Understanding Applicability in the 2024 International Existing Building Code (IEBC): A Comprehensive Guide

[jar546]

The 2024 International Existing Building Code (IEBC) provides critical guidance on how its provisions apply in various scenarios. Section 102, titled Applicability, establishes the hierarchy of requirements, addresses conflicts, and ensures clarity when applying the code. This article unpacks each subsection of Section 102, explaining their implications and providing examples for practical understanding.

102.1 General​

This subsection addresses two primary situations:

1. Conflict Between General and Specific Requirements:
   • Specific requirements take precedence over general ones. For instance, if a general provision sets minimum defensible space dimensions, but a specific provision modifies this based on ignition resistance and defensible space width, the specific provision applies.
   • This approach is similar to exceptions in the code. If an exception explicitly states that certain buildings are exempt from a general requirement, the exception governs.
2. Conflict Between Different Requirements in the Code:
   • When different sections specify varying materials, methods, or requirements, the most restrictive provision governs. By adhering to the stricter requirement, compliance with less stringent provisions is inherently achieved. This ensures a higher safety and performance standard for buildings.

102.2 Other Laws​

The IEBC explicitly states that its provisions do not nullify any local, state, or federal laws. Instead, its requirements supplement other legal mandates. For example, a jurisdiction’s local law on energy efficiency might operate alongside the IEBC’s structural provisions. While the code official may not enforce external laws, the IEBC’s provisions remain fully applicable unless legally overridden.

102.3 Application of References​

References within the IEBC to chapters, sections, or provisions are assumed to pertain to the code itself unless otherwise specified. This ensures that users interpret references consistently, reducing ambiguity when navigating the code’s interconnected provisions.

102.4 Referenced Codes and Standards​

Referenced codes and standards are integral to the IEBC, but their applicability is limited to the extent explicitly mentioned in the code. Key points include:

• Scope of Referenced Standards:
  • Only the specified portions of referenced standards are enforceable. For instance, Section 304.3.1 fully incorporates ASCE 41 for seismic evaluations, while Section 503.13 references specific structural irregularities in ASCE 7. This targeted referencing prevents unnecessary overlap and ensures focus.
• Conflict Resolution:
  • If a conflict arises between the IEBC and a referenced standard, the IEBC governs. For example, if ASCE 41 prescribes seismic design criteria conflicting with IEBC provisions, the IEBC’s requirements take precedence.
• Exception:
  • If enforcing a code provision conflicts with the conditions of an equipment or appliance listing, the listing’s conditions govern. This ensures that safety standards in the listing are upheld.

102.4.1 and 102.4.2 Conflicts and Conflicting Provisions​

These subsections reinforce the primacy of the IEBC when conflicts arise:

• 102.4.1: When provisions of the IEBC conflict with referenced codes or standards, the IEBC governs. This principle ensures uniformity and consistency in enforcement.
• 102.4.2: If a referenced code or standard overlaps with IEBC subject matter, the IEBC takes precedence. This eliminates ambiguity, ensuring that IEBC provisions remain the authoritative source for code compliance.

102.5 Partial Invalidity​

This subsection safeguards the integrity of the IEBC by addressing scenarios where specific provisions are deemed void or illegal. For example:

• If a state law invalidates a particular IEBC provision, only that provision is affected. The rest of the IEBC remains enforceable.
• This ensures that the code’s overall framework continues to function effectively, even if specific elements are legally challenged.

Key Takeaways​

1. Conflict Resolution:
   • Specific requirements override general ones.
   • The most restrictive requirement governs when different provisions conflict.
2. Supplementary Nature:
   • The IEBC complements local, state, and federal laws without nullifying them.
3. Referenced Standards:
   • Referenced codes and standards are enforceable only to the extent specified by the IEBC.
   • The IEBC’s provisions prevail in case of conflict.
4. Code Integrity:
   • The partial invalidity clause ensures that isolated legal challenges do not compromise the entire code.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I never ger the method that the architect wants to use the first time around on a plan review which makes it very difficult. It's like they don't know it exists, or they want me to decide, which I can't do. After that it is hard to get them to put the accessibility requirements on the plans.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I never ger the method that the architect wants to use the first time around on a plan review which makes it very difficult. It's like they don't know it exists, or they want me to decide, which I can't do. After that it is hard to get them to put the accessibility requirements on the plans.

Agreed. Once we point out that they have to tell us which of the three methods they're using, they usually respond with either "Which method should I use?" or "Which method is best?"

