Changing the I Codes Maureen Traxler - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Changing the I Codes

Maureen Traxler

Code Development Manager

City of Seattle

Lee Kranz

Plan Review Supervisor

City of Bellevue

Chair WABO Technical Code Development Committee

Tim Nogler

Managing Director

Washington State Building Code CouncilSlide2

Outline

Code development process

30 minutes

ICC

WSBCC

cdpACCESS Hands On—Voting for

r

eal

30 minutes

Work through one as an example; vote as a group

Each table/person with laptop votes

Writing proposals with exercise

60 minutes

Picking an issue

Formatting your proposal

Reason statements

Code change pitfallsSlide3

Why should you care about code development?

You learn a lot—about codes, reasons for code sections, new technologies…

It fixes problems you encounter

K

eeps codes current for new products and technology

You can get the code changed

WABO’s proposals have a good success rate

Code development just got easier with cdpACCESS

We

asked for

a way for everyone to participate,

now

we have it.

You have opportunity to vote; understanding the code development process will help you understand how to vote

Your

participation is

important

One person can’t do it alone

With more people participating, the end result is betterSlide4

Code Development Process Goals

Open

to all parties

Not dominated

by

proprietary or commercial interests

Transparent

Balance

of interests

Based on

consensus

“Governmental consensus process”

Final vote is consensus of governmental members who have no financial interest in outcomes; represent the general public

“ANSI process” is very different.

Used for A117, ASCE 7, ACI & other materials standards, UPC, NEC, NFPA 13

Allows longer debates, industry votes (no group can dominate), less opportunity to participate for people who aren’t on the committee

Fair

appeals processSlide5

Code Change Cycle (Groups A, B, C)

Codes are divided into 3 groups for each code edition (Groups A, B, & C)

One-year of code development for each group

Group C (

2014):

IGCC

Group A (2015):

IBC

except structural,

IEBC, IFGC, IMC, IPC, IPMC, IPSDC, IRC - M, IRC - P, ISPSC, IZC

Group

B (2016): Admin all codes, IBC Structural,

IECC-Commercial,

IECC-Residential + IRC Energy,

IFC, IRC - B,

IWUICSlide6

Code Cycle Snapshot

2015

codes published in 2014

all except IGCC

2015/2016/2017

Cycle

Group A: proposals due Jan, 2015; final results Nov 2015

Group B: proposals due Jan, 2016; final results Nov 2016

Group C: proposals due Jan, 2017; final results Nov 2017

2018 codes published mid 2017 (except IGCC)Slide7

Early January

Proposals submitted

August

Comments submitted

Mid March

Proposals posted

Late August

Comments posted

Late April

Committee Action Hearings

Late Sept

Public Comment Hearings

Mid May

Online

vote on assembly actions

Mid Oct

Online

vote on

final actions

Mid Nov

Final results posted

Early June

Results posted

Phase 1: Proposals & Committees

Phase 2: Public Comments & Final Vote

Draft proposals

Review proposals

A

ttend hearings

Prepare recomdtnfor voting

Draft

comments

Review

comments

Attend hearings

Prepare recomdtnfor voting

One Year of Code Development

ICC staff works w submitters

ICC staff works w submitters

Start next GroupSlide8

ICC Code Development Process

Committee Action

Hearing Process

Committee votes on each proposal at the hearing

If someone present disagrees with committee vote, they make assembly motion

All ICC members can vote on assembly motions on-line after the hearing Slide9

Motions at Committee Hearings

Only Committee members make motions (except for assembly motions)Possible motions:

AS As Submitted

AM As Modified

D (Disapproval)

Committee must state a reason for the motion.

Reasons published with hearing resultsSlide10

Motions at Public Comment Hearings

Anyone can make a motionPossible motions:

AS

As

Submitted

AM

As

Modified

by code development committee

AMPC As Modified by Public Comment (only mods published in

the agenda are allowed—no floor modifications)

D Disapproval

Process is weighted in favor of status quo (disapproval) first; committee action second.

Disapproval needs simple majority regardless of committee action; committee action needs simple majoritySlide11

STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE BUILDING CODE COUNCIL

Process for adoption of state amendments

Step One: statewide amendments submitted

Proposal proponent completes the ‘Application for Review of a Statewide Amendment’

form.

assessment

of

why the amendment is needed based on the listed criteria: critical for life/safety; required by law; needed to address a unique character of the state; fix errors and omissions

The

form is submitted to the SBCC by the yearly March 1 deadline.Slide12

STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE BUILDING CODE COUNCIL

Process for adoption of state amendments

Step Two:

Staff

Review

SBCC staff

checks

for complete information

Staff may request additional information from the proponent if

necessary.

Staff may be directed to conduct or provide additional research on the

benefits and impacts

of the proposal if necessary.Slide13

STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE BUILDING CODE COUNCIL

Process for adoption of state amendments

Step Three:

Council

Codes

Committee Review

*

ACTION ITEM

File CR 101 Notice of Intent

Note: Rule Making must follow Administrative Procedures Act

Council delegates to codes committees for review and public input. Proposals posted on Council website.

