The International Code Council's (ICC) Board of Directors recently took action to resolve a conflict in the upcoming 2018 International Codes (I-Codes) related to maximum plumbing fixture flow rates that resulted from the 2016 code change process. The board's action affirmed ICC's commitment to ensuring that all codes are comprehensive and coordinated.
Last year, during the 2016 Group B cycle, six code change proposals were submitted to add maximum plumbing fixture flow rates to the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). The code changes were: RE114 & CE247 (residential lavatory faucet); RE115 (residential shower head); CE170 (commercial shower head); CE175 Part I (commercial shower head); CE175 Part II (residential shower head). Details of each of the proposals can be found here.
Following the 2016 Committee Action Hearing during which the proposals were reviewed and approved, ICC received comments that similar proposals had been disapproved in the 2015 Group A cycle to the International Plumbing Code (IPC), and therefore the new proposals should be removed from the 2016 cycle.
Potentially conflicting codes are a matter of code scoping, which falls under the purview of the board. The board directed staff to allow the proposals to move through the 2016 cycle and to add the following note in the Report of the Committee Action Hearing and the Public Comment Agenda:
This code change proposal addresses the scope and application of the International Energy Conservation Code and the International Plumbing Code. The action taken by the Residential (Commercial) Energy Conservation Code Committee on this proposal, coupled with the final action taken at the 2016 Public Comment Hearings and subsequent Online Governmental Consensus Vote, will be limited to an advisory recommendation to the ICC Board of Directors who will determine the final disposition on this proposed change in accordance with Section 1.3 of CP28, which stipulates that the ICC Board of Directors determines the scope of the I-Codes.
Five of the six proposals were disapproved in the 2016 final action, and one (CE175 Part I) was approved. The issue was then taken up by the Code Correlation Committee for review and recommendation to the board.
The board reviewed the history and the details of the process and considered the recommendation of the Code Correlation Committee. After much serious deliberation, the board concurred with the committee's recommendation and took the following action: