• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

ICC Board Action

fatboy

fatboy

Administrator
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,831
Location
Northern CO
I just read this news release and something struck me.......Why is it news that the Board supported and upheld the Final Hearing results?

ICC eNews

Isn't that the idea, that the voting membership are the ones that approve or disapprove code changes? Why is the Board rubberstamping what the membership has already approved? I've been going to code change hearings for the last three cycles, and I have always thought that Final Action Hearing meant it was the final action, not that we then wait for ICC Board apporval.

Jim, are you out there, can you help me out with this? What am I missing?
 
I guess that means that if you don't adopt the IEBC there will be some really pi**ed-off designers/builders/building owners/tenants.
 
As I recall from some of the things that I've read here, the IEBC has some strange stuff. California will probably adopt only a few chapters.
 
Sorry to be late to the party. Been out of town and then the darn flu hit me. I can help with this one. The scope of all the codes are determined by the board of directors. Chapter 34 was a scoping issue. I'm very happy to say the decision by the board was to fully support the code adoption process voted on by the membership. I can also add that some think that this was a move just to sell more code books. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Hope this helps.
 
There is too much duplication in the codes, and the codes need consolidation--

The IBC and the IFC carry many common provisions.

Do we really need separate plumbing and private sewage disposal codes?

Do we really need separate fuel gas and mechanical codes?

Why not include the energy provisons in the relevant base codes?

Do we really need 5 ways to comply with energy conservation for commercial buildings??? Some of which have conflicting provisions--ie in our zone IECC requires economizers and ASHRAE does not.

C401.2 Application.

Commercial buildings shall comply with one of the following:

1. The requirements of ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1.

2. The requirements of Sections C402, C403, C404 and C405. In addition, commercial buildings shall comply with either Section C406.2, C406.3 or C406.4.

3. The requirements of Section C407, C402.4, C403.2, C404, C405.2, C405.3, C405.4, C405.6 and C405.7. The building energy cost shall be equal to or less than 85 percent of the standard reference design building.

and the ASHRAE 90.1 gives 2 paths..
 
Hey Jim its Justin how are you feeling. Sorry I was not able to come down on Friday to check in with you. Tell Patty I said hi.

Sorry to go off topic.

jpranch said:
Sorry to be late to the party. Been out of town and then the darn flu hit me. I can help with this one. The scope of all the codes are determined by the board of directors. Chapter 34 was a scoping issue. I'm very happy to say the decision by the board was to fully support the code adoption process voted on by the membership. I can also add that some think that this was a move just to sell more code books. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
 
I like all the different codes in their own books, I'm starting to have a hard time hauling around the IRC : ))))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top