• 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.

Referenced Standards

Glenn said:
I think that is more than fair. The "information" is free. The packaging of the information for convenient professional use is not. I use the free viewing as a professional quite often and I invest in the better packaging when it's worth it for my needs.

I think any standards organization that does this should be applauded and we should shout it from the mountaintop in a positive way.

Check out NADRA and my proposal for the 2024 IRC, RB132-22. The AWPA does not offer free viewing of their M4 standard that is required for field treatment of treated lumber. It's $40 for three pages of what is basically "the mandatory installation instructions for treated lumber". THAT is something to complain about. I have for years and they won't budge. So, I wrote a proposal to put that information directly in the IRC where it can be viewed for free.

For me... NFPA, ICC, UL, AISI, AWC and the others with free viewing are champs and should be applauded as such. Perhaps a positive response to them would help encourage AWPA and the others with paywalls to do better in the future.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean to disparage NFPA. I've been a member since 1987, am on several committees, and was even awarded a lifetime achievement award a few years ago. So count me as a supporter if NFPA as well as ICC.

I believe both are non-governmental not for profit corporations. Hard to think of not for profits as monopolistic.
 
ICC has an effective monopoly on the model codes used in the US. In addition ICC has used their market power to encourage manufacturers to pay for evaluation reports. The existence of an ER can effectively result in the modification of the building code to allow products not addressed in the code. If you want to avoid the process of modifying the code to allow new products just pay for an Evaluation Report.

Sure ICC is not allowed to make a profit but they can use the additional money to build and support an empire.
 
Mark K said:
If a jurisdiction does not have access to all of the standards referenced in the code how can they claim to enforce all of the code?
Click to expand...
The majority of the standards are for design and fabrication for which I do not need the standard to verify the product meets code
 
Mark K said:
Sure ICC is not allowed to make a profit but they can use the additional money to build and support an empire.
Click to expand...
So what's your alternative? I suppose if it's so profitable a for profit corporation might step in. Surprised that ICBO, BOCA, and SBCCI didn't thrive and prosper, and had to consolidate.
 
Pardon but it is my understanding is that part of the role of the building department is to verify that the design, and not just the products, comply with the code and that the fabrication requirements in the code are complied with. If the building department personnel do not have access to the adopted standards, how can they enforce them?

With regards to ICC my point is that ICC has agenda that may not always be compatible with their promoting codes that protect the public. From personal experience I am aware of a case where ICC-ES issued an ER with higher values than should have been reported. My suspicion is that either staff was overworked or was too differential to what the applicant reported. If your income is dependent on manufacturers paying for evaluation reports, you are not inclined to giving the client a hard time.

I suggest that ICC is in effect a for profit organization except that instead of the profit going to the stockholders the "profit" is used by staff to maintain and expand an internal empire.
 
Mark K said:
Pardon but it is my understanding is that part of the role of the building department is to verify that the design, and not just the products, comply with the code and that the fabrication requirements in the code are complied with. If the building department personnel do not have access to the adopted standards, how can they enforce them?

With regards to ICC my point is that ICC has agenda that may not always be compatible with their promoting codes that protect the public. From personal experience I am aware of a case where ICC-ES issued an ER with higher values than should have been reported. My suspicion is that either staff was overworked or was too differential to what the applicant reported. If your income is dependent on manufacturers paying for evaluation reports, you are not inclined to giving the client a hard time.

I suggest that ICC is in effect a for profit organization except that instead of the profit going to the stockholders the "profit" is used by staff to maintain and expand an internal empire.
Click to expand...
The last I heard, a few years ago or so, it was shrinking and I heard a rumor there were across the board pay cuts, so we obviously have different views of "empire".

Still don't know of an alternative.

And has been pointed out, ICC codes and standards, as well as NFPA's, are available to read.

As a designer, I buy them, and it's a tiny part of my expenses. I guess if the adopting units of government paid - i.e. the taxpayers - I would pay a tiny bit more in taxes.
 
There are alternates but first we need to recognize the need to act consistent with our system of laws.

Those needing to understand the building code should not have to pay for access to the law. Also we need to recognize that the building department's role is limited to enforcing the adopted codes. Any building codes must be adopted in accordance with state laws. We also need to recognize that the practice of effectively modifying the code by the use of evaluation reports is not consistent with our system of laws.

If we start with those principles this will not be the end of the world and if it causes anguish to some so be it. In fact, I suggest the amount of anguish would be an identification of the problems with the current system. What is wrong with acting consistent with our system of laws?
 
Mark K said:
There are alternates but first we need to recognize the need to act consistent with our system of laws.

Those needing to understand the building code should not have to pay for access to the law. Also we need to recognize that the building department's role is limited to enforcing the adopted codes. Any building codes must be adopted in accordance with state laws. We also need to recognize that the practice of effectively modifying the code by the use of evaluation reports is not consistent with our system of laws.

If we start with those principles this will not be the end of the world and if it causes anguish to some so be it. In fact, I suggest the amount of anguish would be an identification of the problems with the current system. What is wrong with acting consistent with our system of laws?
Click to expand...
It seems ICC and NFPA is lawful. I've never had to buy a standard. Please feel free to pursue the SDOs who you feel are not lawful.

I don't deal with evaluation reports, and leave that to others. That seems to be a problem for manufacturers.
 
Mark K said:
If a jurisdiction does not have access to all of the standards referenced in the code how can they claim to enforce all of the code? The net effect is that those making the decision not to purchase the standards have effectively illegally decided to modify the code. Only the entity authorized to adopt the code can modify it and such modifications must be subject to due process.

We cannot force the building department personnel to read all of the standards, but we can insist that they at least have the opportunity to read the standards.
Click to expand...
I think it may be important to differentiate between manufacturing standards and design/installation standards.

It would be challenging if not impossible for building officials to enforce most of the manufacturing standards, with exception of labelling requirements.

I would agree with you on the design and installation standards. If the jurisdiction cannot afford them, they cannot afford to deliver the service.

The next major hurdle is education to enforce the standards...
 
A building department may hire third parties to assist but only the government entity has the legal authority to enforce the building codes.

My understanding is that in California the building departments are required to have copies of the building code for view by the public.
 
We will still have model codes and reference standards if they do not have copyright when adopted into the building code.

One approach would be to consider the adoption of a reference standard as a taking. This would require the jurisdiction adopting the standard to reimburse the authors of the standard for their production costs, not the printing or the lost profits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top