Mr. WEINER. Well, they will vary from community to community, because this is probably the most fragmented and differentiated part of any of our codes or legislation that we have in the country.

I would say, and I have not seen any statistics on it to prove it, but from my own experience they will vary as little as 5 percent and they will go as high as 25 percent. But again we can provide you, and very happily will, with some statistics on it.

Senator RIBICOFF. Are antiquated building codes the norm instead of the exception in American cities?

Mr. WEINER. That is a little difficult to make a generalization about, because there are model codes that have done a good job in some areas. Senator RIBICOFF. What cities have model building codes that are up to date and realistic?

Mr. WEINER. Those cities that have been using the model code, such as the BOCA Code, the Building Officials Conference of America Code, and there are three or four others, have basically come up with some excellent codes with regard to some of their heavier construction. In residential construction they have not differentiated, so that they can split out the lower cost in many instances.

Now the problem is that many of these local codes, once having been adopted, then amendments must be made to meet the local additions that the people administering the code want.

The problem is a very serious one because it involves also the education of the building code officials and their administration of those codes, in which I would say probably 50 percent of the crimes or mistakes in building code application would come from the administra

tion.

Senator RIBICOFF. What factors or what groups in America are responsible for antiquated building codes?

Mr. ROGG. The thousands of city councils.

Mr. WEINER. That is right.

Senator RIBICOFF. Now basically you come and you ask for a modern building code. Where do the pressures come from against good building codes?

RESISTANCE TO UPDATING BUILDING CODES

Mr. WEINER. I would say your main pressure point is from your fire people, who have occupied a fantastic-I suppose it goes back to the great Chicago fire or wherever it is, and we are all afraid of fires but that traumatic experience seems to have scarred the soul of every fire official in the United States. We find overregulation in that area as one of the most important ones.

Secondly, there are old building officials, administrative officials, who just won't go for change or innovation.

Thirdly, there are in the industry some both mechanics and unions who have resisted change. There are contractors and builders who have resisted change. There are material suppliers and manufacturers who have resisted change. But these are people who have a vested interest in the system that goes into it.

Fundamentally, the real resistence, aside from these specific people that I have named, is the fact that there is a mistaken concept that that which is adequate is not necessarily that which is quality, and

I think the Senator at some point alluded to this question earlier in his comments.

Similarly, simply because it is more adequate or has a greater de gree of strength, for example, does not mean that this is necessarily needed in order to accomplish the job.

Mr. ROGG. One of the points, too, Senator, that should be emphasized on the building code is the very diversity of the code's ways against innovation. The people in the plastics industry tell me that those countries that have a uniform system of building codes have a more ready acceptance, a more advanced system of the use of plastics in the building industry. In this country with the vast number of codes, you are inhibited in developing anything new.

Mr. WEINER. We think Senator Douglas' committee is going to make a big contribution toward this.

(Subsequently the following additional information concerning antiquated building codes was submitted for the record:)

[Reprinted from Concrete Products, May 1966]

EXHIBIT 234

DO OUR BUILDING CODES NEED MODERNIZING?

THE CRIES FOR CODE REFORM GROW LOUDER. HERE IS A FULL REPORT ON A SUBJECT THAT SHOULD BE OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO PRODUCTS PRODUCERS

By William J. Blaha

More than 4,000 years ago, the following provision was written into the Code of Hammurabi-a set of rules which governed the ethics and behavior of ancient Babylonians:

"If a builder builds a house for a man and do not make its construction firm, and the house which he has built collapse and cause the death of the owner of the house, that builder shall be put to death."

This short and not so sweet pronouncement is considered to be the world's oldest building code. While they have mellowed greatly with the passing of time, building codes still provide the means for establishing minimum safeguards in the construction of buildings. Their purpose, and the legal basis for their enforcement, is to protect the health, safety, property and general welfare of the individual and the community where he lives.

The preparation, administration and enforcement of building codes in this country have always been left to the care of local governments. State governments, however, also are involved in building code matters, as are certain federal agencies such as the Federal Housing Administration, the General Services Administration and the Farmer's Home Administration.

