• 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

Resolution 2013-6

mjesse

mjesse

Registered User
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
987
Location
Lincolnshire, IL.
I received the ICC mailer outlining the Annual Business Meeting Agenda.

I see that Resolution 2013-6 proposes the 5 year Code Cycle. The ICC Resolutions Committee recommends Members vote against its approval.

I know we've discussed this here in the past, with several forum members supporting the longer Code cycle.

Thoughts on the upcoming vote?

Thanks
 
We have a 5 year code cycle in Canada. The main problem you are going to see is that 5 years is a long time for a product to sit before it can be used in the field. Since we use an objective based code the manufacturers of products that are not explicitly permitted by code can complete an alternate solution showing that it complies with the intent of the code. Since all of our code sections are rooted in the objectives this is relatively easy to accomplish. Since the ICC produces consensus based codes this is not going to be possible. If the ICC wanted to move to a longer code cycle (I doubt it would since it would mean less revenue and it is after all a business) the first thing to do would be to move to a objective based code (a massive undertaking. it took Canada 10 years to complete), then add provisions for workarounds to still meet the intent of the code.
 
I would support a five year cycle. Here in CT we are still on the 03' version of the codes and planning on switching to the 09'IRC in Oct and then the 2012 editions in 2015. It takes roughly 24 months to have a new code adopted in CT.
 
Just wonder what is the average code adoption cycle in ahj's United States wide?
 
cda said:
Just wonder what is the average code adoption cycle in ahj's United States wide?
Click to expand...
That would be an interesting study to see.

We have historically adopted every 6 years, and/or every other Code cycle. It is much too expensive and time consuming for us to change every 3.

The State mandates Plumbing (State Code) Energy (2012 ICC) and 2000 NFPA101 (SFR exempt).

Locally, we have adopted;

2000 ICC Codes in 2001

2006 ICC Codes in 2007

2009 ICC Codes in 2012

mj
 
California updates its codes every 3 years. This has not resulted in major problems.
 
In the case of Missouri how do people buy copies of the 97 UBC? I am assuming it is no longer published. I believe there will be similar problems with the reference standards. Second since the IRC is closely related to the IBC are there any difficulties when you are using the IRC but then have to make use of the UBC?
 
cda said:
Just wonder what is the average code adoption cycle in ahj's United States wide?
Click to expand...
State of Washington madates all jurisdictions adopt on a three year cycle. We adopt July 1 of the following year. So this July 1, we are now on the 2012.

Recently there was a survey by WABO (Washington Association of Building Officials) to switch the state to every other cycle, essentially a 6 year cycle. Of course the ICC lobbied very heavy against this. I am in favor of a 5 or 6 year cycle. I just thought it was futile to try to lobby the ICC.

I think that new prodcuts can eaisly be approved under AMM, so a 5 year vs 3 year cycle doesn't matter. If a new product comes out the day after the codes are published, we can consider and approve it under AMM regardless of when the next cycle is.

As far as $$, the ICC is technically a non-profit, however, they have morphed in to a large quasi-governement bueacracy, with more expenses and more prodcuts to keep a larger network moving.

I would gladly pay 40% more for books and training materials the same. The direct costs of the books are not what hits us the hardest, it is the indirect costs. Number of staff hours for training every 3 years. Travel time. Cost of updating forms and literature. Cost of explaining changes. We have permits that are open under a whole string of codes, leading to confusion as to when it was applied for, what codes were in affect at that time, etc.

While there have been a number of great advances in the codes, I personally feel that a number of the changes are being made due to industry lobbying as well as making changes for the sake of changes.

JMHO. I will be voting for the 5 year cycles and encouraging everyone I know to do the same. Again, I am more than willing to accept an increase in book and training manual costs to offset the frequency of the sales.
 
Mark K said:
In the case of Missouri how do people buy copies of the 97 UBC? I am assuming it is no longer published. I believe there will be similar problems with the reference standards. Second since the IRC is closely related to the IBC are there any difficulties when you are using the IRC but then have to make use of the UBC?
Click to expand...
It can be difficult
 
This can be a complicated issue as there are a lot of thinks to consider. I thought that I would jump in here so you know where I stand on this. At this time I cannot support the resolution. The reason is simple, it would be a financial disaster for the ICC and I do not want to see this association go down. Now with that said I'm more that open to the idea of longer code cycles as long as we have the time to change our business model to support it. So let me get out the crystal ball for perhaps where the ICC is and where it's heading. I see the ICC at the leading edge of transition as we work to secure out intellectual property I.e. codes and standards and will perhaps in the future they will be available for free. I see us providing other ways for industry to bring new code compliant products to market faster and more efficiently. I also see more and more jurisdictions taking the cumulative effect of all the codes they adopt into account in their decisions to adopt or not to adopt. So there it is, that's where I'm at. Please feel free to have at it. I know that you all are not shy!
 
Pennsylvania is taking a look at adopting codes as written by the ICC:

The state commission tasked with reviewing updates to Pennsylvania’s building codes may be in for a few tweaks in its operating procedure.A 2011 law shifted the process for the panel to make it easier to reject than accept code updates, like energy efficiency and safety requirements.

