The following five paragraphs are provided by the NAHB Research Center and are based on its understanding of and experiences in navigating the code-approval process.
Product manufacturers face a number of challenges in getting a new product into the mainstream of home construction. One of the potentially significant hurdles is demonstrating compliance with the applicable building codes. Building codes are enforced on the local level. When a local code inspector encounters a new product or material, he may question the product’s use in the particular application and potentially could stop the job until someone demonstrates to his/her satisfaction that the product/material complies with the building code. This is particularly likely to happen when it appears that the product may adversely impact the structural, building envelope integrity, electrical, mechanical, or life safety performance of the home.
Most building codes are based on one of several model building codes. Currently, the most wide-spread model code in use is the International Residential Code (IRC). Other model codes that are in use in some areas include the BOCA, ICBO, SBCCI, and NFPA. Each code is revised periodically and has a revision year associated with it. Each jurisdiction specifies which version of the model code is in effect, and it is not always the latest. In or around 2003, BOCA, ICBO, and SBCCI merged to form the International Code Council (ICC). The ICC developed the IRC. No further revisions are expected to the BOCA, ICBO, and SBCCI codes. Besides the various model codes, local jurisdictions can modify or add to the model code.
The building codes explicitly permit certain types of products (e.g. OSB, plywood, drywall, graded lumber, etc.) Products that are not listed explicitly in the building code are generally allowed if it can be demonstrated that the product provides equivalent performance to those products explicitly mentioned in the code and that the product meets the intent of the code requirements.
A product manufacturer has several options to demonstrate compliance with the building codes. The most widely accepted approach is to get an ICC-Evaluation Service (ICC-ES) Evaluation Report. Other options include an evaluation report from another organization or an engineer’s report. An engineer’s report typically needs to be from a professional engineer licensed in the state where the construction is being done. And often this needs to be specific to an individual home, and thus a separate engineer’s approval is required for each house. Although this approach may suffice for prototype work, it usually proves too cumbersome for national use. Obtaining an ICC-ES Evaluation Report requires that you complete the following several steps.
- defining the specific uses/application for the product
- apply to the ICC-ES for an evaluation report for those uses/applications
- in conjunction with ICC-ES, identify the applicable Acceptance Criteria (AC) for your product
- submit a test report from an independent lab with data supporting the application and intended use
- in cases of structural products, contract with a third-party Quality Assurance agency to periodically inspect your facility and production to verify that your continued production is producing the same product that was originally tested and approved. This process is expensive and time consuming. (There is an application fee for ICC-ES, and depending on the type of testing required, as little as $1,000 up to an amount possibly in excess of $25,000 should be budgeted for testing.) The typical time for processing an application for a product that has an existing AC is typically 6-12 months.
If your product is an innovative new product for which there is not an AC already approved, then before an Evaluation Report can be issued by the ICC-ES an Acceptance Criteria needs to be written and approved. Most ACs require public hearing and comment before being voted on by the ICC-ES committee. Once the AC is approved, then the ICC-ES can begin issuing Evaluation Reports based on that AC. ACs are presented for public hearing and comment only three times a year. ACs are added to the agenda for the public hearing after the ICC-ES staff has reviewed and recommended the draft for approval. For some of the more controversial draft ACs, the ICC-ES staff may use an initial public hearing for input to further revise the draft AC and then present it again at the next public hearing. Providing a draft AC to the ICC-ES generally speeds up the approval process. The development and approval of an AC will likely take 6 to 12 months. The ICC-ES has recently introduced an internet-based public comment format with electronic balloting for ACs, which they believe are straight forward and not likely to generate any debate. This new approach is expected to streamline the approval of some ACs.