The Role of Commentary in Building Code Interpretation

[jar546]

When a municipality adopts a building code, either independently or as mandated by a state statute, the specific code versions referenced in the statute and ordinance apply. For example, if a jurisdiction adopts the 2021 International Code Council (ICC) suite, including the IBC, IRC, IPC, IMC, IEBC, IECC, IPMC, and referenced standards like NFPA 70, those are the official, enforceable documents.

However, many of these codes have accompanying Commentary editions. These Commentaries mirror the code language but include explanations, background information, and practical examples to clarify intent. Despite the clarity these Commentaries provide, code professionals often hear that the Commentary is not adopted as part of the official code, making it an unreliable reference in official decisions.

This position overlooks the building official's statutory authority to interpret the code. Per section R104.2 of the International Residential Code (IRC):

"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 this code’s provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures:

1. Shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code.
2. Shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code."

The Commentary often provides critical context that helps officials meet this responsibility. While it may not be binding law, it is a vetted resource from the code's authors and serves as a valuable tool when crafting interpretations consistent with code intent.

In this sense, the Commentary becomes indirectly enforceable. The building official uses it to understand the intent of the code and make educated decisions. This approach benefits the entire industry, as the Commentary provides a single, consistent source for interpretation. Relying on this resource helps foster uniformity across jurisdictions, reducing confusion and disputes.

At The Building Code Forum (TBCF), professionals frequently discuss how Commentary can support clear, consistent interpretations. The Forum offers a space for code officials, inspectors, and industry professionals to exchange experiences and clarify common misunderstandings. If the Commentary helps an official make an informed, defensible decision within the framework of R104.2, then its purpose is being fulfilled.

Ultimately, the Commentary is not a rulebook but a guide. The building official's authority to interpret the code responsibly ensures that the intent of the code is upheld while providing clarity and consistency for the public and the industry alike. If you're navigating these questions in your jurisdiction, join the conversation at The Building Code Forum to gain insights from colleagues across the country.

What are your thoughts on using the Commentary in code interpretations? Let's discuss it on the Forum.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

When a municipality adopts a building code, either independently or as mandated by a state statute, the specific code versions referenced in the statute and ordinance apply. For example, if a jurisdiction adopts the 2021 International Code Council (ICC) suite, including the IBC, IRC, IPC, IMC, IEBC, IECC, IPMC, and referenced standards like NFPA 70, those are the official, enforceable documents.

It gets worse. Some years ago, when I was working as an architectural code consultant, I wrote a report on something and my boss took issue with something I had cited from the building code. I told him I was certain I had cited it correctly. He was certain I hadn't. He pulled out his code book and showed me. The book supported him. So I pulled out my code book and showed him that MY book was as I had cited it. Turns out, one of us had the first printing and one of us had the second printing. The particular section involved happened to be one that had an editorial error in the first printing and was corrected in the second printing.

The problem was that the legislature had specifically adopted the first printing. We were stuck with the typos for the duration of the code cycle.

However, many of these codes have accompanying Commentary editions. These Commentaries mirror the code language but include explanations, background information, and practical examples to clarify intent. Despite the clarity these Commentaries provide, code professionals often hear that the Commentary is not adopted as part of the official code, making it an unreliable reference in official decisions.

This position overlooks the building official's statutory authority to interpret the code. Per section R104.2 of the International Residential Code (IRC):

Except that in adopting the codes my state removes that authority. By statute, only the State Building Inspector or his/her designee is authorized to interpret the code in this state. Which, of course, leads to the issue of where "enforcement" ends and "interpretation" begins.

The Commentary often provides critical context that helps officials meet this responsibility. While it may not be binding law, it is a vetted resource from the code's authors and serves as a valuable tool when crafting interpretations consistent with code intent.

In this sense, the Commentary becomes indirectly enforceable. The building official uses it to understand the intent of the code and make educated decisions. This approach benefits the entire industry, as the Commentary provides a single, consistent source for interpretation. Relying on this resource helps foster uniformity across jurisdictions, reducing confusion and disputes.

At The Building Code Forum (TBCF), professionals frequently discuss how Commentary can support clear, consistent interpretations. The Forum offers a space for code officials, inspectors, and industry professionals to exchange experiences and clarify common misunderstandings. If the Commentary helps an official make an informed, defensible decision within the framework of R104.2, then its purpose is being fulfilled.

