National Institute of Standards and Technology: Request for Information 

Docket No. 0909100442-0563-02 

January 12, 2011 

Contact: David Karmol, Vice President for Federal and External Affairs 

dkarmol@iccsafe.org

The International Code Council (ICC) is a membership association dedicated to building 

safety, fire prevention, and energy efficiency. The International Codes, or I-Codes, 

published by ICC, provide minimum safeguards for people at home, at school and in the 

workplace. Building codes benefit public safety and support the industry’s need for one 

set of codes without regional limitations. The International Code Council also publishes 

the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), which is referenced in the Energy 

Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, and is a national requirement in section 

410 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Fifty states and the District 

of Columbia have adopted the I-Codes at the state or jurisdictional level. Federal 

agencies including the Architect of the Capitol, General Services Administration, 

National Park Service, Department of State, U.S. Forest Service and the Veterans 

Administration also enforce the I-Codes for the facilities that they own or manage. The 

Department of Defense references the International Building Code for constructing 

military facilities, including those that house U.S. troops, domestically and abroad. 

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands enforce one or more of the I-Codes. 

The International Code Council (ICC) was established in 1994 as a non-profit organization 

dedicated to developing a single set of comprehensive and coordinated national model 

construction codes. The founders of the ICC are Building Officials and Code 

Administrators International, Inc. (BOCA), International Conference of Building Officials 

(ICBO), and Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc. (SBCCI). Since the 

early part of the last century, these non-profit organizations developed three separate 

sets of model codes used throughout the United States. Although regional code 

development has been effective and responsive to our country’s needs, the time came 
for a single set of codes. The nation’s three model code groups responded by creating 

the International Code Council and by developing codes without regional limitations; the 

International Codes. 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, on behalf of the National Science 

and Technology Council's Sub-Committee on Standards, in its Request for Information 

(ROI) published on December 8, 2010, invited interested parties to provide their 

perspectives on the effectiveness of Federal Agencies' participation in the development 

and implementation of standards and conformity assessment activities and programs. 

The ROI explained that information obtained from the request will help the SubCommittee on Standards develop case studies that Federal agencies can consider in 

their future engagement in standards development and conformity assessment. 

In turn, the ROI explained, the case studies would provide agencies information on 

lessons learned from Federal agency engagement in standards development for 

technologies that are complex, multi-disciplinary, exhibit system-type characteristics, 

and involve multiple government agencies, and addressed specific national priorities. 

A number of questions were posed in the ROI, regarding the manner, effectiveness and 

methods for Federal Agency involvement in the development and implementation of 

standards, and identifying more effective methods of agency engagement in the 

development of private sector standards. 

“What methods of engagement are used by Federal agencies to participate in 

private sector-led standards development? How transparent is each method? How 

effective is each method? How could the methods be improved? What other 

methods should the Federal agencies explore? What impact have Federal 

agencies had on standards activities? How well do Federal agencies coordinate 

their roles in standards activities in the sector of interest? When Federal agencies 

have been involved in standards setting efforts in a technology sector, how has 

the progress of standards setting efforts in this technology sector changed after 

Federal agencies became involved? Are Federal agencies generally receptive to 

input from other participants in standards-setting activities? Does receptiveness 

tend to depend on whether the Federal agency is a regulator or a customer? In 

those sectors where Federal agencies plays a significant role in standards 

activities, how valuable and timely is the work product associated with this 

effort?” 

In order to assist in this effort, ICC would like to describe two separate yet equally 

interesting approaches to Federal Agency participation in the development of building 

codes, aimed in one case at safety in commercial buildings and in the other at energy 

efficiency in new residential construction. 

Example One: 
World Trade Center NIST NCSTAR 1 (report and recommendations regarding the collapse 

of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings 1 &2) 

Following the release of the NIST final report on the WTC 1&2 collapse (NCSTAR-1) and 

the concurrent public concern with the safety of other high-rise buildings that might be 

targets for terrorist attacks, the Board of Directors of ICC created an ad hoc committee 

made up of various building experts and code officials to examine the recommendations 

made in the NIST report, and recommend changes to the ICC International Building 

Code(IBC) and the International Fire Code(IFC), based on the NIST report. This group 

also met with and received extensive input from the National Institute of Building 

Science, as well as with some of the investigators and authors of the NIST WTC report. 

