Supreme Court Ruling on Building Codes

[steveray]

I'm in the code does not tell you where you need a designer camp....

[A] 107.1 General. Submittal documents consisting of construction
documents, statement of special inspections, geotechnical
report and other data shall be submitted in two or
more sets with each permit application. The construction documents
shall be prepared by a registered design professional
where required by the statutes of the jurisdiction in which the
project is to be constructed.

There is a lot of talk of "engineered design" and things like that in the code which could be done by unlicensed people but the State Law will trump that...

[A] 102.2 Other laws. The provisions of this code shall not
be deemed to nullify any provisions of local, state or federal
law.

[A] 105.4 Validity of permit. The issuance or granting of a
permit shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an
approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this
code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction.

 

[Rick18071]

PA took Chapter 1 out of it's code and replaced it. This is what it says under Permit and Inspection Process for Commercial Construction:

(c) A licensed architect or licensed professional engineer shall prepare the construction documents under the Architects Licensure Law (63 P. S. § § 34.1—34.22), or the Engineer, Land Surveyor and Geologist Registration Law (63 P. S. § § 148—158.2). An unlicensed person may prepare design documents for the remodeling or alteration of a building if there is no compensation and the remodeling or alteration does not relate to additions to the building or changes to the building’s structure or means of egress.

 

[Mark K]

tmurray is not arguing the law but rather hides behind the fact that somebody is proposing an alternate position. Interesting since this means that there cannot be any discussion of the matter and since we cannot discuss the issue there cannot be change thus allowing what I believe is his position, to prevail.

 

[Glenn]

Ok, but you said "you don't need UpCodes and lawsuits to learn deck codes."
But maybe some people do. The IRC costs about $150, so Upcodes might serve to help a typical homeowner obtain the code and understand what it takes to build a deck or do any other work on his home. Then he can decide if he can still do it or bring on a builder.

ICC or the state agency could ask the ICC foundation to fund donating the codes to public libraries.

Anyway it appears you are embracing the article. Hopefully you can make use of it when you talk about the keys to safe deck construction.

You're killing me... are you a media journalist, Ha, ha!, because you quoted HALF my statement, which ended, in HA HA!!

Here's what I said and the bold part you missed. "You don't need UpCodes and lawsuits to learn deck codes. I got that one covered for everyone, ha, ha!"

How can I even have a conversation with someone that responds only to the "set up" and not the "punchline" of the joke...

FREE viewing of I-codes. www.codes.iccsafe.org

 

[Mark K]

In the case of PA if the change was made directly by the legislature by means of a statute there is no problem. If the change was made by a state agency I would assume that they are trying to restate law recognizing that the controlling criteria is what the legislature said and that any language in the building code that is in conflict is not valid.

I am not a fan of trying to restating state statute in the building code since inevitably there are differences between the restatement and the actual language adopted by the legislature. This results in confusion.

 

[Rick18071]

In the case of PA it was not a change but it is the original law made directly by the legislature to establish a state wide uniform code in 2002.

 

[tmurray]

tmurray is not arguing the law but rather hides behind the fact that somebody is proposing an alternate position. Interesting since this means that there cannot be any discussion of the matter and since we cannot discuss the issue there cannot be change thus allowing what I believe is his position, to prevail.

You are right. I am not arguing the law. I am stating the fact that you have had this argument on this site with many others before. The end result before was that people had to agree to disagree.

I'm not saying you can't keep making the same argument with, what I anticipate, to be the same results. I really don't care. I'm just questioning if this is the best use of your time.

 

[Paul Sweet]

"If the ICC were to stop publishing the ICC Codes life would go on"

I believe the NFPA already has a model code. It went over like a lead balloon, but it would be available in the unlikely event the ICC evaporated.

 

[CodeWarrior]

I question if the average person can pick up a code book and build a deck from it. It's not exactly a "how to" document. I feel the public is well served with practical, step-by-step, written in plain English documents on how to build something like a deck. The reality is if we make it easy to do it right, more people will do it right from the start.

I find it interesting about this whole argument about ICC is that ICC is providing a service to the government for free. The model codes created by ICC are turned into law by the state and local government, so ICC is essentially writing the laws for these entities for free. Yes, many of these entities also employ inspectors that buy code books and take courses, but maybe this business model is failing. Maybe a better model would be for any government agency that wants to adopt the code must pay ICC for the development of that code.

The ICC Foundation is already supporting the code development of ICC effort via grants. I don't believe ICC can accept donations but their foundation can. I have some experience serving a foundation, and raising funds is not easy, but it can be done and ICC would not have to have to rely in internally generated revenues as much toward the code writing. Anyone at ICC will likely tell you charging a fee to participate in the code writing might discourage participation. Most standards writing organizations in the US like ICC rely on paying members to write the codes, people who donate their time. In some cases, the SDO pays the travel expenses for the committee members, but that's about it.

 

[CodeWarrior]

You're killing me... are you a media journalist, Ha, ha!, because you quoted HALF my statement, which ended, in HA HA!!

Here's what I said and the bold part you missed. "You don't need UpCodes and lawsuits to learn deck codes. I got that one covered for everyone, ha, ha!"

How can I even have a conversation with someone that responds only to the "set up" and not the "punchline" of the joke...

FREE viewing of I-codes. www.codes.iccsafe.org

NADRA said there are 40 million decks over 20 years old in the country. Sounds like you have a lot of ground to cover, ha ha.

 

[tmurray]

The ICC Foundation is already supporting the code development of ICC effort via grants. I don't believe ICC can accept donations but their foundation can. I have some experience serving a foundation, and raising funds is not easy, but it can be done and ICC would not have to have to rely in internally generated revenues as much toward the code writing. Anyone at ICC will likely tell you charging a fee to participate in the code writing might discourage participation. Most standards writing organizations in the US like ICC rely on paying members to write the codes, people who donate their time. In some cases, the SDO pays the travel expenses for the committee members, but that's about it.

Ah, yes, pay to play.

I like to look at the standard development committees and count how many are representatives from manufacturers and special interests.

 

[CodeWarrior]

Ah, yes, pay to play.

I like to look at the standard development committees and count how many are representatives from manufacturers and special interests.

Several of the SDOs balance the membership to limit the number of manufacturers, which would otherwise over run the committees. The count may be high, but many attend as non voting observers.

 

[Pcinspector1]

The way the article reads to me is that the "code is law" and unprotected, but the notes or commentary are off limits....But obviously without all of the facts of the case it is tough to say...

I think you have that right, steveray.

I would think if an author of a book that indicates "the changes in a code commentary" would be able to have that book copyrighted, it's telling you the changes in code or the law. So books that are published by the ICC or others in this regard would be allowed to be copyrighted, IMO.