One Size Does Not Fit All When It Comes To The Applicability Of Code Issues And Compliance

Whether using one of the model codes or a site-specific code, such as New York City's Building Code, the task of analyzing and applying the applicable code requirement for a particular situation is best suited to a professional code consultant who understands the variations in codes from location to location. Owners and facility managers, primarily concerned with minimizing their risk on any scale of a project, need to understand which design professional is responsible for ensuring code compliance where the project is being built.

Domestic codes

The applicability of various domestic and international building codes reveals why owners should become aware of the assignment of responsibility for building code standards and/or oversee building code compliance for the projects they develop. A building code is a set of specifications and procedures designed to cover all aspects of construction. These codes stipulate the products or materials that can be used for a building or structure, what construction processes are permissible, and who can perform specific construction activities. Underlying all principles applicable to building codes is the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare as it relates to the following design/construction disciplines: structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, life safety (egress), fire safety (protection and suppression), natural light and air, accessibility standards, and energy conservation.

Since standards are at the heart of any building code, they attempt to be exact but they also allow flexibility for improvement. Building codes represent a composite of three sets of discrete information: (1) definitions of terms; (2) licensing requirements; and (3) the building standards themselves. These standards find their way into local codes either through one of the model code associations discussed below, federal law, or through direct lobbying at the local level.

There currently exists a complex web of hundreds of divergent national, regional, and local codes, which are all in a constant state of flux. This collection of building codes makes it extremely difficult for owners to provide oversight and building code expertise for the numerous projects it may undertake locally or globally.

For the reasons set forth below and because of the complexities and associated liabilities involved with assuming responsibility for the various codes, owners are encouraged to take more active roles in the preparation of their design services agreements to ensure who is responsible for code compliance for their projects. Responsibility for this area should be placed in the hands of local architectural and construction professionals retained for each project. Furthermore, owners who create a contractual framework which indemnifies owners from claims and liabilities associated with the services performed by architectural and construction professionals will be better protected should the project not pass inspection.

One project does not fit all

Despite the push towards one universal code, every community in the United States has adopted one of many building standards. Building code regulation, like construction itself, has long been considered a local activity. The prevailing pattern of regulatory use in the United States regarding building codes is one best described as being laissez faire, with each community determining its own building code requirements. Even with state codes, a pattern of local independence has evolved and efforts in achieving an all-encompassing national measure that is reciprocal among states has, for the most part, been difficult to adopt universally.

There are three model code associations in the United States which actively solicit member cities and municipalities to adopt their model code. While there is some overlap regarding the jurisdiction of these code associations, the country is generally divided into areas dominated by one of the model codes: (1) the International Conference of Building Officials ("ICBO") predominately is adopted in the West; (2) Building Officials and Code Administrators ("BOCA") in the Northeast; and (3) Southern Building Code Congress ("SBCC") in the South.

There has been a push over the last several years by a fourth model code association, the International Code Council (ICC), to consolidate the three major codes into a single unified national code. Despite the ICC's attempt to draft and seek endorsement of a single national building code, known as the International Building Code ("IBC"), many municipalities have hesitated to adopt the new code because it was merged too quickly, and as a result, lacks the specificity most local jurisdictions want in their code.

Furthermore, the possible emergence of a universal building code has given rise to the development of an alternative model code based on performance. As the ICC struggles to merge the three model codes, a subgroup of the ICC has prepared the International Code Council Performance Code for adoption by municipalities as an alternative to the IBC. The fundamental difference between the two codes is found in their structure. The IBC is a conventional prescriptive code that details exactly how a building component or system must be designed. The performance code, on the other hand, explains the intent of a code in a specific situation and lets the designer figure out how to meet that objective. This fundamental difference in the structure of these codes adds a new level of complexity for design/construction professionals charged with code compliance and interpretation.

The reality of complying with local codes

While the adoption of model codes at the municipal level has been an ongoing trend dating to the early 1960s, the elimination of locally drafted codes will most likely never take place as long as municipalities and cities choose to retain their unique identity and character owing to each location's practice of design and construction. The existence of a wide variety of building code requirements from one city to another, even among neighboring cities, will likely remain in the construction industry. Many municipalities in the United States have retained their local codes and show no sign of adopting model codes to replace their own because of their particular unique social, political, and building environment.

A considerable measure of variation has produced divergent building codes where regions differ characteristically by way of urban planning, built environment, local climate, and geology. For example, northern cities must provide for snow loads while southern cities must contend with other environmental conditions such as solar heat gain and hurricane/tornado season. Furthermore, many of the largest cities in the United States evidence special code requirements that manifest their own special problems. For example, New York City, has a unique high-rise/high-density urban condition not found in other large cities. As a result, New York City applies its own code as separate and distinct from New York State and Federal regulations.

