# Pennsylvania will NOT adopt the 2012 codes.



## rshuey (Jan 19, 2012)

http://www.pabuilders.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=1127

Also, PA officials would like the codes reviewed on a 6 year basis instead of every 3.

So......UCC for stair geometry, 2009 I codes for everything but some 2006 codes for one and two family?

Sounds like a perfect example of Uniformity if you ask me......wtf?


----------



## jpranch (Jan 19, 2012)

Wyoming will adopt the 2012 codes but did skip the 2009 editions. Budget reasons. The only exception was the City of Gillette. So state wide they will jump from the 06 to the 2012. I would expect that they may skip the 2015 editions?


----------



## fatboy (Jan 19, 2012)

Sounds fun for PA......

JP, locally we used to adopt like that, then found that the ISO ratings (BS!) hinged so heavily on adoption of the most recent code cycle. For the last three, we have adopted within a year.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 19, 2012)

If the ICC had some incentive to develop a sensible long term strategy toward code changes, then they might meet with less resistance...but so long as they try to cram as many changes as possible down the public's throat with each code cycle, we will be seeing more of this.


----------



## righter101 (Jan 19, 2012)

I am just starting to bring this proposal to the State of Washington as well.  I thought it would be much eaiser to convince the state to go to every other cycle, rather than trying to get the ICC to change.

Anyone from washington who wants to voice their support, let me know.

I am working on a powerpoint presentation to send to WABO as well as our local council with hopes they will pass it on to the state reps.  If they aren't too interested, I will be making the case to WABO to lobby the SBCC.  Since we have a statewide ammendment process and emergency rule making procedures in place to deal with mid-cycles issues that come up, it should be a no brainer.

I hope to have my PP presentation ready before the end of the month and would send it to anyone who would like.

Thanks.


----------



## David Henderson (Jan 19, 2012)

Can't sell as many books if you make it a longer cycle


----------



## Alias (Jan 19, 2012)

Well, CA is already rewriting for the next code cycle.  Received notice that the CBSC was opening up for comments a month or so ago.  No respite for the building depts. in the State of CA.


----------



## fireguy (Jan 19, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> If the ICC had some incentive to develop a sensible long term strategy toward code changes, then they might meet with less resistance...but so long as they try to cram as many changes as possible down the public's throat with each code cycle, we will be seeing more of this.


It takes me about 3 years to become familar with the code changes.  And I am only concerned with life and safety stuff.  I do not know how you people keep up with the changes every 3 years.  A 5 or 6 year cycle seems to be a better idea.


----------



## Mark K (Jan 19, 2012)

righter101

WABO is promotig extensive changes to Chapter 17 as part of the 2015 adoption process and I believe they submitted a lot of changes during the 2012 process.


----------



## jar546 (Jan 20, 2012)

Yep, I now have to buy 2012 IBC books but just for Chapter 11 and update my ANSI A117.1 2003 to the 2010 version.  I won't have to do that until 2013 but still have to keep the 2006 IRC but only for the wall bracing section.  So lets look at Pennsyltucky in 2013:

2009 I-Codes except:

2008 NEC will remain

2012 IBC Chapter 11 only

2010 ANSI A117.1 2003

2006 IRC wall bracing section only

Multiple legislator adopted changes compiled from 2004 on just to screw up the whole thing

Oh, and we did not adopt Chapter 1 of the IBC either

Yep, thank you contractors and builders association for keeping things uniform in PA.  You suck


----------



## mark handler (Jan 20, 2012)

Alias said:
			
		

> Well, CA is already rewriting for the next code cycle.  Received notice that the CBSC was opening up for comments a month or so ago.  No respite for the building depts. in the State of CA.


Well CA did keep the 1997 code going, with minor modifications for 13 years,,,,,


----------



## brudgers (Jan 20, 2012)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Yep, thank you contractors and builders association for keeping things uniform in PA.  You suck


  If you want uniform standards you need the fire marshals on your side...Have you noticed that NFPA standards get modified a lot less at the state level?


----------



## Arch5000 (Jan 21, 2012)

The root of the problem is the ICC.  Comments on the 2015 code changes were due Jan. 4 of 2012.  No user (code official, design professional, contractor) has even started using the 2012 codes yet to have a comment. Industry lobbyists have more say than the user or administrator. When the Committees disapprove of a change and their recommendations are overruled at the Final Action Hearings by new members brought in for a specific vote, there is a serious problem.  The user is fed up with the expense and time to relearn the codes just at the time you are becoming familiar with them.  This is the "Year of the Member" at the ICC.  I hope they got the message that many in PA are dissatisfied with their process and inability to control their own voting rules.  But in the mean time, PA is going to sit this one out.


----------



## fatboy (Jan 21, 2012)

Yes, part of the serious problem is lack of remote voting. There are a few code officials that can make the trip to the hearings, but it does not necessarily represent the majority of the ICC government representatives.

REMOTE VOTING HAS TO HAPPEN!

They are saying maybe by 2015, BS.


----------



## TJacobs (Jan 21, 2012)

What about the energy code?  Don't they have to keep current with the IECC to get federal energy money?


----------



## jar546 (Jan 21, 2012)

TJacobs said:
			
		

> What about the energy code?  Don't they have to keep current with the IECC to get federal energy money?


That is a good question.  Who would know the answer?


----------



## Mark K (Jan 21, 2012)

Having gone through more than a few code cycles as a structural engineer. I will suggest that the problem is not made easier by longer code cycles.  In the past 40 years our codes have changed dramatically.  Rather I believe that the changes are more easily accomodated if they are spread out more.

While there may be places where we could simplify the codes if we stopped making changes we would create problems with the adoption of new products and technologies.  Do we want to go back to only allowing cast iron drain pipes with bell and spigot joints using okum and hot lead?

Do we want to make it hard to correct the mistakes in the code, and there are a number?

Change is inevitable and change is continuous so we should accept it.


----------



## righter101 (Jan 23, 2012)

Mark K said:
			
		

> righter101WABO is promotig extensive changes to Chapter 17 as part of the 2015 adoption process and I believe they submitted a lot of changes during the 2012 process.


I have heard rumors of getting rid of the energy code and adopting with ammendments the IECC.

I am going to move my effort forward, but realize it may be more practical to affect change prior to 15, not 12.

thanks .


----------

