• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Preferential treatment to ICC?

CodeWarrior

CodeWarrior

REGISTERED
Joined
May 18, 2016
Messages
127
Location
Hong Kong
There is a plan check firm Charles Abbott Associates in California that is inserting a statement into their plan checks saying this:


Section 104.11 of the CBC allows the use of alternate materials, design and methods not specifically prescribed in the code. An Alternate Material Application shall be filed with the building official for review for the following:


  1. Research Reports: ICC ES reports have historically been approved without an alternate material application. These reports must be based on the 2012 IBC. ICC reports based on other codes may be submitted with an Alternate Materials Application.
  2. IAPMO ES Reports.
  3. Los Angeles City Research Reports:
So basically they are interpreting the CBC to give preferential treatment to ICC reports, but IAPMO and LA reports need to go through an extra layer of red tape. This doesn't seem right. There is no good reason I can see to do this. It is one thing to create roadblocks for those trying to get a permit. but to say go with ICC and it will be easier?

Charles Abbott goes on their Facebook page to say one of their employees, Jay Elbattar, is also a vice president of ICC. Hmmm.......................

Also, I would point that cities try to read the research report and then decide whether it can accepted as part of the permit process. Charles Abbott seems to be saying the ICC report is pre-approved.
 
Not sure what your beef is, it still is up to the BO. Typically all I have seen is ICC/ES reports.
 
fatboy said:
Not sure what your beef is, it still is up to the BO. Typically all I have seen is ICC/ES reports.
Click to expand...
My beef Mr. Fatboy is that the B.O. Should not be partial to one party over another.
IAPMO reports are becoming more numerous and LA city reports have been around for awhile. Having one of these instead of a icc report hung up a permit. If Charles Abbott would ask for an icc report or equal and define what equal means that would be an improvement. But they dont do this.
 
We have a similar system in Canada; the Canadian Construction Materials Center (CCMC) issues report on materials stating that they either meet code or are an approved alternate. Manufacturer's can choose to submit their research to each municipality for approval rather than to the CCMC, but it's less time consuming to go the CCMC route. It's still up to the building official to review and accept the reports.
 
Notice it says "have been historically" approved does not say "will be" approved....If you use and believe in the I Codes, who better to certify that a product meets it than the code writing body....Is it a way for ICC to make more money? Absolutely!....Is that wrong? I don't think so...Maybe they are trying to be the "UL" of everything that UL doesn't do...
 
The actual Code does not say that:

[A] 104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment. The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has been approved. An alternative material, design or method of construction shall be approved where the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, not less than the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability
and safety. Where the alternative material, design or method of construction is not approved, the building official
shall respond in writing, stating the reasons why the alternative was not approved. [DSA-SS, DSA-SS/CC & OSHPD 1, 2 & 4] Alternative system shall satisfy ASCE 7 Section 1.3, unless more restrictive requirements are established by this code for an equivalent system.

[DSA-SS, DSA-SS/CC] Alternative systems shall also satisfy the California Administrative Code, Section 4-304.
[OSHPD 1, 2 & 4] Alternative systems shall also satisfy the California Administrative Code, Section 7-104.

[A] 104.11.1 Research reports. Supporting data, where necessary to assist in the approval of materials or assemblies not specifically provided for in this code, shall consist of valid research reports from approved sources.

[A] 104.11.2 Tests. Whenever there is insufficient evidence of compliance with the provisions of this code, or evidence that a material or method does not conform to the requirements of this code, or in order to substantiate claims for alternative materials or methods, the building official shall have the authority to require tests as evidence of compliance to be made at no expense to the jurisdiction.
Test methods shall be as specified in this code or by other recognized test standards. In the absence of recognized and accepted test methods, the building official shall approve the testing procedures. Tests shall be performed by an approved agency. Reports of such tests shall be
retained by the building official for the period required for retention of public records.

Charles Abbott Associates has put their own slant on the code
 
Relevant to the question???? Maybe/maybe not, but there is an ongoing lawsuit between ICC/ES and IAPMO. ICC/ES has filed suit against IAPMO for copyright violations of the ICC/ES reports.
 
mark handler said:
Charles Abbott Associates has put their own slant on the code
Click to expand...

It seems to me that Charles Abbott Associates is only giving advice to their clients on the most expeditious path to approval. And it may be good advice if, in fact, "ICC ES reports have historically been approved without an alternate material application."
 
