Hello Reader,

The Group B code development hearings for the 2027 I-Codes kicked off Sunday afternoon in Orlando, Florida. Representing AIBD, Building Codes Committee Chairman Jack Butler and Executive Director Steve Mickley have been actively presenting nine proposals on the organization's behalf.
​
The International Code Council (ICC) Committee Action Hearings (CAH) are a critical stage in the code development process, where expert committees review, debate, and vote on code change proposals.
​
The Codes Committee entered the hearings with two primary objectives: to replace the title Design Professional with Building Designer, and to clarify exactly what a "special condition" is when a building official uses the clause to require that the plans being submitted be signed and sealed by a registered design professional.
​
​As an association, we have a significant victory to celebrate—and it’s all thanks to Jack's efforts.
​
Jack’s proposed definitions for Special Condition, with a modification, and Supplemental Construction Documentation have been approved by the code development committee to advance to the next stage for potential inclusion in the International Building Code (IBC) and the International Existing Building Code (IEBC).

The text struck was the modification made during the discussion. In addition, the proposal included the ability for plans to be submitted in digital format, which was missing in the IBC and IECC.

The committee approved the proposal with a vote of 12 to 1.

​

Jack Butler testified on behalf of AIBD at the ICC code hearing.

Unfortunately, the definitions were rejected when the same proposal was presented to the residential code development committee the day before. However, it was their comments that prompted the modification that ultimately led to approval with the other committees.
​
With the recommended approval for the other accompanying codes and some attention during the "Public Comments" phase of the process, Jack will have the opportunity to change the committee's mind in October during the second step of this three-step process.
​
​Why is this important?​
​
Jack frequently hears from members across the country about situations where work is typically exempt from requiring a registered design professional to be suddenly mandated to have one.
​
This often happens when building officials determine, sometimes arbitrarily, that the size, value, or number of stories of the project creates a special condition, necessitating a seal and signature. In some cases, it's simply that the project is being built in their jurisdiction.
​
Section 106 of the residential code and 107 of the building code give building officials the authority to determine that, where special conditions exist, they may require additional construction documents to be prepared by a registered design professional.
​
If the definitions above survive this arduous process, the building official will be hard-pressed to justify that a full set of construction drawings, as prepared by the building designer, falls outside the code's parameters.

It's typical for only a small minority of proposals to get committee recommendations during this process.

For AIBD, this round is 22%.

The proposal for the building designer definitions was poorly received during the residential code committee meeting. Similarly, in the building code and existing building code committee meeting, the proposal and the one including the introduction of "Building Designer in Responsible Charge" failed to gain approval.

Another proposal is scheduled for consideration on Saturday or Sunday, but its likelihood of success has been significantly diminished due to its association with previously rejected proposals.

​Click here to review all the proposals initially submitted to ICC in January.
​
​There was one other small victory.​
​
AIBD has proposed a minor update to the IRC Accessibility section to include an exemption and definition for multistory units, which will serve mainly as clarification.
​
Currently, the IRC directs designers to the R-3 section of the IBC accessibility code for buildings with four or more units, like townhouses. The IBC states that if a building with four or more units lacks elevator service, accessibility requirements do not apply to multistory units—only one-story units must comply.
​
This means townhouse designs with only two- or three-story units can follow IRC provisions without meeting the IBC's accessibility requirements. However, this exemption is not explicitly stated in the IRC. The proposed update aims to fill this gap and clearly include the exemption in the IRC.
​
This clarification was approved unanimously by the committee.

The next step will be for the public to provide comments and for the proponents to make modifications, beginning in June.

Then, the surviving proposals move on to a second Committee Action Hearing in Cleveland in October.

Stay tuned,

The A-Team

​