How Can You Change a Building Code? Part 2

by Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA

This is the second of a two-part series.

Discussion and action

A Public Hearing will be scheduled after the deadline for submitting proposals, to allow the public to comment either for or against the proposed changes. In the hearings, a floor discussion will take place where proponents and opponents present their views on the changes to the committees assigned to review the changes. During this period, written modifications to proposals from the floor may be presented by anyone attending the hearing. If accepted, a floor discussion on that modification will begin immediately.

Following the floor discussion, the proposed changes go through committee action. Most codes will have one committee, while others, such as the IBC, will have 2 or more that are assigned specific areas of the code. The Committee Action phase of the hearings is limited to committee members only, however, others may attend and listen to the proceedings. During Committee Action, one of three motions will be made on each change proposal: approved as submitted (AS), approved as modified (AM), or disapproved (D). A simple majority is required to approve the motion. Every committee must submit a reason for their vote.

Following the committee's action, and before the next proposal is addressed, the vote of the committee is open to the public hearing attendees for any motion that objects to the committee's action. Any accepted floor motions will be voted on by the ICC members in attendance at the hearing. This vote is called an Assembly Action. A vote by Assembly Action may differ from that of the committee's, and therefore, automatically puts the change proposal on the agenda for individual consideration at the Final Action Consideration.

The results of the Public Hearing phase are published no later than 60 days prior to the Final Action Consideration.

The Final Action Consideration gives the public an opportunity to comment on specific code change proposals. Proponents and opponents are given additional time to present their views based on the Public Hearing results. Prior to the Final Action Considerat ion, public comments are submitted in written form, which include the desired final action (AS, AM, or D) and supporting information. The supporting information must provide a reason and justification for the desired final action.

Like the Public Hearing, the Final Action Consideration is an open meeting, however, only those attending as representatives of governmental members may vote. Governmental members are those government or municipal agencies, departments, or units that are "engaged in administration, formulation or enforcement of laws, regulations or ordinances relating to public health, safety and welfare." This is probably the single most significant difference between ICC and NFPA. NFPA allows all members having a membership on record for at least 180 days to vote on proposed changes.

Change proposals that have received no public comments, or did not have an Assembly Action at the Public Hearing, are placed on the Final Action Consent Agenda. Approval of the consent agenda accepts the results of the Public Hearing for those changes. All remaining changes are placed on the Individual Consideration Agenda.

The author of a Public Comment is allowed to make an initial statement prior to voting. Voting on a final action agenda item follows a strict procedure. An initial motion on the item will be made based on the committee action from the Public Hearing. For example, if an item received a vote for disapproval by the committee at the Public Hearing, then the first motion considered will be for disapproval. If a majority vote is not achieved on the initial motion, subsequent motions for one of the two other actions is made. This is repeated until motions on all three possible actions are voted on. If a majority vote is not achieved on any of the three actions, the item will automatically receive a final action of disapproval.

The final actions on all proposed changes are published at the earliest possible date following Final Action Consideration. Any person not satisfied with the final action decision may submit a written appeal within 30 days of notice of the action.

Now, read on for the conclusion of Greg Abel's experience with the ICC code development process.

An Uphill Battle

Mr. Abel, under the AFSG banner, submitted a code change proposal in accordance with ICC procedures and it was accepted and included in the 2003/2004 code development cycle. He attended the Public Hearing in September 2003, but, unfortunately for AFSG, the structural code development committee didn't agree with him and voted for disapproval. The proposal was then open for Assembly Consideration followed by a Floor Motion to for an "approved as submitted" action. The Assembly Action vote on the motion fell short of the required 2/3 majority, thereby requiring a public comment for the change proposal to be considered again during the Final Action Consideration (Note: ICC has since revised the Assembly Action vote to a simple majority).

The next step--Public Comment. Greg and fellow supporter John LaTorra from the Peninsula Chapter of ICC, submitted written comments recommending a desired final action of "approved as submitted." At the meeting for Final Action Consideration, the case against wired glass was presented to the governmental voting members. The initial motion made was for disapproval, since this was the committee's action from the Public Hearing. Fortunately for AFSG, the vote failed to achieve the simple majority necessary, so the next motion was made for the desired final action: Approved as Submitted. According to ICC procedures, a 2/3 majority would be necessary to approve the desired final action. And, a 2/3 majority is what they got. So the change proposal was approved as submitted. But, that's not the end of the story…

The wired glass industry, upset that their market share was about to vaporize, submitted an appeal to the ICC Appeals Board, and the final action was stayed. In early September, the Appeals Board listened to both sides, but voted in AFSG's favor to uphold the Final Action result. Then, the Board of Directors, at their national meeting in late September 2004, voted to accept the recommendation of the ICC Appeals Board. Under most circumstances, this would have been the end of the process, but the wired glass manufacturers wanted to present their case directly to the ICC Board of Directors. On October 8, 2004, they were given that opportunity, but at the end of the presentations by both parties, the Board of Directors voted to uphold their previous vote, and the use of wired glass as an acceptable safety glazing material was deleted from the IBC.

When he submitted his code change proposal, Greg Abel felt that it didn't "have a snowball's chance" of getting approved. In past attempts at changing the building code, the wired glass industry put great effort into defeating the proposed change. However, in the end, Greg said that the process was extremely fair. The only downside, he added, was he would've liked more than the 2 minutes allowed to present their views at the Public Hearing and Final Action Consideration. Regarding wired glass and the CPSC, he thinks the 2-1/2 year "temporary" exemption of wired glass should have been removed by internal maintenance of the standard, and not left to outside action.

As for the future, Greg Abel and AFSG are continuing with their agenda to promote safe glass. They're currently working on a congressional mandate to have all wired glass in hazardous locations replaced within a specified time frame, and they're actively pursuing the possibility of a recall through CPSC. And, not too far out of the realm of possibility, is the potential for a class action lawsuit against manufacturers of wired glass. Greg even indicated that they're in the process of creating a consulting business, Safe Glass Consulting LLC, to help schools, businesses, and other facility owners in identifying safety glazing problems within their buildings, and assist in developing solutions to correct those problems. For more information on AFSG, go to their website at www.safeglass.org, or www.safeglassconsulting.com for more information on their consulting business.

The 2004/2005 ICC code development cycle is already under way with the Public Hearing phase scheduled for February 22 through March 6, 2005, at the 2005 Codes Forum in Cincinnati, Ohio. "Code development is the foundation for building safety and safeguarding the public," said ICC CEO James Lee Witt. "We have a record 2,000 suggested code changes on the table. Such active participation ensures that the International Codes address public safety for everyone and that the code change process works."

Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA is the specification writer and code reviewer for the Phoenix Office of Gould Evans He is a 1984 graduate of the University of Arizona, and has held various technical and managerial positions for military, state, and private agencies. To comment on this article, suggest other topics, or submit a question regarding codes, contact the author at ron.geren@gouldevans.com