• 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

What is the International Code Council (ICC)?

jar546

Forum Coordinator
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
11,020
Location
Somewhere Too Hot & Humid
The clear majority of the conversations on this forum are based on the I-Codes from the International Code Council (ICC) or local variations of the ICC. I thought it would be a good idea to put together a little story about the ICC and its history. Enjoy!

The International Code Council (ICC) is a non-profit organization that develops and publishes model codes and standards used in the design, build, and compliance process to construct safe, sustainable, affordable, and resilient structures. The ICC was formed in 1994 through the merger of three major model code organizations:
  1. Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA): BOCA was founded in 1915 and was one of the first organizations to develop and publish model building codes.
  2. Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI): SBCCI was founded in 1940 and was known for its work on the Southern Building Code, which was widely adopted in the southern United States.
  3. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO): ICBO was founded in 1922 and was known for its work on the Uniform Building Code, which was widely adopted on the west coast of the United States.
The merger of these three organizations was driven by the need for a more consistent and efficient approach to building code development and enforcement. The ICC was created to provide a single, unified organization that could develop and publish model codes that would be widely adopted and used by building officials, code administrators, and other construction professionals.

The ICC has since grown to be a leading organization in the development of codes and standards for the built environment, with a membership of more than 64,000 professionals from around the world. It is the developer of the International Building Code (IBC), International Residential Code (IRC), International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), and many other codes. The ICC works to improve public safety, affordability, and sustainability in the built environment through its codes and standards, education and training, and professional certification programs.
 
and many other codes
I believe ....codes and standards. ICC A117.1 by and ICC 300 at least.

I think "develop" doesn't quite clearly communicate the ICCs role as secretariat or facilitator, relying on the "public' for the actual content.

But a good and useful post and reminder.
 
Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA): BOCA was founded in 1915 and was one of the first organizations to develop and publish model building codes.
Thanks for posting about code history, as it is a subject I enjoy, research and preserve. However, I have read before that BOCA was the first to publish a building code, but my research reveals otherswise. I welcome more information. So much code history has been lost.

My oldest copy of the BOCA published building code is the third edition Basic Building Code in 1960. The preface states the first edition was 1950.
My oldest copy of the ICBO published building code is the first edition UBC in 1927.

From what I have learned through records so far is that ICBO was the first to publish a model code, but I am very curious to learn if BOCA published a model code before the "Basic Building Code" in 1950.
 
I always hear about the three legacy code organizations, but I think that unfairly excludes the fourth legacy organization that was actually the FIRST to create a model building code intended for government adoption. I collect and research code history and you may enjoy this video I made a few years ago about this fourth, forgotten, legacy code organization that was part of creating the predecessor to the IRC. (NOTE: I've already been well scolded for misprounancing CABO, ha, ha!)

 
In 1896 "Report of Committee on Automatic Sprinkler Protection" was published would become NFPA 13.

I guess no surprise that there is a lot more historical info on NFPA than ICC and the legacy codes.
 
I have a copy of the 1922 edition of the Building Code Recommended by the National Board of Fire Underwriters, which became the National Building Code. The Forward says the first edition was published in 1905. A couple Virginia jurisdictions still used it in the early 1970s before BOCA was adopted as the Virgnia Uniform Statewide Building Code in 1973.
 
The clear majority of the conversations on this forum are based on the I-Codes from the International Code Council (ICC) or local variations of the ICC. I thought it would be a good idea to put together a little story about the ICC and its history. Enjoy!

The International Code Council (ICC) is a non-profit organization that develops and publishes model codes and standards used in the design, build, and compliance process to construct safe, sustainable, affordable, and resilient structures. The ICC was formed in 1994 through the merger of three major model code organizations:
  1. Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA): BOCA was founded in 1915 and was one of the first organizations to develop and publish model building codes.
  2. Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI): SBCCI was founded in 1940 and was known for its work on the Southern Building Code, which was widely adopted in the southern United States.
  3. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO): ICBO was founded in 1922 and was known for its work on the Uniform Building Code, which was widely adopted on the west coast of the United States.
The merger of these three organizations was driven by the need for a more consistent and efficient approach to building code development and enforcement. The ICC was created to provide a single, unified organization that could develop and publish model codes that would be widely adopted and used by building officials, code administrators, and other construction professionals.

The ICC has since grown to be a leading organization in the development of codes and standards for the built environment, with a membership of more than 64,000 professionals from around the world. It is the developer of the International Building Code (IBC), International Residential Code (IRC), International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), and many other codes. The ICC works to improve public safety, affordability, and sustainability in the built environment through its codes and standards, education and training, and professional certification programs.
It is not correct to refer to the formation of ICC as a merger. Rather, BOCA, ICBO and SBCC were founding organizations and continued operating independently until 2003. Even after the publication of the I-codes, BOCA, ICBO and SBCC competed against each other with sales and services on the codes.
 
