The Case for a Pennsylvania Building Code: Simplifying Construction Standards for the Keystone State

In the world of building codes, consistency and clarity are paramount for ensuring safe and efficient construction practices. Florida serves as a prime example of how adopting a uniform set of building codes based on the International Codes (I-Codes) can streamline the construction process while allowing for regional adjustments. Florida's approach with the Florida Building Code (FBC) has set a standard that Pennsylvania should urgently consider emulating to address the chaotic state of its current Uniform Construction Code (UCC).

Florida's Model: A Blueprint for Success

Florida’s building codes are a direct adaptation of the I-Codes, with modifications specific to the state’s unique needs. This alignment allows Florida to stay current with the latest updates in the I-Codes while making necessary adjustments for local conditions. For instance, the 2023 Florida Building Code is based on the 2021 International Building Code (IBC), ensuring a solid and contemporary foundation for state regulations.

The benefits of this system are manifold. Contractors, inspectors, and plans examiners operate with a clear understanding of the requirements, fostering an environment of compliance and safety. Florida's segmented codes—FBC Commercial, FBC Residential (equivalent to the IRC), FBC Plumbing, FBC Mechanical, FBC Energy, and FBC Accessibility—offer a structured yet flexible framework that accommodates the state’s diverse construction needs.

Pennsylvania's Code Chaos: A Call for Reform

In stark contrast, Pennsylvania's approach to building codes has resulted in a fragmented and convoluted system. The extensive legislative and Residential Advisory Committee (RAC) changes have led to a UCC that is anything but uniform. This disarray not only confounds contractors but also hampers inspectors and plans examiners, who must navigate multiple iterations of the IBC to issue a single permit.

The influence of special interest groups, including contractors, home builders, and other lobbyists, has further muddied the waters. The result is a set of regulations that lack coherence and are difficult to enforce consistently. This situation places undue burdens on professionals in the field and compromises the safety and integrity of Pennsylvania’s construction practices.

The Bigger Picture: A Customized Pennsylvania Building Code (PBC)

The core issue is that Pennsylvania is not simply adopting the I-Codes; it is creating a separate list of changes that govern these codes. This results in a cumbersome process where inspectors must cross-reference the state’s website to ensure compliance, creating confusion and inefficiency. Pennsylvania needs to incorporate all state-specific changes directly into printed and PDF versions of the I-Codes, creating a customized Pennsylvania Building Code (PBC).

This approach would:

1. Simplify Compliance: A unified PBC would eliminate the need for multiple IBCs and separate state amendments, making it easier for contractors and inspectors to understand and apply the rules.
2. Ensure Consistency: Standardized codes across the state would foster uniformity in construction practices, enhancing safety and quality.
3. Adapt to Local Needs: While based on the I-Codes, the PBC can incorporate necessary adjustments for Pennsylvania’s unique conditions, much like Florida’s modifications for its specific climate and geography.
4. Reduce Lobbyist Influence: By establishing a clear and consistent code, Pennsylvania can mitigate the disruptive impact of lobbying by special interest groups, ensuring that the primary focus remains on safety and efficiency.

A Call to Action

The current state of Pennsylvania's UCC is untenable. The myriad changes and the resulting confusion undermine the effectiveness of the code and place unnecessary strain on all stakeholders involved. It is imperative that Pennsylvania follows Florida’s lead and works collaboratively with the ICC to develop a streamlined, cohesive Pennsylvania Building Code.

By adopting this approach, Pennsylvania can restore clarity and consistency to its construction regulations, ultimately ensuring safer, more efficient building practices across the state. The time for change is now—Pennsylvania must take decisive action to establish its own comprehensive building code for the benefit of all.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

This is so true. Most of the public does not know if the state changed anything in the I-codes. There's no need for an inspector to go by the changes the state made because the public won't know about it.

If an inspector or the public wants to know the state changes it is almost imposable to understand them on the state's website.
We need to have 3 versions of the i-code to do it right.

The state should have its own code books like some other states do to really understand it.

 

[tmurray]

Is there a concern in the US that de-harmonization of code requirements poses an issue for designer, manufacturer, building official, and trade mobility between jurisdictions?

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Is there a concern in the US that de-harmonization of code requirements poses an issue for designer, manufacturer, building official, and trade mobility between jurisdictions?

It always was

 

[tmurray]

It always was

We overhauled our code development system to try and harmonize all the regional codes with the nation model code. It's still very much a work in progress.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Think how difficult it was for architecture firms who worked in multiple states when we had the BOCA code in the northeast, the Southern Standard Building Code in the southeast, and the ICBO Uniform Building Code in the west. At one time, IIRC, Texas had some portions of the state on each of the three model codes. The ICC was supposed to fix all that, but it can only do so much.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Florida’s building codes are a direct adaptation of the I-Codes, with modifications specific to the state’s unique needs

There is still the local amendment's which are allowed in Florida. Although with being able to put those on a website they should be easy for the public to review.

I like the provision and the process that a local amendment goes through for approval from the state and the review of the local amendment when the state adopts a newer code edition.

(b) Local governments may, subject to the limitations in this section and not more than once every 6 months, adopt amendments to the technical provisions of the Florida Building Code that apply solely within the jurisdiction of such government and that provide for more stringent requirements than those specified in the Florida Building Code. A local government may adopt technical amendments that address local needs if:

 

[steveray]

Think how difficult it was for architecture firms who worked in multiple states when we had the BOCA code in the northeast, the Southern Standard Building Code in the southeast, and the ICBO Uniform Building Code in the west. At one time, IIRC, Texas had some portions of the state on each of the three model codes. The ICC was supposed to fix all that, but it can only do so much.

And somehow they managed....And even now with more homogenized codes the design and construction industry are falling further behind on their understanding of code and compliance rates.....

 

[Mr. Inspector]

It's almost imposable to find out what the locals did to make the code more restrictive here. I can't even find them myself at the jurisdictions that I work at. I just go by what the boss tells me.

 

[princeofpen]

As a reviewer of plans in 4 states I can honestly say amendments away from current code or older adopted codes is maddening. I personally see the PA builders and RAC as a hindrance to providing a uniform product. Those 4 states are PA, MD,VA,and WV and providing a singular building occupancy type "E" . VA has various amendments all their own that don't make that much sense IMHO regarding sprinklering and MD is driven by both IBC and NFPA 101 requirements w/local fire marshalls calling the shots in certain areas and not others. As a "oh by the way" , I'd like to see PA step away from it's accessibility audit program at a certain point as well as local codes officials care too much about accessibility and not enough about fire/panic

 

[Sifu]

I am generally predisposed to limiting amendments, but recently I think some of the code has just moved too far away from the "minimum", too far away from life-safety, and become too infiltrated by special interest. Because of this, I am softening on amendments if they make sense.

Reading the PA situation, it starts to feel like there are regulations that have been made purposefully complicated and confusing so that people can be employed to ensure they are needed to decipher them. I believe that generally, a regulation, rule, policy etc. should be able to exist in a vacuum, without anyone around to tell them what it means. Every code cycle I think we get further from that.

 

[jar546]

Reading the PA situation, it starts to feel like there are regulations that have been made purposefully complicated and confusing so that people can be employed to ensure they are needed to decipher them.

No, it is the exact opposite. It is driven by contractors and builders who want tons of changes for their benefit.