• 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

code vs. maufacturers instructions

C

codeworks

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
579
Location
South Texas
got a discussion going where my understanding is that code superceeds manufacturers instructions provided the code doesnt "alter" or otherwise void the instructions. others differ. manufacturers instructions are good enough. opinions? sorry, this is in the wrong place
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since you posted this under residential, I'm looking at the IRC. The IRC says that the code applies unless enforcing the code would violate the conditions of the listing of the equipment or appliance.
 
The formally adopted code has to trump any manufacturer's instructions other wise you would empower the manufacturer to redefine the code requirements. If the issue was litigated the lawyers and judges would have problems with the idea that the manufacturer of a product could preempt government regulations.

This suggests that just because something found its way into the building code it could still be illegal.
 
Codegeek said:
Since you posted this under residential, I'm looking at the IRC. The IRC says that the code applies unless enforcing the code would violate the conditions of the listing of the equipment or appliance.
Click to expand...
Could you reference that section. Please
 
2006 IPC 301.7 and exception, 2006 IMC304.1 and exception, . i noted in our talk today that the code also states installation instructions are to be on site at the time of inspection.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
codeworks said:
2006 IPC 301.7 and exception, 2006 IMC304.1 and exception, . i noted in our talk today that the code also states installation instructions are to be on site at the time of inspection.
Click to expand...
Try getting the instructions for the "Home Depot" Green Guard housewrap...or getting a contractor to get you any instructions for any housewrap for that matter....like trying to nail a jellyfish to a wall around here!

DISCLAIMER: No jellyfish were harmed in the writing of this post!
 
If we require compliance with the manufacturing instructions, assuming there are no conflicts with the code, we are still requiring the building department to enforce requirements that were unilaterally developed by the manufacturer and were not subject to government overview.

This would also mean that failure to comply with the manufacturer's recommendations becomes a code compliance issue as opposed to a possible contractural breach. This might have legal implicaions down the road.
 
an example that comes to mind, that you could discuss, would be the requirement for jacuzzi tub pump motors to have a ground wire attached. The new plastic models do not have a grounding lug, and the manufacturer does not require them to be ground because they are not metal.

Is this the type of thing you are speaking of?
 
Mark K said:
If we require compliance with the manufacturing instructions, assuming there are no conflicts with the code, we are still requiring the building department to enforce requirements that were unilaterally developed by the manufacturer and were not subject to government overview.This would also mean that failure to comply with the manufacturer's recommendations becomes a code compliance issue as opposed to a possible contractural breach. This might have legal implicaions down the road.
Click to expand...
The code can not provide a prescriptive method of installation for every product on the market therefore the manufactures installation instructions need to be followed to assure compliance with the code. Are Hilty and 3M fire caulk installed the same? Can they both be in contact with Blazemaster CPVC fire sprinkler systems? No but the code does not tell you that. Do you have to read the installation instructions for every product installed in a building? No but you should be looking at the ones that will effect life safety.
 
mtlogcabin

My arguments are based on basic principals of our legal system and do not even address the issues you raise. What these legal principals do is place constraints on how the issues that you are concerned about can be addressed. Maybe the code needs to be modified but it needs to respect these basic legal constraints.

In the case of fire caulking the products need to be qualified based on testing and the product needs to be installed in accordance with what was tested. Your concerns could possibly be addressed by having the test assembly documentation updated to address the installation conditions related to fire safety. If the need to do something a certain way does not relate to life safety it should not be a code requirement no matter whether the manufacturer is concerned about it. Another benifit of relying on the qualification tests is that they are known at the time of permit issuance and the manufacturer cannot unilaterally make changes between the time the project is approved and the product is installed.
 
 
Thanks MT....maybe I got that name wrong...It is not the Pactiv stuff,,, it is made by a tarp company in China somewhere....

http://www.icc-es.org/reports/pdf_files/ICC-ES/ESR-2252.pdf

That stuff....easy guard....it has an ES but nohting on sealing or flashing or anything but some fastening.....and then tell them they need to find 1" crown staples and they can't use their old Bostich hammer tacker....
 
Mark K

I am not a lawyer and I don't understand the "basic principals of our legal system" you are referring to I just know that as the code moves from a prescriptive code enforcement to performance based code enforcement the proven performance will be with a product being installed in accordance with how the manufacture intended that product to be used regardless whether it was subject to some goverment overview or not.

Just a thought are the ICC, NFPA, ASME, GA, SMACNA, ASTM, UL or any other codes and standards subject to a goverment overview. What is the difference between them or a manufacture requirement as long as the most stringent requirement is followed.
 
Mark K said:
mtlogcabinIn the case of fire caulking the products need to be qualified based on testing and the product needs to be installed in accordance with what was tested.
Click to expand...
It is not the firecaulk that provides the rating. Yes, firecaulks are tested per UL, but in two different methods - one is for the material itself, the other testing is for the caulk when it is installed a firestop assembly, be it a through penetration or a joint system. The firecaulk itself is not rated; only the assembly in which it is installed AND when installed specifically per the assembly as listed by UL.
 
mtlogcabin

Some of the legal principles include:

• You have a right to know the laws and regulations that you must comply with.

