Code Change Proposal E97 - Exit Pathways

This post is a continuation of the Proposed Code Change Series, where I highlight some of the interesting and controversial code changes that were presented at the 2024 ICC Committee Action Hearings (CAH). These proposed changes, which could become part of the 2027 ICC codes, are the first step of the updated ICC code development process that now includes two Committee Action Hearings (CAH1 and CAH2), as well as the Public Comment Hearing (PCH).  ​

Please note that I am serving on the 2024-2026 IBC Egress Committee, so many of these articles in this series will be egress related. Each post is my attempt to summarize the code change proposal and the presentation/discussion from CAH1, but please refer to the links below that include the actual code change proposal language and the CAH1 recording. These posts are not intended to provide my personal opinion or commentary on the code changes.  

Code Change Proposal E97 - Exit Pathways
Link: Code Change Proposal
Link: Hearing Recording  

Summary of Code Change  
This proposal involves creating a new component of the means of egress system, entitled an "exit pathway." The proposal defines exit pathways as "An exit component that serves to meet one or more means of egress design requirements and is open to sky." The intent appears to be to allow occupants to enter an interior exit stairway enclosure, then leave that enclosure to walk across a rooftop and then re-entering a different interior exit stairway enclosure. 

A schematic of the proposed exit pathway from code change proposal E97.

Summary of Testimony and Discussion  

Several participants testified in support of this proposal, stating that this approach is already being taken through a code modification or alternate design process and that it should be explicitly permitted in the code. One person also testified that this approach currently would require an exit passageway across the roof to connect two stair enclosures, but that being open to the sky would actually be a similar level of safety to a rated exit passageway. 

Several participants testified in opposition of this proposal, noting that the language needed to be clarified and that current exit discharge requirements need to be addressed in the proposal. There was also discussion of the limitation that exits be used only for egress purposes and that it would be hard to limit a pathway on the roof from being used for other purposes. 

CAH1 Result  
This code change proposal was disapproved by the committee, with a vote of 13-0.