• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

ICC Board? Right, Wrong, Needs Work, The Future?

Wyoming skipped the 2009 editions as I recall. Your point is well taken about having a UL, ICCES, FM, etc... to approve new products. I rely on them too. It could be argued and I think successfully so that there are jurisdictions that are already on code cycles longer than 3 years. From a business model standpoint ICC's revenues follow the code cycle with up and down years. The bigger challenge is how to "flatten our" the revenue stream without the peaks and valleys that cycles have or at least minimize them which would make yearly or multi yearly budget projections / assumptions a bit more predictable?
 
Isn't the ISO the big hammer forcing the jurisdictions to update the codes, I was perfectly fine enforcing the 2006 I-codes in this community. I had three sets of books, had the commentary, had taken the test and got certified in a few codes. Then the ISO waltz's in with three people from New Jersey and claimed they were going to raise the fire protection class which would in turn raise property insurance. The citizens will be at city hall with pitch forks and shotguns if they get wind of an increase. So... here we go, adopt new codes again, skip the 2009 and adopt the 2012.
 
The ISO is an interesting thing. I did all the paperwork for the ISO report and their rep came here for 1/2 a day and we received a better score than I expected for our very first time out. I reached out to as many local insurers as I could about our score. Now they were local insurers but represented large national companies. State Farm, etc... The interesting thing was I asked them about our rating and none of them has even heard of ISO and had never used any of their information. So our department went through all of that paper work for nothing. Wind the clock forward 3 or 4 years (I cannot remember the exact time) and we get letters sent to our department as well as to the Mayors office that we need to do this all over again or the insurance rates will be going up. I contact the insurers again and get the same response. That is, we do not use any information from ISO to set insurance rates. So we told ISO that we are not interested and have not participated in years and have no plans to do so in the future.
 
Building officials do not have the authority to approve new products based on ICC-ES reports since that would effectively give them the authority to modify the building code. The building code as well as any law or regulation can only be modified by the legislative body that adopted it. If this were not the case then why does your local city council or state legislature need to adopt the building code in the first place.

If the building code provides performance standards, such as for post installed concrete anchors, then the product can be used without approval from the building official as long as it can be shown that the product meets the criteria specified in the code.

This means that we need to find a legal way to update the code on a more frequent basis. Where states have adopted a building code the state could create a state program to approve new products and systems.

The building official does not have the power to unilaterally modify the building code and provisions in the IBC that attempt to give the building official such authority are not legal because they either violate the US or the State Constitutions. The primary problems have to do with the separation of powers and improper delegation of legislative authority.

Our system of building regulation is broken and we need to find legal ways that address the problem but giving the building official dictatorial powers is not one of them.

IBC Section 104.11 was intended to deal with unusual cases and cannot be used to implement code changes unless we ignore our system of laws.
 
Mark K said:
Building officials do not have the authority to approve new products based on ICC-ES reports since that would effectively give them the authority to modify the building code. The building code as well as any law or regulation can only be modified by the legislative body that adopted it. If this were not the case then why does your local city council or state legislature need to adopt the building code in the first place.

If the building code provides performance standards, such as for post installed concrete anchors, then the product can be used without approval from the building official as long as it can be shown that the product meets the criteria specified in the code.

This means that we need to find a legal way to update the code on a more frequent basis. Where states have adopted a building code the state could create a state program to approve new products and systems.

The building official does not have the power to unilaterally modify the building code and provisions in the IBC that attempt to give the building official such authority are not legal because they either violate the US or the State Constitutions. The primary problems have to do with the separation of powers and improper delegation of legislative authority.

Our system of building regulation is broken and we need to find legal ways that address the problem but giving the building official dictatorial powers is not one of them.

IBC Section 104.11 was intended to deal with unusual cases and cannot be used to implement code changes unless we ignore our system of laws.
Click to expand...
Canada does have a 5 year cycle. The issue is that in order to do this, you need a performance based code to allow for some type of alternate solution that can be approved by local building officials. It took us 10 years to change our code into a performance based document. It would be a huge hit to the ICC revenue stream to do this. The other thing I've always found interesting is that standards are also based on a 3 year cycle. Even here in Canada. So in a ten year code cycle, there is a standard that is simply not used here.
 