Ultimately, the Commentary is not a rulebook but a guide. The building official's authority to interpret the code responsibly ensures that the intent of the code is upheld while providing clarity and consistency for the public and the industry alike. If you're navigating these questions in your jurisdiction, join the conversation at The Building Code Forum to gain insights from colleagues across the country.

What are your thoughts on using the Commentary in code interpretations? Let's discuss it on the Forum.

We have the IBC, IRC, and IEBC Commentaries in our office. I refer to them frequently, and I occasionally quote them in plan reviews, or responses to design professionals' questions. From time to time I wish we also had the IMC and IPC Commentaries.

As a building department, we don't enforce the NFPA codes unless they're reference standards under the IBC or IRC (such as NFPA 13 and NFPA 70). Nonetheless, some concepts such as egress are pretty universal. I have an older copy of the NFPA 101 handbook at my desk at work, also. Some of the illustrations in that are better than those in the ICC Commentaries.

 

[bill1952]

I have twice disagreed with the commentary and have gotten ICC staff to support my interpretation which was not supported by the commentary.

it is a vetted resource from the code's authors

It's my opinion that the commentary is not vetted. It seems to be written by staff and largely reflects their opinion. In one case, it was completely opposite the substantiation for the code change that introduced the requirement. It's not examined or available for review before it's published.

 

[jar546]

Except that in adopting the codes my state removes that authority. By statute, only the State Building Inspector or his/her designee is authorized to interpret the code in this state. Which, of course, leads to the issue of where "enforcement" ends and "interpretation" begins.

You may want to keep that in your states section of the forum. Please clarify in that statement that has nothing to do with the IBC

 

[ICE]

I have twice disagreed with the commentary and have gotten ICC staff to support my interpretation which was not supported by the commentary.



It's my opinion that the commentary is not vetted. It seems to be written by staff and largely reflects their opinion. In one case, it was completely opposite the substantiation for the code change that introduced the requirement. It's not examined or available for review before it's published.

It has been my experience that ICC, DSA, CSLB, AQMD, OSHA, and others have differing opinions depending on who answers the phone. It was the same with the LA County engineers.

 

[bill1952]

Agree. I'm guessing the commentary is assigned work. If you don't like the answer, call back for a better answer. Just like IRS.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

It has been my experience that ICC, DSA, CSLB, AQMD, OSHA, and others have differing opinions depending on who answers the phone. It was the same with the LA County engineers.

With respect to the ICC (and the same applied to BOCA before the ICC), when you call with a question, you get one person's opinion but they are supposed to make it clear that you are getting a "staff opinion," not an interpretation. If you want something you can really hang your hat on, you need to request a formal (written) interpretation by submitting the request in writing. The response is drafted, then circulated to a committee before being issued as a flrmal interpretation.

 

[ICE]

Ya I never got one of those. It’s easier to call back until they agree with me.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Ya I never got one of those. It’s easier to call back until they agree with me.

Yes, but if you need to take something to court to help explain why you applied a section of the code the way you did, a verbal statement of what the dope-of-the-day told you won't be worth nearly what a written formal interpretation is worth.

 

[ICE]

As controversial as I have been I have never been tasked with convincing a judge that I got it right. I’ve had coworkers afraid to join me for lunch out of fear that the hit would happen next to them.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I've been in court multiple times as an expert witness. I was also sued once, along with the chief building official, the zoning enforcement officer, the mayor, and I think a couple of other town officials. I didn't have to go to court, but we all went through the deposition wringer before the case was dismissed when the judge agreed that the plaintiff had created all his problems with no help from town officials.

Lawyers get paid to split hairs. If you take an opinion from one dope-of-the-day at ICC headquarters, you should expect that a lawyer who is suing you will find the one person at ICC who will testify the opposite way. If you have a formal, written opinion that has been reviewed and approved by a committee, that's worth its weight in gold when you're in court. That shows you did your due diligence and made a conscientious effort to apply the intent of the code fairly and objectively.

 

[jar546]

It's my opinion that the commentary is not vetted.

It is vetted before it is published. Perhaps the wrong people are vetting the commentary.