Home builders fought the state’s 2009 building code updates, saying they would tack on $15,000 to the cost of each house. Thompson said that figure has grown based on proposed code updates for 2015.

"We know what the proposals are," he said. "So if every one though is adopted, it would be about $42,000 per house, in increased cost."¹
Click to expand...
After witnessing the corruption of the code proves in Minnesota I think all states should debate all provisions of new codes before state adoption, note that they specifically mention energy and safety codes, forcing us to seal up buildings then force us to cut holes in walls is ridiculous to meet IAQ requirements, the manufacturers and environmental groups may be able to buy the code process but the states should look long and hard before adopting them.

¹ State Lawmakers Mull Changes to How Building Code Panel Operates | 90.5 WESA
 
Jpranch stated “I see us providing other ways for industry to bring new code compliant products to market faster and more efficiently.”

Let us be clear regarding what we mean by code compliant product. If a product is code compliant all it takes is having the appropriate testing performed and then ramp up manufacturing and start selling the product. If we are talking about a product which the code does not address then the product is not compliant.

Individuals have used IBC Section 104.11 to justify the use of these products based on claims of equivalency and intent. Section 104.11 was intended to deal with unusual situations the problem is that building officials and manufacturers are using this section to justify de facto code changes to the adopted codes allowing the use of these products on a regular basis. This is illegal.

The ICC publication “Legal Aspects of Code Administration” makes the point that provisions intended to deal with unusual situations cannot be used to modify the building code. This is because of the need for due process as required by the US Constitution. Thus for products that are not addressed in the code this longer code cycle will mean that it will take longer for many new products to become code compliant.

Righter11 stated “I think that new products can easily be approved under AMM, so a 5 year vs 3 year cycle doesn't matter. If a new product comes out the day after the codes are published, we can consider and approve it under AMM regardless of when the next cycle is.”

This reflects a common misconception. When a building official develops a policy to automatically approve a product that is not addressed in the approved building code he is effectively modifying the building code. The building official does not and cannot have that authority for the reason stated above. Because the requirement for due process comes from the US Constitution neither the state or the local governments can change this fact.

Just because a provision is in the building code does not make it legal.

Related to this is the belief that ICC-ES Evaluation Reports make the product code legal. ICC-ES is a private entity and has no authority to make changes to the locally adopted building codes. This must be done by the legislative body that adopted the building code. For the reasons noted above building officials who automatically allow products with evaluation reports are acting illegally.

If you want to shorten the time for adoption of new products you need to shorten the code development process, shorten the code adoption process, and for the model codes to have a preference for performance criteria as opposed to prescriptive provisions. States, and cities and counties where the codes are adopted locally, can be part of the solution if they are willing to adopt interim amendments.
 
Mark K said:
Jpranch stated “I see us providing other ways for industry to bring new code compliant products to market faster and more efficiently.”Let us be clear regarding what we mean by code compliant product. If a product is code compliant all it takes is having the appropriate testing performed and then ramp up manufacturing and start selling the product. If we are talking about a product which the code does not address then the product is not compliant.

Individuals have used IBC Section 104.11 to justify the use of these products based on claims of equivalency and intent. Section 104.11 was intended to deal with unusual situations the problem is that building officials and manufacturers are using this section to justify de facto code changes to the adopted codes allowing the use of these products on a regular basis. This is illegal.

The ICC publication “Legal Aspects of Code Administration” makes the point that provisions intended to deal with unusual situations cannot be used to modify the building code. This is because of the need for due process as required by the US Constitution. Thus for products that are not addressed in the code this longer code cycle will mean that it will take longer for many new products to become code compliant.

Righter11 stated “I think that new products can easily be approved under AMM, so a 5 year vs 3 year cycle doesn't matter. If a new product comes out the day after the codes are published, we can consider and approve it under AMM regardless of when the next cycle is.”

This reflects a common misconception. When a building official develops a policy to automatically approve a product that is not addressed in the approved building code he is effectively modifying the building code. The building official does not and cannot have that authority for the reason stated above. Because the requirement for due process comes from the US Constitution neither the state or the local governments can change this fact.

Just because a provision is in the building code does not make it legal.

Related to this is the belief that ICC-ES Evaluation Reports make the product code legal. ICC-ES is a private entity and has no authority to make changes to the locally adopted building codes. This must be done by the legislative body that adopted the building code. For the reasons noted above building officials who automatically allow products with evaluation reports are acting illegally.

If you want to shorten the time for adoption of new products you need to shorten the code development process, shorten the code adoption process, and for the model codes to have a preference for performance criteria as opposed to prescriptive provisions. States, and cities and counties where the codes are adopted locally, can be part of the solution if they are willing to adopt interim amendments.
Click to expand...
Are you advocating to shorten the code cycle? So if the code says that you have a 2 story atrium and the second floor shall be separated by 45 minute construction in an I-2 and the design professional offers to install a smoke evacuation system and wants to eliminate the 45 minute separation the code requires which would be not be required for a 3 story atrium with a smoke evac system without any separation is not equivalent and meeting the intent of the code is illegal and the code official cannot make the call?
 