Which code did the ISO prefer? Anyone?
I do not believe that ISO has preference for any specific code. Also I do not believe that ISO has any legal standing in the context of building codes.

Because ICC is an organization of building officials its model codes reflect the biases of building officials.

The model codes have no legal standing until they are referenced in laws adopted by a legislative body or administrative agency with jurisdiction. Because of the lack of care in adopting the model codes there can be conflicts with provisions of state statutes or other legal principals. Because of these conflicts the model code provisions may not always control. For example provisions in the model code which have been interpreted by some allowing the building official the power to impose requirements not specifically required by the adopted regulations.
 
I do not believe that ISO has preference for any specific code. Also I do not believe that ISO has any legal standing in the context of building codes.

Because ICC is an organization of building officials its model codes reflect the biases of building officials.

The model codes have no legal standing until they are referenced in laws adopted by a legislative body or administrative agency with jurisdiction. Because of the lack of care in adopting the model codes there can be conflicts with provisions of state statutes or other legal principals. Because of these conflicts the model code provisions may not always control. For example provisions in the model code which have been interpreted by some allowing the building official the power to impose requirements not specifically required by the adopted regulations.
images
 
Anybody know why the IAMPO held out and still publishes the Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes? Some states still use those as their model codes instead of the IPC or IMC. Are there any states out there that use a different model code set? Are there other alternative model codes that are used in other countries? I'm assuming there are, but I haven't heard reference to them or what they're called.
 
Anybody know why the IAMPO held out and still publishes the Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes?
International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials

Not so much a hold out, as that's who they are.
 
International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials

Not so much a hold out, as that's who they are.
I just wondered why they didn't get in on the party and help design the IPC and IMC, seeing as that's who they are. ;)
 
I just wondered why they didn't get in on the party and help design the IPC and IMC, seeing as that's who they are. ;)
Inevitable that they would have been disbanded, just as the other organizations dissolved after ICC came together.
 
I suspect who joined and who didn't was largely based on money and power. Certainly why NFPA didn't join. Can only guess IAMPO had similar reservations.
 
Because ICC is an organization of building officials its model codes reflect the biases of building officials.
Yeah, well only 15 of the current 18 are Building Officials. The other three are a P.E., a Code Compliance Officer, and a Fire Marshall. One of the 15 has an engineering degree, so there. Just look at all of the diversity!

The model codes have no legal standing until they are referenced in laws adopted by a legislative body or administrative agency with jurisdiction
No sh*% Sherlock.

Because of the lack of care in adopting the model codes there can be conflicts with provisions of state statutes or other legal principals.
What bubble do you live in? Most states have a 3 year process before adoption with committees, public hearings, etc. You appear to be a troll.
 

IAPMO-ICC plumbing code talks collapse​

Sept. 1, 2006
ONTARIO, CALIF. and FALLS CHURCH, VA. — The International Association of Plumbing & Mechanical officials and the International Code Council announced that they have terminated talks to produce joint plumbing and mechanical codes. The talks collapsed when ICC members made clear their opposition to IAPMO's ANSI consensus code development process, saying that it allows parties with economic interests to write codes. ICC uses a governmental consensus code process where public officials write the codes.
IAPMO executives and board members said they were stunned after receiving a memo from the ICC that effectively terminated Joint Venture negotiations.
"Both parties were in agreement on key matters and a successful conclusion seemed only weeks away," said IAPMO Executive Director G.P. "Russ" Chaney. "At this point, I'm almost at a loss for words."
"Both organizations worked cooperatively in good faith to try and put this joint venture together," said ICC Board President Henry Green. "We made it clear to IAPMO from the beginning that the code development process had the potential to be a real stumbling block, and that we would seek input from our members and stakeholders before finalizing any agreement. Our entire organization has given extensive consideration to a hybrid code development process that would have satisfied IAPMO's desire to maintain ANSI accreditation. Ultimately our members and stakeholders made it clear that they were unwilling to deviate from the ICC governmental consensus process, in which public officials — who have no economic interest in the outcome — determine the content of the code."

IAPMO, however, said that ICC's memo discards agreements made to-date and lays out a series of non-negotiable, major ultimatums that IAPMO must meet for talks to resume. The ultimatums cover every critical area of the Joint Venture: process, committee balance, base documents and ownership.
"We hope there is still a way to save the talks, but these 11th hour demands are totally unreasonable," stated IAPMO President Chris Salazar.
A year ago, IAPMO and ICC opened talks on the development of one plumbing code and one mechanical code, through a cooperative effort (Sept. 2005, p. 1). The goal of negotiations was to find a mutually agreed upon method of code development while the two organizations would remain wholly independent entities.
A successful joint venture would have strengthened both organizations by bringing the Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Mechanical Code into the comprehensive, coordinated family of codes offered by ICC, according to Green.
"A successful venture also would have increased resources available for training and member services, and reduced costly code adoption struggles," said Green. "Like IAPMO, we are disappointed that we could not reach an agreement. But the commitment to ICC's process runs deep among our members and stakeholders. We received input from all across the country that deviating from that process was unacceptable, even for a goal as worthy as creating a single family of codes and ending code adoption battles. ICC will not sacrifice the ICC governmental consensus process for the one code mission."