Sleepy said:
It seems to me that Charles Abbott Associates is only giving advice to their clients on the most expeditious path to approval. And it may be good advice if, in fact, "ICC ES reports have historically been approved without an alternate material application."
Click to expand...
ICC reports started in 2003. IAPMO reports started in 2006. LA City reports have been around since the 1950s. Where's the rationale for history?
 
CodeWarrior said:
ICC reports started in 2003. IAPMO reports started in 2006. LA City reports have been around since the 1950s. Where's the rationale for history?
Click to expand...
Because the ICC reports are based on the ICBO and NER reports
The legacy reports are evaluation reports that were originally issued by BOCA ES, ICBO ES, NES or SBCCI PST & ESI
ALL predate the LA reports.....
 
I have dealt with many reports and only questioned a few. Well except for anything PV. The validity check is part of plan check.
Abbot et al. can submit whatever they want and the AHJ can like it or not.

It has been my experience that the work of Agencies and NRTLs should be scrutinized.
 
Last edited:
Approving alternate materials, methods, and design without a formal application is incompatible with California Attorney General Opinion 81-105. Without this documented formal approval the alternate would be considered a code violation.

I would think that the building department would want to process formal applications for alternate materials and methods of construction since this would be a perfect opportunity to charge additional fees.

When the building official gives automatic approval of evaluation reports on a generic basis the building official is illegally effectively giving a private entity, the issuer of the reports, the authority to modify the building code. If this was legal why does the building code even need to be adopted in the first place. We could outsource the building regulations and their interpretation to any private entity who issued evaluation reports.

The building official is given great discretion regarding the approval of alternates. It is one thing for a building official to perform a minimal or inadequate review prior to approval and a building official who has a formal or implicit policy of automatically approving evaluation reports by a specific entity. In the first case the approval would likely be upheld while the automatic approval is illegal.

When evaluation reports make engineering recommendations, which they typically do, they are engineering reports. In California and I assume most other states a professional engineer needs to sign and seal an engineering report. Since ICC-ES and IAPMO-ES evaluation reports are not signed by a professional engineer I am left with the assumption that they constitute a violation of state licensing law.

ICC does not so much as write the code as manage the process by which the IBC is published. In many instances the expertise regarding the provisions resides with the entity that submitted the proposal to ICC. Thus it is hard to justify that ICC-ES of ICC has any special insight into the intent of the code.

The ICC-ES ESR process is biased in favor of the manufacturer since the manufacturer creates the report and in many cases the acceptance criteria while ICC-ES is limited to reviewing the evaluation report. Remember the manufacturer pays ICC-ES for the evaluation report. Thus ICC-ES has a duty to the manufacturer and not to the building official.

The Canadian system is not relevant since US law is different. Also it suggests that that the CCMC is a government entity while ICC and ICC-ES are private entities. This makes a big difference.

History is basically irrelevant. What is relevant is what is the law.
 
The majority of reports are not about an alternate material or method but are just another one of whatever it may be. The last report that I encountered was for a roofing underlayment.
It was an approved underlayment and as such would not be considered an alternate material that would require an application to the AHJ.
That's the usual scenario. Once something has achieved approval by the ICC, that something is not an alternate and becomes the norm.
I'm not claiming that this is a healthy way to do business....it's just the way it's done.
The underlayment that I mentioned would result in 3/8" of foam rubber under asphalt shingles. Six years ago the ESR would not allow the same material under asphalt shingles....but it's ok today?
 
If we are not talking about an alternate material or method then there is even less need for an evaluation report. All the supplier needs to provide is the test report showing compliance with the code requirement.

If evaluation reports were needed to show compliance for products that are addressed in the building code then I would expect the building department to require evaluation reports for sawn lumber and steel wide flange beams.

So why are some building officials demanding or giving preference to ICC-ES evaluation reports for these products. What is the difference between this an extortion?
 
There are details in the use of many products that can be found in es reports. It might not be a case of will I accept a product but rather under what conditions will I accept a product.
 
If a product is addressed in the building code, i.e. not an alternate, and the applicant has shown that it complies with the code provisions the building official and inspectors have no option but to accept the product.

It is recognized that some of the information needed to determine code compliance may be shown on evaluation reports but it does not have to be provided in an evaluation report. It could be provided in some other manner.
 
Mark, very few "products" are addressed in the code. Manufacturers install instructions are not listed in the code. There may be some standards and general guidelines, housewraps would be a good example, some are air barriers, some are WRB, some are both....Some fanfold insulation can be used as a WRB, some can not. Thee ES report tells me all of the pertinent information in one place and usually gives some guidance on the install...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top