Codes

committees recommend proposals be sent either to a TAG for further

review

or be denied, tabled or deferred.Slide14

STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE BUILDING CODE COUNCIL

Process for adoption of state amendments

Step Four: Technical Advisory Group Process

TAGs appointed by SBCC chair

TAGs review new proposals, and new code edition significant changes, and existing state amendments

TAGs make recommendations on adoption to the SBCC codes committee (AS, AM, D)Slide15

STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE BUILDING CODE COUNCIL

Process for adoption of state amendments

Step Five: Workgroup on Economic Impact

TAG Chairs and staff present economic findings to the economic workgroup (SBCC members)

Public

may address the

workgroup.

Workgroup

may recommend further economic analysis be conducted by the proponent, by staff, or by a third party

.Slide16

STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE BUILDING CODE COUNCIL

Process for adoption of state amendments

Step Six: TAG recommendations

Codes committees review proposed amendments

Staff

prepares a report to the Council on the economic impacts of all proposals reviewed

.

Where

an

impact on small business is found,

the

report includes a Small Business Economic Impact Statement on those items.

ACTION ITEMS—

SBEIS filed with proposed rule according to Regulatory Fairness Act.

Proposed rule filed for public hearing

Proposed rule contains all amendatory language Slide17

STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE BUILDING CODE COUNCIL

Process for adoption of state amendments

Step Seven:

Council

Review

Council reviews the

proposed rules

Public may

address the Council regarding

proposals.

Council moves to forward proposed amendments to the public hearing process

.

ACTION ITEM

—File CR 102 Proposed

R

ule with small business economic impact statement ; sets public hearing dates.Slide18

STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE BUILDING CODE COUNCIL

Process for adoption of state amendments

Step Eight: Public

Hearing/ adoption Process

Members of the public may address the Council regarding the economic (and other) impacts of proposed amendments to the codes

.

The Council makes a final decision on adoption of proposed statewide amendments by December1.

ACTION ITEM–

File CR 103 Permanent Rule with cost benefit statement where necessarySlide19

cdpACCESS™ Main Features

On line submittal of code change proposals and public comments

Allows collaboration

Remote voting—2x for each code Group

Committee Action Hearings (mid May)

Vote

on

assembly

motions following the

hearings

All ICC members vote

Public

Comment

Hearings (mid October)

Vote

to occur following the

hearings

Governmental

members onlyESSENTIAL to meet registration deadlinesSlide20

Reason for cdpACCESS

Response

to ICC members’

request for a

way to participate in code development w/o travel

Can’t afford time & money to attend hearings

Added benefit: participate at your own pace

2-week window to voteSlide21

Voting with cdpACCESS

Voters can view video of hearings, text of proposals and comments

For more information on cdpACCESS™ go to:

http://www.iccsafe.org/cdpACCESSSlide22

WABO TCD

Works as a group on:Drafting code change proposals

Drafting public comments

Reviewing proposals and comments

Testimony for hearings

Issues related to code development

WABO TCD is not the same as WABO Membership:

Does not represent WABO Membership except as directed by the WABO Executive Committee

Identify ourselves as representing WABO TCD on all proposals

WABO TCD focuses on ICC codes and Washington State

codesSlide23

Nuts & Bolts of Code Changes

Code change proposals have 2 parts

Revision to code text

Reason supporting changeSlide24

Keeping track of your code change issues

WABO Discussions—TCD discussion forum (WABO website)Lee

keeps ideas in a 3-ring binder and on website forum

Maureen keeps a list in her computerSlide25

Formatting code change language

Underline words you want to add to the code

Strike through

words you want to remove from the codeSlide26

Reason statements

Reason should be based on data when available

Is there a study that supports your proposed change?

Be Clear

OK

to use diagrams

and photos if it will make your reason clearer

Longer reason statement isn’t always more persuasive

Be Concise

Keep it short unless it’s a complex issue that has not been discussed

before

Focus on what’s persuasive

“That’s the way

we

do it”

isn’t persuasiveAnticipate opponents’ arguments, but don’t focus on them, and you don’t have to mention themTell the truth

Don’t distort dataDon’t overstate your caseSlide27

ICC Code Development

Good “Starter” Issues

Fixing obvious errors

Fixing cross-references might be dealt with “editorially” – staff discretion -- but they usually ask you to prepare a code change proposal

Resolving conflicts within or between codes

Fixing confusing language

Be careful of unintended consequences (changing intent of original provision)Slide28

Example of starter issueSlide29

Another starter issueSlide30

ICC Code Development

More “Advanced” Issues

Eliminating unenforceable code requirements

Complex issues

Complexity can be technical or political

Support with data or good reasoning

Examples:

Political issue, like residential fire sprinklers

Adding

new

requirements, like CO alarms

Confusing or complicated issues, like State Res Code provisions on protection of cantilevered floorsSlide31

ICC Code Development

What makes for a successful proposal?

Technical merit

Consistent with IBC philosophy (not “because that’s how it was in UBC” or “this is from the Washington State Code”)

Well-written and supported

Simple to understand

(Committee has limited

time to

review loads of proposals)

Deal

with one issue

Not too long

Note: if complex issue

, try to break

it

into

smaller proposalsBreaking it up may lead to “chicken and egg” problem, esp. if parts go to different committees.Slide32

Wrap up:

WABO TCD wants you (to give us your code change ideas)!You can make a positive difference in your community.

Let us know if you need help with your code changes.

TCD keeps a meeting schedule on the WABO website.

Thanks for your participation today and in the future!