• 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

I have no concrete data but I doubt that a majority of jurisdictions are adopting each and every cycle of the building codes. I do not believe that going to a 5 year cycle would have to result in financial doom for ICC. I would support 5 year cycle and an increase in the cost of the code books for each cycle that would be comparable to what ICC realizes in income from code sales over a 6 year period(2 cycles). While some jurisdictions may still skip adopting a code cycle, it is my personal opinion that the vast majority will adopt each cycle so as not to be 10 years out on what they are enforcing. Ultimately more dollars will be collected on code sales and education income would remain static because we still need CEU's to maintain certificaions.
 
Min&Max said:
I have no concrete data but I doubt that a majority of jurisdictions are adopting each and every cycle of the building codes. I do not believe that going to a 5 year cycle would have to result in financial doom for ICC. I would support 5 year cycle and an increase in the cost of the code books for each cycle that would be comparable to what ICC realizes in income from code sales over a 6 year period(2 cycles). While some jurisdictions may still skip adopting a code cycle, it is my personal opinion that the vast majority will adopt each cycle so as not to be 10 years out on what they are enforcing. Ultimately more dollars will be collected on code sales and education income would remain static because we still need CEU's to maintain certificaions.
Click to expand...
Excellent point. I was hoping that someone was going to go there. There is the question out there about weather we are already / currently in an extended code cycle with many jurisdictions historically skipping code editions. I do know that we (ICC) are gathering that data.
 
I understand we need to keep up with emerging technology and other advancements in the way we construct buildings and have to amend codes to allow it, but....are the codes so broken that we have to fix them every 3 years?
 
Every 3 years our I.T. department completely replaces each employees computer system. This is not to mention all the upgrades during that same 3 year period. I think that there may be a parallel here?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mjesse said “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.”

My arguments are based on the 14th amendment to the US Constitution which applies to all states and local governmental entities. There are some limits on what the local governments can do in adopting building codes. One of these is that due process must be followed. This insures that the codes are a reflection of the will of the people and not something imposed by one individual. This also makes it clear what the rules are.

How would you feel if each police officer had his own personal set of laws? For example assume the speed limit is posted as 35 mph but you are given a speeding ticket for going 25 mph because the officer on duty believes the speed limit should have been 20 mph. Will you believe the police officer acted properly?

I do not believe the courts will be sympathetic to the argument that your municipality can ignore the US Constitution.

Separate from the constraints imposed by the US Constitution and Federal laws your municipality may be limited by State laws. Some states give local jurisdiction great flexibility while others impose the requirements and do not allow any local amendments.

To jpranch who stated “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?”

If the code established a performance standard such as NFPA 80 and does not specify anything that would explicitly preclude the new product and the manufacturer can provide the test data to show compliance with the performance standard then they can use the product. Any “approval” by the building official is based on whether the entity proposing the use of the product has provided evidence that the product conforms to the performance standard.

This new product would be treated as any other code compliant product. Unless the building official could show that the product did not conform to the performance criteria or some other code provision the building official would be compelled to allow the use of the product irregardless of his or her personal opinion.

Certification by UL, IAPMO, ICC-ES… is not required since the manufacturer can have the testing performed at any testing agency that the building official is willing to accept. I know that UL criteria is referenced in the code but there is a difference between compliance with the criteria and UL certification.

You will find that ICC-ES does not certify that the individual products delivered to the project complies with the standard. They just determine that the manufacturer has produced test samples that comply with the criteria adopted by ICC-ES. ICC-ES confuses the issue because their evaluation reports do not differentiate between products that comply with the adopted code and products that they propose be accepted as alternate means of compliance.

If the new product does not comply with the criteria in the code the opinions of UL, IAPMO, or ICC-ES do nothing to change the legal standing.

The basic point is that the building official is given great latitude in interpreting the building code but he cannot modify the code on his own. To modify the adopted code he needs the body who adopted the code to formally adopt the modification.

Some times there will be honest disagreements regarding whether something is an interpretation or a code change and in such situations the courts have a very strong bias in favor of the building official. On the other hand if you have difficulty keeping a straight face when explaining your interpretation you have probably gone too far.
 
