• 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

Manufacturer's Test Data in ICC reports

CodeWarrior

CodeWarrior

Registered User
Joined
May 18, 2016
Messages
119
Location
Hong Kong
In a major policy change, ICC will now issue evaluation reports using test data from manufacturer 's test labs. Previously the only way the manufacturer could use their lab was when an independent lab came in and controlled the testing.

Why is this a big deal? This policy change does not meet IBC 1703, which requires an approved agency to provide the tests. Among the specifics is the approved agency must be independent. The next ICC report you pick up may not comply.

This is laid out in AC85, which is not publicly available though building departments can ask for it.
 
Per 1703.1.1, independence is described as being “independent from the contractor responsible for the work...” In my opinion, this pertains mostly to special inspections and not laboratory testing.

I’m not sure if it’s a typo or intentional, but Section 1703.4 mentions “test reports conducted by an approved agency...” Notice that it does not italicize “agency,” which means that the definition for “approved” is applicable and not the definition of “approved agency.” Additionally, this is found in Section 1703.4.2 in regard to research reports (e.g., evaluation service reports) where it states “approved sources” instead of “approved sources” (no italics for “sources”). Thus, telling me that the building official’s approval is the key factor and not who or where the report came from. Even so, the definition for “approved sources” mentions being independent, but doesn’t state being independent from what.

Again, that may not be the intent, but attention to detail is critical when using legal documents. A good attorney could seize on the italicization of terms (or failure to italicize terms as the case may be) by ICC and possibly get a judgement in favor of the manufacturer.
 
It's a big deal because if they remove the third-party/independent oversight, then any manufacturer can build a "lab" and "certify" whatever they're trying to get the code to go along with. If the folks who write the code will accept as compliant whatever tests any manufacturer sends them, then it weakens the integrity of the whole code. And every dilution of the integrity of the code makes my job that much harder.

I think this is a bad move.
 
ICC actually touted the importance of determining the source of listings and test reports be approved agencies “once upon a time.”

http://media.iccsafe.org/downloads/CodesPlus/BSJ-Section-1703-IBC.pdf

Per the article, it looks like ICC wants authorities to think in terms of " approved agency" as defined in the codes, not an agency that is "approved" without applying the definition.

So to act as an approved agency conflicts of interest need to be dealt with. This would not be easy for a lab whose sole purpose is to serve the manufacturer. Neither ICC or IAS, the branch of ICC that accredits labs, appear to provide any statement of conformance. So, yes, the job of the regulators becomes harder.

So, with its recent actions ICC has abandoned the principle of using approved agencies in the issuance of evaluation reports. Or is this a case of "don't do what I do, do what I say." The questions of why they did it and how they did it (was there a public review?) I don't know the answer to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top