2018 International Residential Codes & Energy CONSERVATION Code Updates Fire sprinkler mandates will stay in the International Residential Code, but builders and developers will see other construction cost savings after more than 162,000 votes were cast for 577 proposals on the ballot for the International Code Council’s 2016 Online Governmental Consensus Vote, which ended Nov. 27. After weeks of phone calls and personal visits, NAHB members were successful in pushing the results to reflect the point of view of the code official, rather than that of the product manufacturer. “This shows the value of our association as the consistent voice for safe, cost-effective construction – and being the voice for home buyers,” said NAHB Construction, Codes and Standards Chairman Phil Hoffman. The preliminary results await a January audit and confirmation by the ICC Board of Directors. Here are the highlights International Residential Code (IRC) RB17-16 revises the seismic design category map, moving some areas of the country into in a higher category. NAHB opposed this proposal, but it was approved. Estimated Increase: $2,483-$6,196 per house. RB19-16 would have revised the ground snow load map. Affected regions would have required thicker roof sheathing and changes to rafters and headers. NAHB opposed this proposal, and it was defeated. Estimated Savings: $1,014-$1,652 per house. RB26-16 & RB27-16 would have significantly increased the design live load for decks and balconies of homes to support 60psf instead of the current 40psf requirement. NAHB opposed these proposals, and they were defeated. Estimated Savings: $75-$154 per house. RB52-16 would have required duplexes that are divided by a legal lot line to be separated by two independent, one-hour fire-resistance-rated walls, instead of a single, two-hour fire-resistance-rated wall. NAHB opposed this proposal, and it was defeated. Estimated Savings: $1,097 – $3,803 per house. RB129-16 would have removed the requirement to install a fire sprinkler system from Section R313 of the IRC and moved it into a new optional appendix. NAHB supported this proposal, but it was disapproved. Estimated Increase: $6,026 per house (If adopted locally). RB278-16 would have required that either an airspace or a manufactured rainscreen product be installed behind the siding on homes in wet climate zones. NAHB opposed this proposal, and it was defeated. Estimated Savings: $286-$3,680 per house. 14 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) RE35-16 would have increased the requirements for the energy efficiency of windows. NAHB opposed the proposal, and it was defeated. Estimated Savings: $584$1,563 per house. RE58-16 would have removed the mandatory 3 and 5 ACH50 building tightness requirements and made it possible to trade-off building tightness in the performance path without reducing the stringency of the code. Unfortunately, this proposal was defeated. RE79-16 would have modified the IECC air barrier table by adding a new requirement to fully encapsulate rim joist insulation. NAHB opposed this proposal, and it was defeated. Estimated Savings: $351-$555 per house RE134-16 would have allowed mechanical equipment trade-offs. If more efficient equipment is specified, the envelope insulation levels can be reduced by up to 15%. If this code change had been approved, the potential savings would have been $217-$1,425 per house. RE173-16 brings the ERI values more in line with the IECC prescriptive path. The values will still be about 2025% more stringent than the prescriptive path. The current values in the 2015 IECC are about 30-35% more stringent than the prescriptive path. NAHB supported this code change, and it was approved. CE105-16 would have required air leakage testing by fan pressurization for buildings over a certain size and in specific climate zones. NAHB opposed this proposal, and it was defeated. Estimated Savings: $2,000-$10,000 per multifamily building.
15 Publizr Home