• The laws and regulations are supposed to be clear and unambiguous.

• The requirements need to have been adopted by a formal well defined process.

• The government entity adopting the laws or regulations needs to have the legal authority to adopt the laws or regulations.

• Governmental entities cannot delegate their governmental rules to another entity.

From a building code point of view the codes and standards you mention have no legal standing until they are formally adopted as part of the adoption of the building code. When they are adopted a specific version of the document is adopted. A new version of the code may be published but it has no standing until the revised code is formally adopted by the adopting entity. It is assumed that in the process of adopting the regulations that they have been reviewed by the government body and that interested parties have had an opportunity to object.

The government adoption of the regulations is the end result of the governmental oversight.

According to our system of laws you are not legally required to comply with the manufacturer’s recommendations or a more recent standard, even if it a good idea, you are only required to comply with the laws and regulations of an entity that is legally empowered to adopt them.

The building official is acting in a ministerial capacity and as such interprets and enforces the regulations. The building official has no authority to adopt regulations.

When we move to performance based codes the change is that instead of prescriptive regulations the regulations establish the criteria for compliance and define how we determine compliance. The legal principles I refer to apply equally well to performance based codes.
 
Mark K

Thanks for shedding some light on this for me

When they are adopted a specific version of the document is adopted. A new version of the code may be published but it has no standing until the revised code is formally adopted by the adopting entity
Click to expand...
Agree 100% I have this ongoing problem with sprinkler contractors wanting to use the 2010 NFPA 13 when the 2009 IBC only references the 2007 NFPA 13

An I-Quest search found 399 hits for "manufacturer's installation instructions" it includes fire dampers, windows, fiber cement siding, hangers and bracket, commercial cooking equipment, Sprayed fire-resistant materials and on and on. The code lanquage varied with "shall be in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions" or "unless the manufacturer's installation instructions allow otherwise" or "details listed in the fire-resistance-rated assembly and the manufacturer's installation instructions and the listing"

When an AHJ adopts a code that references the manufactures installation instructions as part of the code the manufactures installation instructions become part of the code.

Manufactures installation instructions are not nilly willy ideas on paper. They have been tried and tested to perform to a certain degree. Companies have thousands of dollars invested in the performance of their products. The vast majority meet an industry standard so I do believe the items where manufacturers installation instructions are referenced would pass the legal priciples you described JMHO
 
The point of disagreement is not with whether they make technical sense but with the fact that the specific recommendations have not gone through the code adoption process yet are to be enforced by the building department.

While the manufacturers instruction's may not have been developed willy nilly they can be changed at any time by the manufacturer. This could mean that the manufacturers recommendations at time of installation could be different from those that were availible during permitting. Is it not well established that you must comply with the code in effect when the project was submitted for plan check not the code in effect when the project is actually constructed?

The fact that there are a number of references to manufacturers recommendations does not guarantee that the provisions are valid.
 
I see your point but we will probably have to agree to disagree. I see referenced standards that are industry standards that do not go through a code adoption process.

The CSST industry had change in ther installation instructions that was driven by a court order. If a manufacturer has a flaw in the installation of their product they cannot wait 3 to 6 years to get a change in the code cycle. They address it with their installation instructions
 
Any standards referenced by the code your jurisdiction has adopted have gone through the code official adoption process. Any other reference standards are not a concern of the building department in it's enforcement activities.

There have been a number of other cases where less than desirable provisions have remained on the books because of the delays in the code adoption cycle. But the only way to address this problem is to amend the adopted code at the state or local level. A judge can force the CSST industry to change their behavior but as long as the building code was legally adopted and isn't illegal he cannot mandate a change in the building code.

Here again we have to satisfy the legal constraints while trying to protect public safety. You can ignore the legal constraints and probably get away with it unless somebody brings legal action, but is this right? I think part of the difference is a difficulty in accepting the limits on what the building codes can accomplish.
 
Mark K said:
The formally adopted code has to trump any manufacturer's instructions other wise you would empower the manufacturer to redefine the code requirements. If the issue was litigated the lawyers and judges would have problems with the idea that the manufacturer of a product could preempt government regulations. This suggests that just because something found its way into the building code it could still be illegal.
Click to expand...
Alternative means and methods - though often and for some items, a test report is more appropriate for plan review.
 
Mark K said:
If we require compliance with the manufacturing instructions, assuming there are no conflicts with the code, we are still requiring the building department to enforce requirements that were unilaterally developed by the manufacturer and were not subject to government overview. This would also mean that failure to comply with the manufacturer's recommendations becomes a code compliance issue as opposed to a possible contractural breach. This might have legal implicaions down the road.
Click to expand...
Not a legal issue, alternative means and methods are the basis for approving use of such common items as Simpson anchors, fasteners, clips, epoxies, et cetera et cetera.
 
mtlogcabin said:
I see your point but we will probably have to agree to disagree. I see referenced standards that are industry standards that do not go through a code adoption process. The CSST industry had change in ther installation instructions that was driven by a court order. If a manufacturer has a flaw in the installation of their product they cannot wait 3 to 6 years to get a change in the code cycle. They address it with their installation instructions
Click to expand...
When a code is adopted, everything incorporated by reference is adopted as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top