Sorry. You're the design professional -- YOU decide. Once you decide, please keep in mind:

301.3 Alteration, addition or change of occupancy. The
alteration, addition or change of occupancy of all existing
buildings shall comply with one of the methods listed in
Section 301.3.1, 301.3.2 or 301.3.3 as selected by the applicant.
Sections 301.3.1 through 301.3.3 shall not be applied in
combination with each other.

In other words -- the IEBC is not a Chinese menu. You don't get to pick one from column A and two from column B.

 

[socaldano]

As an Engineer, the building code is meant to be a framework to be adopted. The IBC even says so! When states adopt engineering codes which IBC codes are and are not, they always have variances. Where the P.E.'s have recommended changes based upon states needs.

While IBC is incorrect when it asserts it has been adopted by all 50 states. Portions of them have been adopted by some agencies in Missouri, and some cities have adopted certain codes. But if it is measured against Mo Statute 327, I suspect the Courts would require a Professional Civil Engineer to submit the code to the City Council with his recommended modifications, his stamp, signature and license number on the document and changes.

I am well versed in case law, I find many places where the IBC is unconstitutional. Then the IBC often sometimes it corrects itself later on.

For instance:
IBC are the ONLY codes where variances are not allowed, as stated in the original cite of this thread. Even though IBC sections say variances are allowed. When IBC conflicts with the city code, as a professional engineer makes a variance and the City Council voted on it. OR when IBC conflicts with US Code, or a professional engineer grants a variance putting his stamp signature and license number on the document...IBC voids it erroneously claiming superior powers which violate the 10th amendment. For instance, Mo statute 327 grants P.E.'s godlike powers, and 10th amendment says the IBC is the most inferior law unless actually adopted by statute by the state, then it is equal to other statutes but inferior to the Constitution.

When IBC grants inspectors search/inspection authority. This is in direct conflict with the 4th amendment where in Camara v municipal court and its progeny SCOTUS has said that code enforcement is unique (building inspection), that the 4th amendment shall be strictly applied. With rare exceptions where the inspector would not go in anyways (gas leak, meth lab) where immediate threat to neighborhood, the inspector SHALL have permission from a stakeholder OR SHALL have a warrant based on good probable cause which exactly says what will be inspected and when. If the Ordinance or Law does not have search warrant provision, the ordinance or law is unconstitutional (Camara v municipal court of san francisco 1967 and its progeny, Bazeyiff v City of St Loius)
Remember, General search warrants are the reason for 4th amendment and the American Revolution.

IBC grants inspectors regulatory and legislative powers. In Pittsburg 1907 SCOTUS adopted Dillon's rule in book form. This clearly states any granting of regulatory or legislative powers to an officer or inspector of a municipal subdivision (city or county) violates the 10th amendment. As ONLY the State or the Fed has such powers.

IBC grants inspectors final authority with no due process of law, it allows for an administrative hearing but effectively says that the hearing officers cannot overrule the inspector non IBC based decisions. They can only repeat what the IBC says. As this affects fair use of the property, this is a 5th amendment "regulatory taking of property" which automatically triggers reparations to the aggrieved party.

When the IBC asserts that the punctuation and grammar will be based on Websters dictionary. It will take about 2 minutes for an attorney to get this thrown out. First the courts use "Black's law dictionary" and for meaning of grammar and punctuation they use Associated Press stylebook. There was a famous Washington state civil lawsuit where millions rode on what a sentence meant based on where the comma was placed. The Court ruled they would use the AP style guide.

 

[Paul Sweet]

Zoning codes have variances. Building codes have modifications.

 

[bill1952]

I don't believe the IBC grants anyone authority. It's a model code and legislators who vote it into law are the ones choosing to grant authority to someone, etc. The text is often amended by those same legislators, probably at the best of lobbyists. It seems like you should become a lobbyist and make your points to the legislators. Can you imagine how awful it would be if each legislative body were to write their own code from scratch? Legislators with tape measures saying how wide or tall something should be or how big of drain pipe. Exactly the people I do not want in charge of the details for safety in the built environment.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I don't believe the IBC grants anyone authority. It's a model code and legislators who vote it into law are the ones choosing to grant authority to someone, etc.

Yes, and no.

The model ICC codes include language granting the building official the authority to render interpretations, to grant modifications, and to approve the use of new materials. If an adopting body leaves that language intact, then they are granting those authorities to the building official.

In my state, the legislature amends chapter 1 to reserve the authority to interpret the code and to grant modifications to the State Building Inspector. However, they leave the authority to approve new materials intact from the model code.