Because of this traditional handoff policy towards building code jurisdiction, there are an estimated 5,000 different local codes now on the books throughout the country.

To a growing number of critics, the time for modernizing the present code structure is long overdue. The present situation, they feel, has resulted in a hodgepodge of archaic standards; has severely handicapped the development of new construction products and techniques; has increased building costs sky high; and has brought needless waste and duplication to the research, testing, maintenance and servicing of the many codes.

Similarly, it is felt that out-moded, unrealistic and oftentimes silly code re strictions continue to work against block and reinforced concrete construction in some parts of the country. Unless greater code uniformity is achieved, these critics see a stiffling effect on new and still-to-come developments in the fields of prestressed and precast concrete particularly in the area of industrialized building methods.

Efforts to bring about code reform in this country have been going on for nearly half a century. As far back as 1922, Herbert Hoover, then Secretary of Commerce, told Congress that conflicting and antiquated building codes were adding from 10 to 20 percent onto building costs.

Much the same argument is heard today. Top construction authorities like Dr. George Cline Smith, who used to be vice president of F. W. Dodge Co. and is now a partner in Mackay-Shields Economics Inc., had this to say recently: "The great diversity of building codes is one reason why the construction industry today is stagnant. During the past decade, the economy as a whole has been growing at a rate of 3.4 percent a year while the physical volume of construction has gone up only 1.4 percent. Building costs meanwhile have risen at a rate of 2.7 percent."

Smith's solution is for local communities to try and standardize their building codes.

Like sentiments are being voiced by the National Association of Home Builders which in 1963 conducted a survey of approximately 1,200 communities on various aspects of local building requirements. Among other things, the results showed that 48 percent of the cities covered prohibited the use of concrete posts and grade beams as foundation walls. Another 22 percent forbade the use of concrete floor slab-on-grade construction.

Last year NAHB made clear its position on codes with a policy statement that still reflects association thinking:

"The benefits of the technological advances now taking place within our industry are being seriously impeded in many areas by the obsolescence, nonuniformity and multiplicity of local building codes. We strongly recommend, as a sound solution, the adoption by municipalities of one of the model performance-type codes promulgated by major building code organizations."

The model codes NAHB makes reference to are the Basic Building Code sponsored by the Building Official Conference of America (BOCA); the Uniform Building Code sponsored by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), the National Building Code sponsored by the American Insurance Association (formerly the National Board of Fire Underwriters); and the Southern Standard Building Code sponsored by the Southern Building Code Congress.

Between them, the four codes serve some 3,500 communities which represent more than 100 million people and over 70 percent of all construction in the United States.

The four model codes are basically alike, but vary considerably in detail. The three Building Officials model code agencies engage in certification, interpretation and advisory services based on engineering analysis and testing, so that members may know what products and methods meet code requirements. The National Building Code provides tabulations of fire resistance ratings on many projects and materials.

Each of the model code agencies incorporates national standards and testing procedures, such as those recognized by the American Standards Association or those developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials and the American Concrete Institute.

Once a product or testing procedure receives approval from a model code group a letter to that effect is sent to all active members of the organization. Their full endorsement can be expected. The model code agencies also charge a fee of at least $500 for each standard accepted.

Code approvals from BOCA and ICBO are good for one year after their date of issuance. Manufacturers or associations must apply for an approval extension at the end of each year, and in so doing are required to pay a re-filing fee.

The procedure is much the same with the Southern Building Code Congress, which issues a two-year approval. Approvals by the American Insurance Association are authorized for an unlimited period of time.

Adoption of one of the model or other proprietary codes as a basis for local implementation does not necessarily mean that the code will be strictly adhered to. A community, if it so chooses, can subsequently modify the code provisions to its own liking.