The international building code jungle

Building code compliance becomes more complex for projects located outside the United States. As in the United States, many of the countries we researched have no one unified national standard. Rather, each region or municipality customarily applies its own unique building code.

What makes providing building code expertise more complicated abroad, is the potential lack of understanding of foreign municipal resources which work hand-in-hand with any design/construction discipline. For example, if one is not aware of a local jurisdiction's fire-emergency protocols such as the correct sizing and fittings for the standpipe connections, then it is difficult to determine fire-safety standards. Additionally, without the basic understanding of an area's regional sewage treatment infrastructure and its unique irregularities, it is impossible to identify the appropriate building sanitation system.

Compounding the problems when working internationally is that foreign countries often assert direct governmental oversight which infuse political restrictions over the applicable building code. For example, Japan applies stringent import restrictions which bar foreign building materials which would otherwise be preferable or acceptable for a particular project.

Performance-written building codes versus design-written codes, local codes versus national codes, and required or non-required filing with building authorities, are just a few of the issues owners are faced with when dealing with assignments of responsibility. If the owner retains a licensed professional, will that entity retain a code consultant? In some cases, the owner is unaware of third-party relationships formed by the architect or engineer, unless counsel has addressed this issue with the owner. If so, who assumes liability concerning the code compliance of the design drawings, the architect or its code-consultant? Reliance on the architect does not always guarantee that he or she will also be fluent in relevant code meaning and interpretation.

Steps owners should take

It is difficult, if not impossible, for owners to effectively monitor and be responsible for providing code compliance services in the diverse jurisdictions, as well as for future projects and their existing facilities. For those issues which involve code compliance obligations owners should take the following steps:

a. Require each local owner to contractually obligate the local architect and construction professionals to assume responsibility for code compliance and interpretation obligations.

b. Require sufficient professional liability and general liability insurance coverage, naming the owner as an additional insured, for each project covering claims for design and construction defects.

c. Recommend that local code standards be substituted for the general, or non-site specific "boiler plate," owner-written building standards.

d. Seek indemnification from the applicable design and construction entities for future liability related to code compliance and interpretation issues.

e. Require indemnification provisions in all agreements with design and construction professionals charged with code compliance and interpretation issues such that the owner is indemnified and held harmless from and against all liabilities, damages, losses, claims, demands, and actions of any nature whatsoever which arise out of or are connected with the performance of such design and construction services.

f. Ensure that all agreements with design and construction professional, who provides code compliance services, provide for adequate insurances which name the owner as an additional insured to cover any claims which may arise out of code compliance issues.

From the owner's perspective, a discussion on code compliance is often placed on the back burner until many other design-related issues are resolved. Discussions about code compliance are not glorious or fashionable and are rarely, if not implicitly, the arena where owners want to invest great quantities of time and energy. However unpopular, the assignment of responsibility for code compliance is an important reason why owners and their in-house facilities and design professionals should be aware of the code and liability issues that arise during the planning stages of a project.

Julian Arhire is a Manager with DtiCorp.com - DtiCorp.com carries more than 35,000 HVAC products, including industrial, commercial and residential parts and equipment from Honeywell, Johnson Contols, Robertshaw, Jandy, Grundfos, Armstrong and more.

FOX News Logic Knows No Bounds, Even When It Comes to National Security

The recent uproar from the right over the T.S.A.'s tight security measures should come as no surprise, staggering as it may seem. When conservative commentators started calling Afghanistan "Obama's Vietnam" at the very beginning of his presidency, well before he even drew up his war strategy, it became clear to me that there's nothing he can do to avoid hypocritical and vicious attacks from the right. I loved to say at the time that theoretically, even if Obama were to embrace conservative policies, capture Bin Laden, kill every member of Al Qaeda and usher in an era of everlasting peace, conservatives would still paint him as soft on terror, a friend of terrorists, indecisive, and obsessed with expanding the reach of big brother.

As it happens, history has borne me out. The right has ridiculed him for implementing many supposedly conservative policies such as tax cuts, a hawkish counterterrorism agenda, aiding small businesses, building on Bush's No Child Left Behind, creating high risk insurance pools, cutting health care costs and organizing a bi-partisan budget deficit committee. Nothing matters. The only pretense of an exception is that the Republicans have largely voted in support of the Afghanistan war, but, true to form, they managed to do so in a way that opposes the President's plan by criticizing him for developing an exit strategy and pledging to withdraw troops as early as possible.

