THE CODE CONNECTION

My office has a code issue regarding FRT plywood roof sheathing in a IIB building in NJ. In our research we have discovered that the note "c"in table 601 has been dropped in the 2003 IBC. It was there in 2000. Without this note, according to our reviewer at the state level, we cannot use FRT plywood in our IIB building on the sloped roof, which we need ideally to attach our fiberglass roof shingles. There still exists a section that seems to allow it - 603.1.1.1.3 - but our reviewer says this not eis not applicable without the note "c" in the table. Is there anyone out there who knows where I can find the reason why IBC dropped the note from the table, and if the reason was to specifically to prohibit the use of FRT plywood in type IIB roofs?

Please make sure you are looking at the actual 2003 IBC instead of the state adopted version. Note "c" for Table 601 is still there in the 2003 IBC although it has slightly changed to add clarification. It states in note c.3. "In Type I and II constrcution. fire-retardant-treated-wood shall be allowed in buildings including girders and trusses as part of the roof construction when the building is: i. Two stories or less in height; ii. Type II construction over two stories; or iii. Type I construction over two stories and the verticle distance from the upper floor to the roof is 20 feet or more."

603.1.1.3 is still there too and reinforces the allowance of FRTW. Hope this helps. If there has been a language change or typograpical error in NJ you at least have an appealable cause.

Thanks for your reply. I needed to be more specific. The place where "c" was dropped was from the Table itself at the rating requirement for roof construction for IIB. IBC 2000 has the "c". 2003 does not. AND our reviewer says without the "c" next to the "0" in the table, passage 603.1.1.1.3 does not apply.

I would contact the ICC and ask about this typographical error. In Ohio we caught this mistake and corrected it in our state adopted code. I beleive you will find that the intent from the code hearings and supporting code text will clearly favor the use of FRT in Type II construction. An interpretation from ICC may convince the reviewer. Folks often think the IBC is infallable. While its not riddled with mistakes, state adopting agencies have to proof-read everything and solicit input for clarification. The Ohio Board of Builidng Standards sets a good example of review and modification. The primary intent is to NOT change the technical provisions and preserve the intent of the ICC approval with minimal change. Naturally, any state will have numerous changes to Chapter 1 (Administration) but the rest should be fairly intact unless its a clear typo or legal conflict.