and references one existing standard. The standards have to be reviewed.

Appropriate references

M116-06/07

D

This would eliminate the requirement for low water cutoff if radiation is above the boiler. Leaks could result in boiler damage and a potential safety hazard.

This would result in a minimal cost savings to the contractor.

M117-06/07

D

Same reason as in 116. We are dealing with a code requirement here and not a standard requirement. I see no reason to eliminate safety provisions of the code simply because a standard does not specifically call for them.

This would result in a minimal cost savings to the contractor

M118-06/07

?

I am not familiar with these refrigerants. Listen to testimony.

M119-06/07

D

Most of the standards sighted are relevant to appliances. We already allow these appliances. I am not familiar with a couple of the listings. This proposal seems very much like a product endorsement.

M120-06/07

D

Designers will use this standard, but not always. The proposal still allows for other means. I feel the code language is ok the way it is.

This change would have no effect on the code.

M121-06/07

AS

Depends on the standard review…

M122-06/07

AS

Already used in the real world

M123-06/07

AS

Companion to 121. If 121 passes we need 123

M124-06/07

D

If this is to be allowed, we need the standard to which they are manufactured. This would be a great opportunity for knock-off fittings sold directly to consumers.

M125-06/07

AS

Companion to 122. If 122 passes we need 125

M126-06/07

?

Listen to testimony

M127-06/07

D

In favor of 129

M128-06/07

AS

Good addition to the code.

Addresses potential problem with every system.

M129-06/07

AS

Give exception for a practice that already exists.

M130-06/07

D

This is a performance code. I think this concept is good, but too prescriptive.

M131-06/07

AS

Depends on standard review

M132-06/07

?

Will depend on standards review………