On a more lighthearted note. Rest deleted. My very poor attempt at levity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mark this is not a speed limit issue! Nor a constitutional issue. Each state has the right to adopt or not. ICC would like everyone to buy new boo k every three years. The question is do you believe 3 years is fine or should it be something else. You can look at the business side and say well CEU's will remain because we need them. You can raise the cost for what ever cycle vote in 3, 4, 5, 6 what ever.

I don't believe the codes are broken now. Could they use improvement yes and a code you write next month may need improvement six months down the street.

By going out more than three years it may just produce a major loss of revenue for ICC and a disconnect with the code officials. The disconnect with the code officials has happen over the last 6 years and is just now starting to turn around. The current cycle does produce a constant contact for what is changing and coming next. JMHO.
 
Just an fyi. Changes in relation to healthcare over the coming cycles are going to be major. It's a sure bet.
 
As High Desert question are the codes broken now? I would agree they are not. They always can use improvement. However, it seems we are just adding volumes of ink. 2006 IRC to 2009 IRC added 200 pages +/-. Is all of that needed?

The hearings have been split up because they are too long. What will happen on a five year cycle?
 
Sorry, I should have been a lot more clear. I was referring to the codes and how healthcare building are constructed. An example is a new use category for skilled nursing facilities, larger allowable smoke compartments, unenclosed 2 story atrium's without a smoke evac system, etc...
 
Mark K said:
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...
I have to respectfully disagree.

IBC SECTION 104

DUTIES AND POWERS OF BUILDING OFFICIAL

[A] 104.1 General. The building official is hereby authorized

and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building

official shall have the authority to render interpretations

of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to

clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations,

policies and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent

and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall

not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided

for in this code.

Nothing illegal about rendering interpretations.

I don't see my actions as rewriting the code.

You also state "he is effectively modifying the building code. The building official does not and cannot have that authority...."

Again I disagree. 104.10 gives exactly that authority.

I believe the "it takes too long to recognize emerging technologies with a longer code cycle" arguement is flawed and invalid. Errata, emergency rule making, AMM, modification, interpreation by BO and policy are all tools that can be used to address this arguement.

Thanks for the discussion though.

like i said before. Give me a 5 year code cycle and charge me 30-40 % more for the books. Keep my per year book cost the same. My expense and headache is on the indirect side.
 
Righter101

I have not said that the building official cannot issue interpretations. But there is a difference between an interpretation and modifying the code.

Section 104.10 can be read two ways one legal and one illegal. If Section 104.10 is understood to deal with unusual situations that happen infrequently and where it is not feasible to comply with the code then it is likely legal. I would normally expect this to occur when an existing building is being modified. On the other hand if we are dealing with something that will be used frequently where there are code compliant solutions then it is not legal.

Irregardless of the language in the building code if the municipality that adopts the code does not have the authority to allow something then the code cannot allow it.

Emergency rule making is always an option.

If a building official has the authority to do whatever he wants then he effectively has a veto over the municipality that adopted the code? Why should the municipality adopt a building code if the building official can do what he wants?

It might be interesting to hear building officials state what they do not have the authority to allow. What are the limits on the Building Officials authority?
 
Mark K said:
If a building official has the authority to do whatever he wants then he effectively has a veto over the municipality that adopted the code? Why should the municipality adopt a building code if the building official can do what he wants?

It might be interesting to hear building officials state what they do not have the authority to allow. What are the limits on the Building Officials authority?
Click to expand...
The limits on the BO's authority are limited by the Codes/Rules/Laws of the AHJ.

Using your speed limit analogy;

If the AHJ posts the 2009 iCodes with no amendments ("speed limit"), the BO's limits are defined in the book.

The AHJ has the rights afforded to it by the Fed. and State government. AHJ may not have to adopt or enforce a Code at all. They could write their own Code. They can modify the iCodes so much, you wouldn't recognize them...that's their prerogative.

As long as the BO acts within the adopted Ordinances, his actions are defensible. For example, We've adopted 2009 IRC, but excluded RFS, I not looking to violate the constitution with our amendment and interpretation, but I'm fairly confident it's legal.

Don't give the Code more power than the AHJ. I know many people would like to see it that way, but it's not so at the moment.

mj
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top