By its own account, ICC admits that agreement had been reached on nearly all key issues at the point it announced its effective withdrawal from the table, IAPMO stated. A history of negotiations, available on both parties' Web sites, illustrates this point.
As was stated by ICC leadership at its July 15, 2006, "National Town Hall Meeting," and again just recently on its Web site, "I am most impressed by the ability of both organizations to recognize and understand the fundamental goals of each other, and to craft the new venture so as to incorporate all of those goals. ... After much hard work, we have reached preliminary agreement on the basic code development processes that could enable us to jointly provide one plumbing code and one mechanical code for the country beginning in 2009."
Green said that a wide array of ICC's members, chapters and stakeholders provided extensive feedback on the outline of the proposed joint venture, and voiced significant concerns about the code development process, composition of committees, the base document, and ownership.
"We had hoped that these negotiations would bring us closer to our goal of a single set of codes, and put an end to the code adoption battles that we have sometimes found ourselves engaged in," said ICC Chief Operating Officer Rick Weiland. "Unfortunately, these goals cannot be accomplished within the context of the proposed arrangement. We remain hopeful that we can achieve them at some point in the future."

ICC uses a code development process that permits any interested party, including consumers and industry, to participate on committees, recom-mend code changes, testify, make motions and vote. However, the process reserves the final decision on code content for governmental members, who have no vested interest except public health and safety.
It is IAPMO's view that a vocal group of ICC members have come forward and affected the decisions of the ICC negotiating team. "Inaccurate and inflammatory" claims are circulating, IAPMO said in a statement, that ICC is sacrificing more than IAPMO in the Joint Venture.
"In all business negotiations, each party sends those to the table who are authorized to speak and decide on behalf of those they represent," said Chaney. "I am disappointed that this did not happen with the ICC."
IAPMO said it rejects the published claims of the protesters, including statements that its code process gives power to special interest groups. On the contrary, the democratic nature of IAPMO's consensus process allows everyone in the industry a voice — protection against any one group gaining an advantage. In fact, a "hybrid" approach to code development was a feature of the Joint Venture, combining the best features of each organization's methods, IAPMO maintained.

In August of 2005, ICC and IAPMO began formal discussions to explore the joint development of new plumbing and mechanical codes. Initiated by then ICC President Frank Hodge and IAPMO President Chris Salazar, both organizations signed a memorandum of understanding in September 2005.
Meetings were held in November 2005 and February 2006 to discuss whether the organizations could agree to essential elements needed to create joint plumbing and mechanical codes. In May, both groups announced the points for a tentative agreement on certain key elements. In July, ICC hosted a National Town Hall Meeting to publicly share details of the proposed joint venture and receive feedback from ICC members and stakeholders.
"Part of ICC's mission continues to be the development of a single comprehensive, coordinated set of codes for the built environment," said Weiland. "While both sides wanted this to work, ICC is a member-focused organization. Listening to our members is a strength. The feedback from our members and stakeholders made it clear that the joint venture as currently proposed would not be sustainable without further modification."
IAPMO said that it remains available to resume talks in the spirit of good faith.
Said Salazar, "IAPMO is ready and willing to make a formal commitment, and the Board of Directors of IAPMO have empowered me to sign the Joint Venture as negotiated and mutually agreed."
 
What bubble do you live in? Most states have a 3 year process before adoption with committees, public hearings, etc. You appear to be a troll.
Yes there are some state specific modifications but my experience is that the process is not particularly thorough. This may be because those proposing the modifications typically work for a regulatory agency which would suggest they reflect the biases of their agency.

While I may have some biases but are building officials always aware of their biases?

The statistics on the adoption of the ICC codes supports my perception of a lack of diversity. How does 15 to 18 reflect diversity? The token PE does not prove anything since the perceived biases are more related to their job and not any specific qualifications.

It would be interesting to compare ICC's process with the membership criteria ASTM requires of their committees.
 
Yes there are some state specific modifications but my experience is that the process is not particularly thorough. This may be because those proposing the modifications typically work for a regulatory agency which would suggest they reflect the biases of their agency.

While I may have some biases but are building officials always aware of their biases?

The statistics on the adoption of the ICC codes supports my perception of a lack of diversity. How does 15 to 18 reflect diversity? The token PE does not prove anything since the perceived biases are more related to their job and not any specific qualifications.

It would be interesting to compare ICC's process with the membership criteria ASTM requires of their committees.
I still believe the NFPA's processes and committees are far better than the ICC.
 
Top