The ad hoc Terrorism Resistant Buildings (TRB) committee used the NIST report to 

create a series of code change proposals, that were then submitted during the regular 

code change cycle of the ICC, beginning in 2006, and continuing for through the next two 

code cycles. Changes were made in both the 2006 model codes and the 2009 model 

codes, as a result of the work of the TRB committee. Among the significant changes 

recommended by the NIST report and now incorporated into the IBC, which is followed in 

all 50 states and by most federal agencies, are the following changes for all high rise 

buildings (occupied floors more than 75feet above the lowest level of Fire Department 

access): 

1) Luminous egress path marking required; 2) exit stairway enclosures required to be 

separated by no less than 30 feet; 3) enhanced inspection requirements for Sprayed-on 

Fire-Resistant Material (SFRM). 

In addition, the following requirements were added to the IBC, for high rise buildings 

more than 420 feet in building height: 

1)Increased bond strength for SFRM; 2) a second, additional exit stairway, with a 

minimum separation between stairwells; 3) a requirement to increase structural integrity 

of exit enclosures and elevator hoist enclosures; 4) redundant sprinkler system risers 

with alternate floor requirements. 

The development and adoption of these changes into the model International Building 

Code can be seen to be a great success, and there are some lessons to be learned from 

the process that might inform the Subcommittee, and inform other government agencies. 

Development Recommendations: 

First, there was a lag between the time of the report and the formulation and submission 

of proposed code changes into the ICC code development process. This was in part due 

to the reluctance of NIST investigators and research personnel to draft and directly 

submit proposed code changes. This occured even though these NIST staff personnel 

were most familiar with the identified issues and could most accurately describe the 

change needed to the model building code. While NIST personnel did meet with the TRB 

Ad Hoc Committee and did appear at code hearings testifying in support of the 
proposals, earlier involvement and collaboration would have been helpful and might well 

have resulted in earlier adoption of the new requirements and more rapid integration of 

the requirements into new buildings. There is no reason that government personnel 

should not draft and submit proposed code changes directly into the process, just as 

participants in code development committees might propose amendments during 

development of a standard; such activity should be encouraged and supported by 

agency leadership. Second, agency personnel should be encourage to participate in ad 

hoc and technical committees formed to develop code change proposals 

Implementation Recommendations: 

Because building codes are historically adopted by local or state governments, there is 

often a significant lag time between the incorporation of changes into the codes, and the 

actual adoption of such codes by local government authorities. The Federal Government 

could have a dramatic impact on more rapid adoption of the code changes if it would 

specify in its procurement contracts for new Federal office space that the building must 

comply with the latest version of the International Building Code. 

Example Two: 

Department of Energy Amendments to the International Energy Conservation Code 

(IECC) 

Since the passage of the Energy Production and Conservation Act of 2005, the 

Department of Energy has been authorized by law to work with the International Code 

Council to make residential structures more energy efficient through participating in the 

International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) code development process. In both the 

2006 and 2009 code cycles, the Department of Energy offered amendments which its 

staff believed would increase the energy efficiency of the code. Limited success was 

achieved in these two cycles for a variety of reasons, among those being a variety of 

similar proposals from an assortment of interests, which, although similar to the 

Department’s proposals, nevertheless competed with the Department’s proposals for 

support at the code hearings. 

Prior to the start of the 2012 code change cycle, the Department of Energy convened a 

stakeholders meeting and worked with these stakeholders over a period of several 

months in order to reach a consensus on the language and structure of several 

proposals to increase the energy efficiency of several sections of the IECC model code. 

Both this preliminary work and the effort to coordinate the efforts of interests with similar 

goals have led the Department to significant success in achieving its goals during the 

2009/2010 cycle, which will result in the 2012 IECC being at least 30% more energy 

efficient than the baseline 2006 IECC. At the same time as these efforts were going on to 

increase the efficiency of the model code, the Department of Energy was engaged in 

efforts to encourage the states to adopt and reach compliance with the 2009 IECC, as a 
consequence of language in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that 

required state governors to pledge to meet the requirements of the 2009 IECC for 

residential construction by 2017. While many states proceeded to adopt the 2009 IECC 

and the Department provided some guidance to states on methods to demonstrate 

compliance with the 2009 IECC, the Department sent some mixed messages and in some 

cases missed significant opportunities to encourage adoptions of the 2009 IECC to reap 

the energy efficiency benefits in states that upgrade to that version of the IECC. 