 

[jar546]

The commentary is similar to that of the non-binding interpretations we see from governing bodies. Some officials buy into them, even when they are wrong, and some just ignore them.

I once posted a non-binding interpretation that was wrong. Some people here still agreed with it, even though it was inaccurate. Most did not.

 

[bill1952]

It is vetted before it is published. Perhaps the wrong people are vetting the commentary.

I get "make a careful and critical examination of" as definition of "vet". I don't see that in the commentary text I've read which is limited to a few sections.

 

[socaldano]

When a municipality adopts a building code, either independently or as mandated by a state statute, the specific code versions referenced in the statute and ordinance apply. For example, if a jurisdiction adopts the 2021 International Code Council (ICC) suite, including the IBC, IRC, IPC, IMC, IEBC, IECC, IPMC, and referenced standards like NFPA 70, those are the official, enforceable documents.

However, many of these codes have accompanying Commentary editions. These Commentaries mirror the code language but include explanations, background information, and practical examples to clarify intent. Despite the clarity these Commentaries provide, code professionals often hear that the Commentary is not adopted as part of the official code, making it an unreliable reference in official decisions.

This position overlooks the building official's statutory authority to interpret the code. Per section R104.2 of the International Residential Code (IRC):


The Commentary often provides critical context that helps officials meet this responsibility. While it may not be binding law, it is a vetted resource from the code's authors and serves as a valuable tool when crafting interpretations consistent with code intent.

In this sense, the Commentary becomes indirectly enforceable. The building official uses it to understand the intent of the code and make educated decisions. This approach benefits the entire industry, as the Commentary provides a single, consistent source for interpretation. Relying on this resource helps foster uniformity across jurisdictions, reducing confusion and disputes.

At The Building Code Forum (TBCF), professionals frequently discuss how Commentary can support clear, consistent interpretations. The Forum offers a space for code officials, inspectors, and industry professionals to exchange experiences and clarify common misunderstandings. If the Commentary helps an official make an informed, defensible decision within the framework of R104.2, then its purpose is being fulfilled.

Ultimately, the Commentary is not a rulebook but a guide. The building official's authority to interpret the code responsibly ensures that the intent of the code is upheld while providing clarity and consistency for the public and the industry alike. If you're navigating these questions in your jurisdiction, join the conversation at The Building Code Forum to gain insights from colleagues across the country.

What are your thoughts on using the Commentary in code interpretations? Let's discuss it on the Forum.

 

[socaldano]

This is an area where I am a bit of an expert.

Commentary is critical to the use and understanding of the code. The Courts will rely on that to interpret what the code means in each particular case.
In the MUTCD, a national engineering code for all traffic control devices (lights, signs, striping, intersection design), the Engineers and Courts rely heavily on comments for clarification or to provide guidance on "variances". As do every other Engineering code EXCEPT IBC codes, which strangely I have not found them to claim to be an engineering code.

Remembering, while the IBC alternatively claims to be a guide and unmovable law. It indicates its a "guide" to be modified and adopted by the municipalities, but later contradicts itself. According to SCOTUS in Pittsburg 1907 (which adopts Dillon's rule as rule of law for 10th amendment) , IBC and County/ City ordinances are inferior to all other "laws" and its only law if its adopted by a city, county or state as THE code in statute. Then it will quickly get overturned due to is unconstitutional framework.

In cases not involving IBC, the Courts have heavily relied upon commentaries by the legislatures to determine the meaning of what was written.
In the famous Washington DC gun case the Court chastised the opponent attorney's for coming up with new obscure definitions of the words.
While blacks law dictionary is often used by the Court, prior to Blacks they used the dictionary of the day for the usable definitions.
For instance, in the DC gun case the Court used the language in the legislation of the same year, by the same congress "2nd militia act 1792" I believe to decide what was "the militia" in the 2nd amendment (all men 18 to 45 except politicians, ferrymen and tax collectors) who could show up in 6 months with a rifle or shotgun, 20 rounds and some other stuff.

Another example is: the 1930s definition of "gay crowd" is very different from the 1980s or 21st century definition of a "gay crowd". So a 1920s dictionary is the one that would be used for the former , and a 2000 unabridged dictionary and the AP styleguide for the latter.

 

[jar546]

This is an area where I am a bit of an expert.

