Policy Building codes and standards should assure the safety and health of building occupants using the most cost effective requirements and guidelines. A single national model building code should be maintained in a fair and open process that provides for appropriate voting representation by NAHB and other interested parties.
Background
Building Codes
Construction in virtually all jurisdictions is regulated by building codes for the purpose of providing minimum standards of health and safety for the public. Model building code organizations develop and maintain model building codes for use by state and local jurisdictions. A model building code is not enforceable until it is adopted by a state or local jurisdiction, with or without amendments, and it becomes law. NAHB supports state and local amendments to account for jurisdictional differences or to enhance housing affordability by providing cost-effective requirements to provide for the health and safety of the occupants of homes.
Until 1995, most codes were written, maintained, revised, and promulgated by three regional model code organizations, each covering large sections of the country. In addition, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) developed and maintained codes dealing with electrical, fire, and life safety.
Move to Single Set of National Model Building Codes
In 1994, the three regional model code organizations recognized the need for a single coordinated set of national model building codes and established the International Code Council (ICC) to undertake that effort. In response, NAHB adopted policy supporting the concept of a coordinated set of national model building codes that provide for appropriate voting representation by the housing industry. Additionally, NAHB called for the creation of a user-friendly, stand-alone residential building code that was truly national in scope and applicability and included housing affordability as a major determinant in its development.
A combined ICC/NAHB Task Force was established in April of 1996 to address these and other issues. This resulted in the establishment of a drafting committee in 1997 for the International Residential Code (IRC) that included voting representatives from NAHB and other industry groups in addition to building officials. NAHB also actively participated in the drafting of the other International Codes (I-Codes). In 2000, ICC published the first full edition of the I-Codes, including the IRC.
Code Wars
After initially agreeing to work with ICC in its efforts, NFPA withdrew from development of the I-Codes and announced plans to develop its own set of national model building codes for the purpose of competing directly with ICC. NAHB and other industry leaders formed a coalition to persuade NFPA and ICC to work together on a single set of codes. When those efforts failed, NAHB initially decided that it needed to participate in the development of the new NFPA building code (NFPA 5000) to represent the interests of the home building industry.
However, it soon became clear that NFPA did not recognize housing affordability as a major determinant in the development of its new building code and promoted instead the consideration of costly property protection requirements. Further, NFPA provided inadequate levels of voting representation to the housing industry on the technical committees drafting this document.
For these reasons, NAHB withdrew in 2002 from participation in the development of NFPA 5000 and adopted policy urging its members and affiliated home builder associations to oppose its adoption. NAHB also urged NFPA to abandon code development and adoption efforts related to NFPA 5000 and to work with ICC to integrate the other NFPA codes and standards into the ICC family of codes with the goal of achieving a single coordinated set of national model building codes.
NFPA has since completed NFPA 5000 and has been pushing hard in state and local jurisdictions for its adoption. However, with the support of NAHB and other industry groups, ICC codes have prevailed in the code adoption wars that have ensued. The I-Codes have been adopted at the state or local level by forty-eight states and the District of Columbia. Yet, despite overwhelming losses, NFPA has not given up. NFPA has adopted a new strategy of pushing for dual adoption of the ICC and NFPA codes in jurisdictions where the I-Codes have already been adopted. NFPA is also targeting large municipalities, like New York City, where the I-Codes have not been adopted.
In 2004, NFPA announced its plan to develop a new one- and two-family dwelling code to compete directly with the IRC and bolster support for NFPA 5000. Under the original plan developed by NFPA staff and approved by the NFPA Standards Council, the code was slated to be available for adoption in May of 2008. NAHB and ICC were initially concerned NFPA would attempt to leverage development of this new code to impede the adoption of the I-codes but they have been unable to do so.
Like NFPA 5000, NAHB is opposed to this new code and continues to support the concept of a single set of national model building codes. A direct request to NFPA to abandon its plan to develop this new residential code was rebuffed. NFPA has yet to initiate formal development activities however, and indications are that they will abandon the project.
Code Development and Maintenance
Model building codes are constantly being revised and undergo regularly scheduled code development cycles. Traditionally, this has been an annual process that included two hearings each year. ICC switched to 18-month cycles starting in 2003. Proponents and opponents are given the opportunity at these hearings to express their views on the proposed changes. At the first hearing, code development committees vote a “recommended action” for each of the proposals. At the final hearings, only the building official members of the model code organizations vote on whether to approve or disapprove the proposed changes.
Proposed changes are evaluated primarily on health and safety aspects and technical feasibility. ICC does require in its rules of procedure that proponents indicate whether or not a proposed change will increase the cost of construction and encourages discussion of the “cost and benefits” of the code change at its public hearings. However, cost-benefit is different from first-time cost, which directly impacts housing affordability. Further, there is no requirement calling for a reasonable payback to home buyers or other means of measuring the cost-benefit of a proposed code change. ICC did add consideration of housing affordability to the purpose statement of the IRC in the 2003 edition. This action is a significant step towards the recognition of housing affordability as a major determinant in code development for residential construction.