In this vein, a New York Times Op-Ed called "Politicizing Airport Security" describes how this form of FOX News logic is playing out in the pseudo-debate over the T.S.A.'s efforts to secure our airports. Mike Huckabee has called the scanners and pat-downs "unconstitutional," audaciously challenging the President to subject his family to the intrusive procedures, and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas thinks T.S.A. agents belong at the Mexican border instead of at airports.

In addition, a popular conservative talking point has it that we should implement racial profiling in place of the "degrading" practices currently in use. This idea has been embraced by Huckabee, Pete Hoekstra, who will become the chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence in January, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. The latter, one of the most disgraceful figures America has ever produced, eloquently expressed her support for profiling via Twitter, as the Times reports: "TSA: why politically incorrect 2 'profile' anyone re: natl security issues? We profile individuals/suspects in other situations! Profile away."

I characterize all these "objections" as FOX News logic because they are all shamefully lacking in consistency and/or truth. Although there is a real debate over whether the T.S.A.'s behavior is unconstitutional, was it any less unconstitutional before Obama became president? Though the searches may be more prevalent now, the constitutional argument remains as strong or weak as it ever was, and the issue was never a mainstream concern for conservatives like Huckabee before.

As for Rick Perry's urging the T.S.A. to prioritize securing the Mexican border over airports, leaving aside the fundamental absurdity of such a suggestion, the government currently has 20,000 Border Patrol agents deployed (compared to 9,000 in 2001) as a result of Bush's Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which has added 2,000 new agents per year since it was initiated. In addition, Obama has not only upheld that total while cutting costs for the program but has also ordered 1,200 additional National Guard troops to help.

The racial profiling line is particularly laughable because aside from being abhorrent, the T.S.A. already engages in profiling, as The Times explains.

As always, the real issue is that conservatives will attack everything Obama does. There was once a time when politicians understood that national security should trump petty politics. But, as the Republicans' blatantly partisan resistance to the START treaty with Russia further attests, that ideal, much like the existence of moderate Republicans, is a thing of the past.

For source and more articles check out my blog:

http://scholarlywritingreviewed.com/

A recent graduate of NYU's Gallatin School of Individualized Study, I consider myself a student of Melville and Shakespeare. Particularly, my fascination with Moby Dick has sparked a broader interest in many fields such as politics, history, science, economics, etc, since that novel deals with disparate disciplines and issues in an encyclopedic, yet accessible manner.

My blog is designed to direct readers to cool articles and books about a wide range of topics such as climate change, financial crisis, terrorism, Obama, etc that are well worth checking out. My commentary is meant to stand on its own, even for readers who have not looked at the works upon which my analyses are based. The ultimate goal is to generate engaging discussions...

[http://scholarlywritingreviewed.com/]

Eroding U.S. Industrial Base Comes With Price

The United States of America has historically enjoyed self-sufficiency in times of both war and peace but in order to better assess its present place in the world as concerns its military and economic strength, it is important to reflect on its foundation. There is daily talk from Wall Street to Capitol Hill with respect to spread sheets and global policy, but it perhaps falls short when it comes down to addressing the average U.S. wage earner, and how both will ultimately affect jobs and the country's national security and defense.

It is important to note, that as our forefathers were fighting for independence from England during the Revolutionary War, seldom do we hear about the underlying and overwhelming task they endured in order to supply an army without an industrial base. In order for success, the Colonies depended upon France and the Netherlands for everything from blankets and clothing to gunpowder, muskets, munitions, and food. Benjamin Franklin bartered a deal with France to ship across the Atlantic Ocean by way of the Netherlands' St. Eustatius Island, in order for George Washington and his troops to have the means to defend themselves.

In light of the French Revolution at the turn of the 18th century, when the Netherlands were seized by Napoleon and President John Adams came close to war with France, a primary U.S. ally just years earlier, self -sufficiency was the order of the day. In 1791, Alexander Hamilton, the first U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, was asked by President George Washington and the U.S. Congress to officially document U.S. policy on industrial and military self-sufficiency. It read, "Not only have the wealth, but the independence and security of a country, appear to be materially connected with the prosperity of manufactures. Every nation, with a view to those great objects, ought to endeavour to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitation, clothing and defense. The possession of these is necessary to the perfection of the body politic: to the safety as well as to the welfare of the society."

The Industrial Revolution of the 19th century secured the U.S.policy of self-sufficiency, transforming it into a global power. Due to the strength of its industrialization the U.S. was able to defeat its enemies in World War I. With the advent of the automobile, which Henry Ford learned to mass-produce, weaponry and machinery produced for World War II benefited from the automobile factory. Production of Sherman tanks, Army jeeps, airplanes and PT boats evolved from such civilian U.S. factories. And in the 1950's the industrial base was modernized for the Korean War effort.

