at -8320, -8323.) The record suggests that all of the I-Codes contain not only technical reference or valuation provisions regarding their specific subject matter, but also thorough administrative provisions that create regulatory schemes broadly governing the responsibilities of the officials in charge and the regulated entities. (See Wise Decl. Ex. 15.) However, the Court recognizes that the record may not be altogether clear on this point; if any of the underlying substantive codes do not contain administrative provisions or otherwise mirror regulation in ways that track considerations two through four above, ICC remains free to bring these distinctions to the Court’s attention at a later point.[1]
As to the last of the five enumerated considerations, Defendants have not simply identified the model codes as the enacted laws of the jurisdictions. Even on Current UpCodes, Defendants note that the enacted laws adopt the I-Codes with or without amendments, and UpCodes still has a “general codes” page that identifies which jurisdictions have adopted the model codes, with or without amendments.
- ↑ The Court also notes that some of the I-Codes may not have become law if they were referenced only in small part, rather than adopted at large. (See, e.g., Jarosz Report at ¶ 73 (noting that OSHA regulations incorporate an IFC provision on means of egress only as an alternative to compliance with other OSHA standards).) While the record suggests that each of the I-Codes was adopted to a much greater extent, the Court again remains open to clarification from ICC if that is not so.
52