NFPA utilizes a consensus process established by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for the development of industry standards. NFPA likewise considers the cost impact of proposed changes but also fails to adequately consider first-time cost or cost benefit. However, as indicated previously, they have promoted property protection over first-time cost and housing affordability.
Impact of Building Codes on Housing Affordability
In each code development cycle, there are a myriad of code changes proposed that would, if approved, significantly increase the cost of constructing new homes and reduce housing affordability. Many are not based on sound technical data and/or are not cost effective. For example, proponents of fire sprinkler systems continue to push for mandating these systems in all new one- and two-family dwellings, despite their high cost and unsubstantiated need. Instead, NAHB supports the installation of hard-wired smoke alarms in all homes, new and existing, which is a proven cost-effective provision for protecting occupants of homes from fire death or injury.
Likewise, restrictive stair geometry requirements have been adopted in recent years by the model building codes without adequate technical justification. NAHB has determined that this change and the resulting larger stairway “footprint” has a significant cost impact on smaller, entry-level homes where affordability is most critical. Model building codes include a number of other equally onerous requirements that lack sound technical justification. Therefore, NAHB continues to support state and local efforts to amend these provisions to be consistent with previous model codes.
Industry Standards
The model building codes reference approximately 1300 standards. By that reference, the standards become part of the code and as important as the codes themselves. Most standards are written by consensus committees from technically focused groups such as the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
While provisions are in place to prevent domination by any interest group, NAHB’s active participation in the process is the only means of ensuring a true consensus is achieved. Only those standards developed through an accredited consensus process have sufficient professional review to be considered for reference in building codes.
Natural Hazards Mitigation
Recent hurricanes and earthquakes have resulted in catastrophic property damage and intensified efforts by the insurance industry and federal agencies to push for the addition of costly mitigation requirements in national model building codes and industry standards. Seven of the ten most costly natural disasters in the U.S. have occurred since August of 2004. Additionally, migration in the U.S. to more natural disaster-prone regions continues to grow, putting more people and their homes in harms way.
While mitigation of damage to housing from hurricanes, earthquakes, and other natural events is potentially an effective tool for lowering future catastrophic property losses, home buyers are often being asked to bear the added cost to the construction of new housing without the benefit of a reasonable payback and/or other incentives. Events that result in catastrophic property damage typically trigger the reactionary adoption of stricter and unaffordable construction and code requirements. The proposed changes often focus on minimizing property damage and recovery costs, frequently without the benefit of scientific risk-based analyses or consideration of their cost effectiveness.
NAHB supports amendments to national model building codes and industry standards for the purpose of mitigating property damage to residential construction from natural disasters that are demonstrated to be cost effective and affordable.
Rehabilitation Codes
Building code application to, and coverage of, residential remodeling and rehabilitation work varies widely across states. The variation and uncertainty causes delays, unnecessary and costly additions to the work and limits the reuse of some urban housing and infrastructure. More sensible and less restrictive code requirements for the renovation of existing buildings are needed. Recently, model codes for the rehabilitation of existing buildings have been developed to address some of these needs.
Green Building
There is a growing movement by the environmental community and others seeking to promote and/or mandate Green Building in residential construction. For example, the U.S. Green Buildings Council’s LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) program has developed a rating system for Green Building in commercial buildings that is being mandated by a number of state and local governments and federal agencies. USGBC has also initiated the development of a LEED (LEED-H), rating system for new homes, which is scheduled for roll out in mid 2007.
NAHB has sought to fill the need for cost-effective voluntary model Green Building guidelines to combat attempted mandates by regulators. In January of 2005, NAHB completed its Model Green Home Building Guidelines for the purpose of assisting state and local HBAs in establishing new Green Building programs for their members.
Solutions
Building Codes
Support a single coordinated set of national model building codes for jurisdictions choosing to adopt a building code that provides for:
Responsible code development procedures as reflected by the current procedures of the International Code Council.
Appropriate levels of voting representation by NAHB nominees on code development committees.
A user-friendly, stand-alone residential building code that includes housing affordability as a major determinant in its development, as currently represented by the International Residential Code.
Continue to support the adoption of state-enabling legislation that:
Calls for the creation of state-wide codes based on a coordinated set of national model building codes developed in accordance with the criteria stated above.
Allows state-wide amendments to the model codes to account for jurisdictional differences or to enhance housing affordability by providing cost-effective requirements to provide for the health and safety of the occupants of homes.
Creates statewide minimum-maximum code requirements by recommending that there be no local amendments, which make the code more restrictive or housing less affordable.
Continue to oppose any building code or building code provision that is detrimental to the goal of providing decent, safe, and affordable housing and that does not include jurisdictional flexibility.
Ask HUD to withhold federal grants and loans to those states that use building codes that exceed the national model building codes and to apply the same restriction to any other stand-alone law that deals with a building code.
Urge NAHB members and affiliated home builder associations to oppose the adoption of NFPA 5000.
Support, to the extent possible, efforts by NAHB members and affiliated home builder associations to oppose the adoption of NFPA 5000 in their state and local jurisdictions.