I believe that the Building Official can indeed approve products or materials that the codes have not addressed as long as the whatever meets or exceeds the intent of the code in accordance with IBC 104.11. A judgement call by the Building Official. Now with that being said one really needs to be careful on that slippery slope. Example: The IMC for air changes for nail salons. The codes have not caught up with the source capture systems yet. I do believe that nail salons that have the source capture system(s) do not need as many air changes per hour as required by the IMC.
 
If the building official can "approve" the general use of a product not allowed by the adopted code how does this differ from modifying the building code?
 
Two different things. Not allowed (prohibited) and not addressed. To my knowledge the IMC is silent on source capture systems. So this system is not addressed by the code. If the codes say that source capture systems are prohibited then that is a huge difference. Again a judgement call from the Building Official and a slippery slope to be used with great care. I always ask myself this question for those very rare times that I have used Section 104.11: Would I be able to defend a decision in a court of law and in a court of law case would a "reasonable" person(s) take the same action?
 
A violation of a law, and a regulation is a law, is not excused because the law is unreasonable. Defenses of a violation of a law are of the form that it was impossible to comply, and that compliance would create an unsafe situation.

The concept of what a reasonable person would do is likely tied to the issue of standard of care defense used when negligence is alleged. The problem is that violation of a law is considered negligence per say and you do not even get to present a standard of care defense..

If something is not required by the code then how can you require it unless you have the authority to modify the code.

If a system is not addressed in the code you probably cannot prevent somebody from using it.
 
Min&Max said:
The 3 year code may be ICC's business model but it is a model that many/most jurisdictions are not buying in to. With a three year cycle we will always skip at least one cycle. Whereas with a 5 year cycle I do not believe many would skip a cycle and be 10 years between code updates. With the ever increasing number of codes it has become cumbersome to have hearings without running into the evening making these 12+ hour marathons with participation waning as the day drags on. The argument that we need a 3 year cycle to keep up with new technology is BS. I only need to ask for testing documentation from ICC, UL or numerous other testing agencies to make a determination as to whether or not to allow a product. ICC may have a 3 year cycle but most are running a 6 year cycle.
Click to expand...

Asking for a test is ok but you don't know for sure the product you're using is the same as the one tested. That's where research reports are useful since most of the publishers also inspect.

Here's some down sides.

What I noticed when searching for ICC reports lately is that more an more reports are not being renewed but are still on the website. Does ICC still back these past due reports? Are they still inspecting the products? Makes using them questionable.

Trying to find listings from UL & Interek is a challenge and you probably need a class to use either website effectively.
 
CodeWarrior said:
Asking for a test is ok but you don't know for sure the product you're using is the same as the one tested. That's where research reports are useful since most of the publishers also inspect.

Here's some down sides.

What I noticed when searching for ICC reports lately is that more an more reports are not being renewed but are still on the website. Does ICC still back these past due reports? Are they still inspecting the products? Makes using them questionable.

Trying to find listings from UL & Interek is a challenge and you probably need a class to use either website effectively.
Click to expand...
I do not try to find anything, they want to use it they have to produce test reports. When they produce documentation of testing I am good to go.
 
I do not believe that ICC-ES actually inspects the products. My understanding is that IAS, which is owned by ICC, periodically reviews the quality assurance program.
 
Mark....Usually a product approval (ICC ES or UL or whatever) works with code (performance) to meet a code requirement (prescriptive), I have never thought of it as a modification of code. Listed and or tested is used throughout all of the codes and the ES reports just say that it is tested to meet "X" section....
 
ICC-ES ESR's come in two types and ICC-ES does not go out of their way to distinguish them. For product that are addressed in the code the report addresses the code required standards.

There are some other products, probably more than you think, where the product is not addressed in the code or where the product does not comply with some code provision which are justified based on IBC Section 104.11. Where you effectively approve these products on a generic basis you are effectively modifying the code.

Some ESR's are a combination. For example an ESR for post installed adhesive anchors. The reported design values associated with installation of the anchors in concrete were developed in accordance with ACI 355.4 which is referenced in ACI 318 which is referenced from the IBC. But the values for the installation of the adhesive anchors in masonry are justified based on an interpretation of IBC Section 104.11.

In many situations where the product complies with the code ICC-ES imposes additional criteria on the product that has required manufacturers to modify their product in order to obtain an ESR. I have not seen a compelling reason for these additional criteria but this additional criteria has had the effect of excluding some code compliant products from use due to the fact that building officials require evaluation reports. Manufacturers of products that comply with this enhanced criteria like it because this helps get rid of competition. Because building officials require evaluation reports that impose this additional criteria they are effectively modifying the code.
 