I am saying that when there is something truly unique about a project that warrants an exception there needs to be a safety valve. When there is something that occurs regularly on a good percentage of the projects you should either get the code modified or find another way of doing it. The current approach is for the building official to adopt a de facto code modification. The fact that he does not have this authority is supported by an ICC publication.

There is often no clear line between what is allowed and what is not but what is clear is that standard practice regularly and clearly crosses the line.

This is a legal argument not a moral, practical, or technical argument. What I am stating is what one needs to do to comply with our system of laws. If the law is broken you either fix it, comply with it, or practice civil disobedience. A key element of civil disobedience is to admit that you are braking the law and then accept the consequences of your actions.

The example you gave is probably easier to justify because few buildings would have that same combination of facts. On the other hand you have a number of products that are not addressed in the code that are regularly used based on an evaluation report, which has no legal standing. The situations related to the use of these products is essentially identical in every situation thus making it difficult to claim a unique situation.

To deal with these situations we need to have a way to get the new product types into the code as fast as possible. Shorter code cycles may help but the model code development process is also a concern. It is not just ICC. One also has to look at the timeline for modifications to the reference standards.

What I am doing is pointing out a disconnect between the legal system that limits what we can do and what is regularly done. In some cases this is like the emperor's new clothes. We could go along pretending that there was no problem and them all of a sudden somebody decides to litigate a key issue and the house of cards falls down.

I suggest that we first realize that we have a problem. Then we look at how we can reduce the disconnect as soon as possible while at the same time considering what sort of long term changes are needed. Before we can do this we need to understand what is legally possible.
 
It is well understood that just because you have a building permit it does not allow code violations that were not identified by the plan checker. I suggest that the use of alternate methods and materials (Section 104.11) is not legal unless the building official has indicated his acceptance of this alternate. This would mean that many if not most use of alternate products (Section 104.11) are not valid because there is no record of this acceptance. The issuance of the permit cannot constitute the acceptance of these projects or else you are also giving them a pass on any code violations you missed.

Thus I suggest that building departments get in the habit of specifically listing each of these alternates on a form or on the permit drawings and charging an administrative fee to cover the cost of approving these alternates.
 
Does the ICC publish revisions and errata? That could be a way of dealing with the problem of getting new products into the code and have longer code cycles.
 
Mark K said:
The ICC publication “Legal Aspects of Code Administration” makes the point that provisions intended to deal with unusual situations cannot be used to modify the building code. This is because of the need for due process as required by the US Constitution.

The building official does not and cannot have that authority for the reason stated above. Because the requirement for due process comes from the US Constitution neither the state or the local governments can change this fact.

Just because a provision is in the building code does not make it legal.

Related to this is the belief that ICC-ES Evaluation Reports make the product code legal. ICC-ES is a private entity and has no authority to make changes to the locally adopted building codes. This must be done by the legislative body that adopted the building code. For the reasons noted above building officials who automatically allow products with evaluation reports are acting illegally.
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree.

Until the Federal Government mandates the Code, these arguments do not apply.

The Ordinances in our municipality are driven by the adoption by reference of certain Codes, The Mayor and Board can pick, choose, modify, interpret as they see fit. Nothing illegal there.

We don't have to adopt or enforce any Code for that matter. If local regulations appoint the Building Official to make all rules and judgments, so be it. The Code is not law unless specifically indicated by the AHJ.

mj
 
Conarb: PA is totally politically driven. They adopt piecemeal. I hope ICC has moved beyond Minnesota and the fire issues. From my time at hearings since Baltimore I feel ICC is starting to turn around.

As for code cycles going every 5 years an the resolution I would not support it. There are so many things to be concerned with. Believe me I am not about adding ink and selling or buying code books, but the building environment is changing to fast.
 
If the ICC is publishing Codes that no jurisdiction adopts, how is that good business?

...oh I know....The ICC gets in bed with State government, and convinces them that adopting every edition and mandating it Statewide is in everyone's best interest.

mj
 
mjesse said:
If the ICC is publishing Codes that no jurisdiction adopts, how is that good business?...oh I know....The ICC gets in bed with State government, and convinces them that adopting every edition and mandating it Statewide is in everyone's best interest.

mj
Click to expand...
Count me out. I'm not getting into any bed with anybody except my beloved wife of 31 years!
 
So if I discovered a new manufacturing process the make 20, 45, 60 minute fire rated doors out of a super plastic at half the cost of conventional wood and steel doors and my new product meets NFPA 80 and has been tested and certified by UL, IAMPO, ICC ES, etc... are you saying that as the Building Official I do not have a legal standing to approve it?
 
When you look at the code / ICC group of code there are many sections that have basic mandatory provisions and sections that allow for prescriptive elements. Coupled with this is interpolation of some things with in the codes. It is the Local BO's job to determine if a proposal meets the code. In the same breath the codes defer to the manufacturer's installation requirements. Oh yes they have to equal or exceed the code. So I would say you have the power to approve Jim if in the BO mind the product meets or exceeds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top