The industrial base and manufacturing for the U.S. military were necessarily intertwined. But following the end of the Cold War there has been a deliberate decomposition of U.S. industry, unprecedented in American history. There are a number of factors which have contributed to U.S. dependence on foreign trade, primarily with India and China, which has not only led to millions of U.S. manufacturing and engineering jobs permanently lost, but paints a grim picture for the long term stability of the U.S. military supply line.

The dependence on foreign oil and the subsequent OPEC oil embargo in the 1970's, the U.S. policy of deregulation of corporations of the 1980's, the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 allowing China to become a member, collectively accelerated U.S. dependence on cheap labor offshore. Thus, dependency and reliance on suppliers from all over the world for military equipment and machinery components and parts, required for their manufacture, leaves the U.S. vulnerable.

The Defense Department runs a program called the Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Materials Shortage (DMSMS) at the Tank Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM). Its purpose is to identify shortages of parts, processes and materials necessary to procure for military buyers. A problem for military acquisitions has been procuring weapon system metal castings as a direct result of plant closings. The majority of castings now come from China and other third-world countries. Along with the foreign dependence on metal castings manufacture its research and development also followed the foundry industry offshore.

DMSMS program managers are aware that there are problems in finding sub-parts and components. Not only have replacement parts started to rapidly diminish, but the chemicals needed in their manufacture have as well. Without specific chemicals certain processes cannot be done. For example, there is only one company left in the U.S. that produces a roller cutter for armored plate or heavy steel which was an indirect consequence of supplying armor kits for U.S. Humvees in the War in Iraq. When the Pentagon learned there was an immediate need at the end of 2004, it called for expediency in their manufacture. Sadly, it took almost a year due to the limited facilities producing such.

Another issue arose when a foreign corporation purchased the only U.S. company which produced a chemical used for a common binder which secures windows and aluminum panels in aircraft. The company eventually folded when it could not meet Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. Now the U.S. must depend on the company's offshore subsidiaries.

Similarly, the bearing industry which produces ball-bearings, roller-bearings and anti-friction bearings is an endangered U.S. industry, key to the production of military gear and plays a part in homeland security. They are components necessary to produce electric motors for conveyor belts such as in factories, steel mills, in airports, in mining, and with the equipment used to manufacture automobiles. And bearings are critical to the mechanical components of major weapons systems. Losing bearings manufacturing to foreign shores directly impacts the capabilities of weapons manufacturing should there be a change in the geopolitical landscape and a cut-off from U.S. suppliers, whether through war, terrorism, or Mother Nature.

With the military build-up of China over the past decade by benefit of applying commercial technologies to military weaponry and its having become the largest offshore manufacturing base for U.S. corporations, the U.S. continues a delicate balancing act with a Communist nation as its biggest trade partner. With a U.S. trade deficit with China reaching over $200 billion in 2005, multi-national corporations, once U.S. companies operating in the U.S., are now just based in the U.S.

And with a demand by China for foreign direct investment as its incentive to buy U.S. products, companies like Boeing are acquiescing by not only building major portions of airplanes in China, but also creating Research and Development opportunities for Chinese engineers, in order to show its commitment. Intel and Microsoft have also followed suit with major investment in directly hiring engineers in China.

Endless conflicts of interest abound when it comes to foreign dependence in order for the U.S. to maintain its infrastructure, electrical grid, military weaponry and supplies, air travel and homeland security, to name a few. When smaller U.S. specialty industries vital to the industrial base become extinct on our shores, they now appear huge in a world where alliances are tenuous at best. A global economy at the expense of U.S. sovereignty, security and standard of living is something that the Colonists would not have stood for. They would have found another way. Maybe America still has time to do the same.

Diane M. Grassi is a freelance columnist, reporting and writing commentary on current events of the day providing honest and often politically incorrect assessments. From U.S. public policy to Major League Baseball, she is an eclectic thinker, and demanding of her readers to reflect on their own thinking patterns from an alternative perspective. Whether you agree with her or not, Diane M. Grassi will have you coming back to note her opinions, and if at best she wakes you up, then her goal will have been accomplished. Ms. Grassi is featured with the online publications: New Media Journal.us; American Chronicle; Mich News.com; the Federal Observer; Opinions Editorials; the Conservative Voice; the Las Vegas Penny Press; the Sierra Times as well as many others. She also writes regular columns on Major League Baseball where she is a featured online columnist with The Diamond Angle Baseball Ezine and Sports-Central.org. Ms. Grassi may contacted at: dgrassi@cox.net