When the ICC (International Code Council) and IAPMO (International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials announced last year that they had agreed to begin talks about resolving their differences by creating a single set of codes, all who are affected by the problem of having competing codes breathed a sigh of relief.
It now seemed that the problems associated with two code agencies fighting for turf might finally be alleviated if the competing agencies could agree to agree. Indeed, IAPMO stated recently that fully half of their budget was spent marketing to local jurisdictions to have their codes recognized over the ICC mechanical codes. This is a terrible waste of time and money at IAPMO plus the local AHJ representatives and those who must design, specify, build products and install them throughout the industry. This is a far reaching issue that goes well beyond commercial kitchen ventilation. It affects every trade and every building component.
Indeed, through-out the spring and summer, announcements from ICC and IAPMO were very optimistic indicating that many issues had been resolved. They even suggested that a combined code might be published in the year 2009, making most of us very pleased that such significant progress was under way.
It is important to understand that perhaps the main difference between these two groups is the consensus process. IAPMO has developed their codes using an ANSI style of open consensus. This process includes voting status for non-governmental parties who have an interest such as representative of affected industries. This open style of consensus is very effective in bringing both facts and points of view for all affected parties. Often, code officials are unaware of detailed facts and manufacturing challenges regarding products and installation methods while they themselves bring actual case history and understanding to the development of codes. It is a very practical and sound system that avoids poor code development that may result from just one point of view.
The ICC on the other hand has grown rapidly throughout the country since being formed from three regional code agencies. The method used by the ICC allows for public comment from interested parties at specific times, but only allows a final decision by governmental members. Voting members are persons who have no vested interest except for public health and safety, but we ask is that the whole story.
UP YOUR STACK® has been a strong supporter of the ICC believing that they have been bringing a high level of understanding to many regions of the country. This in turn, has helped make the task of meeting local and state codes much easier for those who must deal with real world issues as their livelihood. Dealers, manufacturers, consultants, contractors and owners all benefit when there is a clear understanding of the rules.
However, we now question their recent decision to abandon these most promising discussions. When the rules or codes vary from state to state, county to county and even city or township, the confusion and the compliance cost for all concerned spirals upwards. Compromise is a necessary element to any negotiations. We begin to wonder who is in charge at ICC and who is pulling the strings?
IAPMO and ICC had high hopes to create a hybrid method of solving this main difference. Recently, IAPMO’s Executive Director, Russ Chaney stated that “Both parties were in agreement on key matters and a successful conclusion seemed only weeks away”.
UP YOUR STACK® feels that it is important for our readers to understand the various points of view and therefore is using the next several articles to explain their positions. Included are the press announcements from both the ICC and IAPMO as well as recent comments from Foodservice Equipment Reports Fortnightly Newsletter, plus industry leaders Rick Cartwright and Tom Johnson.
We can only hope that sufficient public comment will develop that ICC is brought back to the table with less intractable demands. Compromise is a necessary element to any negotiations. It is important to all of us. |