Urge NAHB members and affiliated home builders associations to oppose the development of the NFPA One- and Two-Family Building Code (OTFBC).
Support, to the extent possible, efforts by NAHB members and affiliated home builders associations to oppose the development of the NFPA OTFBC and the adoption of it in their state and local jurisdictions.
Urge NFPA to abandon code development and adoption efforts related to NFPA 5000 and its OTFBC and to work with ICC to integrate the other NFPA codes and standards into the ICC family of codes with the goal of achieving a single coordinated set of national model building codes.
Support an affirmative program of fire safety for residential construction whose principal components are life safety improvements and cost-effectiveness.
Continue to oppose mandatory residential sprinklers for multifamily low-rise and single family residential construction and other fire protection techniques that do not enhance the safety of occupants and are not cost-effective.
Pursue alliances with organizations that support fire safety, consumer safety education, and housing affordability.
Work cooperatively with other concerned parties to oppose the restriction or banning of wood trusses, I-joists, and engineered wood products designed, manufactured, and used in accordance with nationally recognized codes and standards for unsubstantiated concerns related to fire fighter safety.
Support efforts by state and local affiliated Home Builder Associations to oppose the adoption of any new stair geometry that is not consistent with the requirements originally contained in the 1993 BOCA and 1992 CABO Codes by amending those provisions when adopting new editions of model building codes.
Industry Standards
Urge Congress and federal agencies, when referencing private sector standards in legislation and regulations, to reference only standards developed through proper consensus procedures such as those of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), and not to reference any standard that has been denied approval by ANSI.
Natural Hazards Mitigation
Support amendments to national model building codes and industry standards for the purpose of mitigating property damage to residential construction from natural disasters that are demonstrated to be cost effective and affordable.
Define, for the purpose of mitigating property damage from natural hazards, an increase in residential construction requirements to be cost-effective and affordable only if, through a reduction in insurance rate, a tax credit, and/or other incentive:
A buyer of a home who qualifies to purchase the home before the increase in construction requirements would still qualify to purchase the same home after the additional cost of the natural hazards mitigation features has been added to the purchase price.
The principal, interest, taxes, and insurance payment will be no greater after the inclusion of the cost of the of natural hazards mitigation features than before.
Urge Congress to take a comprehensive approach to dealing with natural disasters and their effects on the entire housing stock, not just new housing, when attempting to reduce the costs associated with natural disasters.
Oppose excessive seismic regulations and laws that do not reflect the actual seismic risk.
Urge Congress to require the Government Accountability Office to evaluate the economic impact of the mitigation provisions on the housing and construction industry in the various seismic areas before any action is taken.
Play a key role in the development of public policy on earthquake mitigation affecting the housing industry and work to develop industry coalitions to minimize the economic impact of model code changes.
Support the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) provisions and seismic mitigation efforts which are cost-effective and recognize conventional construction practices.
Oppose mandatory quality assurance program requirements in the NEHRP provisions for multifamily construction for structures located in moderate or low-seismic areas which do not exceed three stories in height or 16 units in number.
Oppose any efforts to require and/or expand special inspections or quality assurance programs for single family detached dwellings that are in excess of those required by the 1994 NEHRP provisions.
Continue to oppose requirements for wind-borne debris protection in model building codes and building industry standards that are not cost-effective and that can create a false sense of security among occupants that their homes are “hurricane proof.”
Continue to support efforts by NAHB members and affiliates to eliminate cost-prohibitive requirements for wind-borne debris protection when adopting model codes and industry standards in their state and local jurisdictions.
Urge Congress to reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) for the allowable five years and, in the reauthorization, to:
Ensure that all properties located within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated flood plain, including repetitive loss properties, remain eligible for flood insurance.
Encourage FEMA, with the participation of local governments, to facilitate and provide funding for the redevelopment of affected properties up to FEMA standards.
Ensure that all owners of purchased properties are paid fair market value.
Allow FEMA, through the NFIP, to charge a higher premium for those repetitive loss and severe repetitive loss properties for which reasonable mitigation offers were refused.
Require FEMA to notify all current policyholders of the changes to the program.
Rehabilitation Codes
Urge the model code organizations to develop code provisions that are suitable for use by states or localities that will facilitate rehabilitation work to existing structures in a manner that maintains or improves the existing level of safety without imposing unreasonable or economically prohibitive standards required under code provisions for new construction.
Green Building
Take the leadership role and become the national voice for America’s home building industry members who want to engage in “green” development, design, and construction.
Promote voluntary, builder- and market-driven solutions for green building and remodeling in lieu of mandatory local, state, or federal regulations.
Commit to the following long-term objectives for green building:
Promote building practices that represent resource-efficient construction.
Encourage the research and use of new technologies and practices.
Stimulate market demand for cost-effective, environmentally-friendly construction.
Provide education and meaningful information to builders, remodelers, home buyers, home owners, and regulators on the benefits of builder- and market-driven green building practices.
Seek to bolster the success of local HBA programs and to ensure that outside organizations do not dictate the requirements for green building.