Commentary is critical to the use and understanding of the code. The Courts will rely on that to interpret what the code means in each particular case.
In the MUTCD, a national engineering code for all traffic control devices (lights, signs, striping, intersection design), the Engineers and Courts rely heavily on comments for clarification or to provide guidance on "variances". As do every other Engineering code EXCEPT IBC codes, which strangely I have not found them to claim to be an engineering code.

Remembering, while the IBC alternatively claims to be a guide and unmovable law. It indicates its a "guide" to be modified and adopted by the municipalities, but later contradicts itself. According to SCOTUS in Pittsburg 1907 (which adopts Dillon's rule as rule of law for 10th amendment) , IBC and County/ City ordinances are inferior to all other "laws" and its only law if its adopted by a city, county or state as THE code in statute. Then it will quickly get overturned due to is unconstitutional framework.

In cases not involving IBC, the Courts have heavily relied upon commentaries by the legislatures to determine the meaning of what was written.
In the famous Washington DC gun case the Court chastised the opponent attorney's for coming up with new obscure definitions of the words.
While blacks law dictionary is often used by the Court, prior to Blacks they used the dictionary of the day for the usable definitions.
For instance, in the DC gun case the Court used the language in the legislation of the same year, by the same congress "2nd militia act 1792" I believe to decide what was "the militia" in the 2nd amendment (all men 18 to 45 except politicians, ferrymen and tax collectors) who could show up in 6 months with a rifle or shotgun, 20 rounds and some other stuff.

Another example is: the 1930s definition of "gay crowd" is very different from the 1980s or 21st century definition of a "gay crowd". So a 1920s dictionary is the one that would be used for the former , and a 2000 unabridged dictionary and the AP styleguide for the latter.

The IBC is just a model code, not a one-size-fits-all mandate. Local governments decide what parts to adopt and tweak based on their needs. Missouri doesn’t have a statewide code, so different cities handle it differently, which can cause confusion. The claim that the IBC says it's adopted in all 50 states isn’t accurate—it's adopted in various forms depending on local decisions.

Engineers can't just override code by stamping a document. Variances go through a process, usually with a board of appeals or city council, not just because an engineer says so. As for the Fourth Amendment concerns, Camara v. Municipal Court does require permission or a warrant for inspections unless there’s an immediate danger. That’s why most city ordinances now include provisions for inspectors to get warrants when needed.

Dillon’s Rule doesn’t stop inspectors from doing their jobs either. Inspectors don’t write the rules, they apply the ones the municipality adopted. If someone thinks an inspector got it wrong, the IBC allows appeals to a board that can review the decision. The point about grammar and punctuation is a reach. Courts use legal principles and case law, not a dictionary, to interpret the code.

Missouri's patchwork of codes can make things messy, but building codes exist to protect life and property. The IBC stays within constitutional limits and gives communities a solid framework to build safely and consistently. Without it, everyone would be guessing—and that’s when things go wrong.

 

[mtlogcabin]

If you want something you can really hang your hat on, you need to request a formal (written) interpretation by submitting the request in writing. The response is drafted, then circulated to a committee before being issued as a formal interpretation.

The building official is still the final word. He can defer all he wants to this opinion or that interpretation but it is ultimately his responsibility to make the decision. You can delegate authority but you cannot delegate responsibility.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Another example is: the 1930s definition of "gay crowd" is very different from the 1980s or 21st century definition of a "gay crowd". So a 1920s dictionary is the one that would be used for the former , and a 2000 unabridged dictionary and the AP styleguide for the latter.

Why not the Chicago Manual of Style? Or the APA Publication manual?

 

[mark handler]

ICC "snippet"
"The commentaries are designed to suggest the most effective method of application, and the consequences of not adhering to the code. This is an excellent reference for code officials, engineers, architects, inspectors, plans examiners, contractors and anyone who needs a better understanding of the 2021 IBC."

2021 IBC Code and Commentary Volume 1 (Building)​

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

We have the ICC commentaries for the IBC, IRC, and IEBC in the office. They are marginally helpful on rare occasion, but not very. The ICC commentaries tend to just restate the code in other words rather than provide useful guidance. The old BOCA commentaries were, IMHO, far better. Likewise the NFPA 101 handbook.