ICC Claims they inspect -- that's how the report reads -- but they subcontract the work to non employees. IAS uses a lot of subcontractors too.
 
Unless you can provide a clear statement to the contrary from ICC-ES I stand behind my statement that their focus is on the Quality Control system. It is about documentation. They do not make inspections of products.

Some of the manufacturers only run an assembly line when the need arises thus they are not necessarily making any product when IAS makes their periodic visit. This does not stop IAS from reviewing the paperwork and signing off on the inspection.
 
Mark K said:
Unless you can provide a clear statement to the contrary from ICC-ES I stand behind my statement that their focus is on the Quality Control system. It is about documentation. They do not make inspections of products.

Some of the manufacturers only run an assembly line when the need arises thus they are not necessarily making any product when IAS makes their periodic visit. This does not stop IAS from reviewing the paperwork and signing off on the inspection.
Click to expand...
You are a victim of misinformation. Read here: http://www.icc-es.org/MFR_Inspections/index.shtml

What I am trying to say is the inspector is not an ICC employee. They use subcontract to a third party.
 
The reference documents are consistent with other documents from ICC-ES

The point is not whether ICC-ES employees do the work or a third party.

Where the referenced documents reference a third party it is clear that this third party is hired by the manufacturer not ICC-ES or IAS.

The point is that ICC-ES's focus is on verifying the system documentation not on whether the product complies. While I believe that this is clear from the documentation this has been confirmed by an individual working with a manufacturer subject to this process. In addition discussion with a former ICC-ES employee confirmed that the focus is on the quality system.

Form Q-24 states "The inspector should, to the extent possible, inspect the product..." This is optional. What is the nature of any inspection?

The situation that I mentioned where an inspection of the facility with no product being processed was real.

You may want to believe that ICC-ES guarantees everything is fine but the reality is more nuanced starting with the fact that ICC-ES does not guaranty the product.
 
Guarantee the product? Why would anyone assume ICC does that?

ICC, if informed that product has failed, can only ask the manufacturer to fix it. And hope the problem goes away. ICC can't issue a replacement, pull deficient products from the stores, or tell the builder to put in something that works. No, ICC can only remove the offending product out of the report. And you are still stuck with a bad product that ICC said meets the code. Meeting the code, that's all they say anyway, no guarantees offered, and no one should presume otherwise.
 
Jpranch, I am sorry i have not read everything that was above. but a few things I have trouble with ICC are.
1. If I would not have changed jobs I would not be able to afford membership with them.
2. I dont live to far from you but we have NO ICC training within this state!!! I have to go to MN for training.
3. The on line training can get really cost some money.
4. It is also hard to find fire inspection training.
5. It is hard to understand if getting CFM is better then doing the Fire inspector 1, 2 and fire plan reveiwer.
 
Duane, I'm sorry that I have not responded. I just now sat your post. The Building Safety Professional Member is only $170 a year. However, the Participating Member @ $50 a year might be the way to go if the budget is really tight. Here is the link to the fee schedule: https://www.iccsafe.org/membership/join-icc-dues-applications/
I would very much like to know what training (if any) is available in North Dakota. Have you been going over to the big institute in MN? I hear that it is really great and I hope to make it there one day myself. Yes the online training can get a little costly especially if someone has to rely on it for CEU's and has a lot of certifications. For fire inspection training you might reach out to the Fire Service Membership Council to see if they might be able to help you on the short go. As far as the CFM and a persons desired career path I would say its up to the individual taking into consideration what their jurisdiction might value the most. I hope this helps. If you would like to contact me directly please email me at: jpranch@iccsafe.org or call the City of Gillette and ask for Jim Brown. Sorry but I do not want to put to much contact information on the net because of the bots.
 
Hey Tim! Sure didn't mean to leave you out. Our inspectors go every spring to the Colorado institute. Duane is in North Dakota according to his profile so I would think that MN might be closer??? Depends on where in the state he is. Duane, Wyoming Conference of Building Officials is having their annual conference in Casper on November 1st, 2nd, & 3rd. We will have classes on the 2018 code updates. You can get the details at our website as well. www.wcbo.us
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top