Development Recommendations: 

The clear improvement in results as an outcome of the collaboration with stakeholders 

prior to and during the ICC code development process provides clear guidance to 

achieve success in engaging with the private sector standards developers. It appears 

that, in order to be successful at using the private sector process, government agencies 

need to: 1) be familiar with and fully utilize the procedures of the standard setting 

organization (SSO); 2) engage with other participants in the process, to facilitate 

cooperation and mutual support; and 3) maintain an open dialogue with other 

participants and the SSO. 

Implementation Recommendations: 

Typically, when both private sector and government agencies think of “conformity 

assessment,” the methods of conformity assessment tend to be thought of in terms of 

first, second or third party assessments, and then further defined as to the method of 

conformity testing, whether by laboratory analysis, testing and “listing,” or some other 

type of acceptance process. All of these perspectives seem focused on commercial 

transactions. It is important when discussing buildings, and the means by which 

standards for buildings are implemented and ultimately used that there is generally an 

intermediate step that is typically found in cases where the standard is used primarily as 

a government regulation, as is the case with building codes or employee protection 

regulations(such as those used by OSHA). In these cases, the model code or standard 

does not take effect, and will generally not be complied with, until the governmental 

authority having jurisdiction adopts the model code or standard into law, thereby giving 

it the force of law. 

The implementation of building codes is infinitely more complex than the development of 

such codes, primarily because the various states and local jurisdictions use a variety of 

processes and procedures for adoption. In addition, these local processes are seldom 

transparent, and almost always influenced by political considerations at both the state 

and local levels. Nevertheless, from our perspective, and based on our experience in 

working with the various state and local jurisdictions on adoption efforts, we can make 

some suggestions for better implementation results that do not conflict with the 

principles of federalism and are consistent with the responsibilities of agencies to 

respect the rights and prerogatives of state and local governments. First, we suggest 

that if agencies can state a consistent and clear objective and make clear through grant 

preferences and other incentives that jurisdictions which move toward the agency 
objectives will be recognized and/or rewarded for moving toward such objectives, many 

jurisdictions will do what the agency could not legally require them to do. This 

mechanism can be seen with the implementation of seat-belt laws, as well as previous 

efforts to implement a 55 mile per hour speed limit. As Federal grants are discretionary, 

the agency responsible for distribution of such grant funds can generally impose 

requirements such as the adoption of standards or codes, and/or the enforcement of 

such standards or codes, as a condition to receiving funding. 

While this is undoubtedly true, and agencies have in recent times used this kind of 

incentive to move states to accept newer standards and codes, we see many instances 

where agencies miss the opportunity to reinforce policy efforts by requiring states to 

demonstrate adoption of codes or standards as a condition of receiving Federal grant 

funds. There is no reason not to reinforce policy imperatives at every opportunity, 

especially when the object is the implementation of standards or codes that include 

provisions and policies sought by the agency, including any time grant funds are made 

available. 

In the case of the Department of Energy, the agency has missed the opportunity to 

reinforce its policy of moving states to adopt the latest building energy codes on several 

occasions in 2009 and 2010, when grants related to building energy did not require the 

adoption of the latest target codes as a condition or as a factor in grant scoring. This is 

true even though Federal law is clear on the authority of the agency to push for the use 

of the latest standards, and the 2009 Recovery Act itself made the receipt of federal 

funds for several program dependent on the receipt of a letter of intent from state 

governors, which letter was required to include a promise of best efforts to adopt such 

codes. Upon inquiry to the Department, we have been advised that it is the Office of 

General Counsel that has opposed adding such conditions to grant requirements. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, we believe the Federal government should re-commit to the principles 

expressed in P.L. 104-113, The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, and 

in OMB A-119, that encourage government agencies to utilize standards and model 

codes developed by private sector standards organizations and to actively participate in 

the development of such standards. 

The International Code Council (ICC) has been fortunate to have consistent and in-depth 

involvement in the processes it uses to develop its model codes and standards. ICC uses 

the governmental consensus process to develop its model codes and the ANSI process 

to develop its standards. In both of these processes, representatives from a range of 

Federal agencies who own and operate, manage, regulate and or have interests in the 

characteristics and performance of residential and commercial buildings have been 

involved as both committee members and as commentators and advocates for proposals 

that would benefit the agencies and the citizens the agencies serve.