A good example of local discretionary power occurred last month in Milwaukee, Wis., which complies with the Wisconsin Building Code. An ordinance, drawn up by that city's building code committee, now bans the application of concrete block on the exterior walls of apartment dwellings if all of the units are laid up in a running bond pattern. The new ordinance, however, does allow block to be used for such walls if they are placed in a stacked bond pattern. It further rules that running bond patterned walls can still be built providing at least 10 percent of the wall units are put in an offset or recessed pattern.

Probably the most comprehensive analysis of the multiplicity of building codes has been made by Joseph Platzker, a building code specialist, who recently

presented his findings at a construction marketing seminar sponsored by the American Marketing Association.

His results are based on a survey covering all towns and cities in the United States having a population of 10,000 or more. Combined, these communities represent slightly more than 100 million people-based on the 1960 census.

The wide disparity in code acceptance is seen in the following percentages: 58 percent use the four model codes.

14 percent use the 8 state codes (Conn.; Ind.; Mass.; N.J.; N.Y.; N. Car.; Ohio; Wis.)

12 percent use the 4 major small codes (So. Florida; Regional Bldg. (Ohio); Mid-west Building Code; Suburban Code (Ill.)

23 percent use local independent codes.

3 percent use no building code.

According to Platzker, independent building codes are used by 434 communities scattered across 36 states. Yet, a little more than 30 percent of these local codes are concentrated in the states of New York, New Jersey and Ohio-all of which have enacted strong state codes of their own. States having ten or more cities with independent codes are Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minne sota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.

Of the four model codes, the Uniform Building Code is favored most. It has 409 users in 26 states, almost half of these municipalities located in California. Several northwestern and southwestern states use the UBC exclusively, while eastern representation is confined to two cities in New England. UBC's lone member in the deep south is Jackson, Miss.

The second most popular model code is the National Building Code with 337 communities in 34 states. It is especially strong in Arkansas, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia.

Next in line is the Southern Building Code. Adopted by 196 cities in 13 states, the SBC has solid support in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

The Basic Building Code has 182 followers in 20 states and finds the bulk of its membership in Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

Following is a tabulation of cities with populations of 10,000 or more that still lack a building code:

While the four model code groups are in direct competition with one another they still cooperate on many problems of an industry-wide nature. A by-product of the spirit of togetherness is the Joint Committee on Building Codes which besides the four agencies includes representatives of the National Bureau of Standards, the American Standards Association, the National Fire Protection Association and the Underwriter's Laboratories, Inc. Other participants are the U.S. Housing and Home Finance Agency and the Building Code Committee of the National Research Council of Canada.

Created in 1949, the Joint Committee is set up to review and coordinate matters of mutual interest. These interests are spelled out clearly in a seven-point program which calls for support of all branches of the building industry concerned with building codes in:

1. Promoting the adoption of one of the model codes by local communities without unnecessary amendment.

2. Establishing by state law freedom of local governments to adopt building codes by reference.

3. Participating in Building Officials activities and standards development. 4. A correlation of research and dissemination of results. B: establishment of defined standards based on research. C: promoting needed new standards. 5. Providing for educational and professional upgrading of code administrative personnel.

6. Elimination of duplication and conflict between government enforcement agencies.

7. A public relations program to inform the public of the advantages of modern minimum performance building codes.

At present the best example of inter-code agency cooperative effort is the joint preparation of a single code for residential construction, now being written at the request of the NAHB. All four model groups were asked to join in this move. Three accepted. They are BOCA, ICBO and the American Insurance Association. Except for variations due to climate differences, the unified code will contain the same standards everywhere it is used. A completion target date is set for August of this year, but the feeling now is that the code won't be finished until sometime in 1967.

One of the staunchest supporters of building code modernization and uniformity is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In the case of local codes, for instance, the Chamber suggests that individuals responsible for the writing of these codes may not be fully informed on all the technicalities involved and may thus distort or omit intended requirements. The extra costs in tackling this often difficult assignment also is cited.

Similarly, the Chamber believes state sanctioned codes have brought added confusion to the current code situation. State codes, says the Chamber, have failed to produce a desirable degree of uniformity in building requirements not only within but among the states.