# ICC ES Acceptance Criteria Gone from the Internet



## Phil (Mar 14, 2013)

Does anyone know why the ICC ES pulled the Acceptance Criteria from the internet? See Criteria List. Until recently, a person could download the Accetance Criteria used to evaluate products with ESRs. Had I known they were going to do this, I would have downloaded a bunch of them for future reference.


----------



## jpranch (Mar 14, 2013)

Phil, I'll check on this and get back to you.


----------



## Glenn (Mar 14, 2013)

My guess is it is because folks have been taking ICC-ES's criteria and treating it like code or some sort of standard of testing.  It is ONLY ICC-ES's criteria, but it has been pirated by other competing testing agencies and others.

Too often I see AC-#### referenced as some sort of universal standard.  This is not accurate.

This is my guess as why...as I also noticed this removal last week.


----------



## Mark K (Mar 14, 2013)

ICC-ES's position has been that their acceptance criteria can only be used to create ICC-ES ESRs.

Even if you accept ICC-ES's position on acceptance  criteria building officials, engineers, and architects who are being asked to consider a product that is not addressed in the building code need to have access to the acceptance criteria and the resulting test data used to justify an ESR.  If this information is not available you have a right and one might suggest an obligation to reject the use of the product.


----------



## Phil (Mar 15, 2013)

Thanks jpranch. I'd like to know the real reason. But, it might be fun to create all sorts of conspiracy theories. If I had to guess, I would blame it on the growing number of IAPMO ES Evaluation reports for products that would typically have ICC ESRs. However, I agree with Mark on the importance of having this infomation available to building officials, architects, and engineers.


----------



## jpranch (Mar 15, 2013)

OK, Here is what I can confirm. There is an action plan that will unfold in the next 2 to 3 months. At this time it is planned to give governmental building officials access at no charge. Please be patient and stay tuned. If anyone would like to discuss this directly with me please give me a call at (307) 686-5260. By the way for anybody who may be reading this the name is Jim Brown. Just thought I would mention it as my admin staff has never heard of jpranch.


----------



## Mark K (Mar 15, 2013)

While that meets the needs of  building officials it does not meet the need of the designers.

When an architect or engineer submits construction documents for a permit he is making an implied statement that what is shown complies with the adopted building code.  Thus he needs to be able to evaluate whether or not the products comply.

In the case of a product that is addressed in the code the design professional does not need to acceptance criteria since he can specify compliance with the criteria listed in the code.  On the other hand when dealing with a product that is being proposed as an alternate means of compliance (ref. section 104.11 of the 2012 IBC) the acceptance criteria is the only place the designer can find the criteria used to evaluate whether the product meets the intend of the code.

Thus if the engineer or architect does not have access to the acceptance criteria he is not able to determine if the acceptance criteria is consistent with the requirements of Section 104.11 and is thus unable to determine whether the product complies with the intent of the building code.


----------



## Phil (Mar 15, 2013)

Jim,

Thanks for the update. However, it does not answer the question of why the acceptance criteria was removed from the internet. It is odd to hear that the ICC ES remove the acceptance criteria without plan of action. I strongly agree with Mark. But, without knowing why, it is hard to suggest an alternative. It would make sense to allow free access to all ICC members rather than building officials. This would be similar to other professional organizations (SEAOC, ACI, AISC, etcetera) that provide additional technical information to members with no extra fees.


----------



## jpranch (Mar 16, 2013)

Phil said:
			
		

> Jim,Thanks for the update. However, it does not answer the question of why the acceptance criteria was removed from the internet. It is odd to hear that the ICC ES remove the acceptance criteria without plan of action. I strongly agree with Mark. But, without knowing why, it is hard to suggest an alternative. It would make sense to allow free access to all ICC members rather than building officials. This would be similar to other professional organizations (SEAOC, ACI, AISC, etcetera) that provide additional technical information to members with no extra fees.


Phil, There are reasons beyond what I'm comfortable with posting here. Comes with the price of being a ICC board member.  Without compromising the confidence placed on me there is more. Wish I could say more but just cannot. Please give me a call. The plan of action was in place before before the internet action happened. Guess you will have to take my word on that. (By the way as with all men my word means everything)  The free access as I understand it will be forthcoming. I have to work at a home show tomorrow so here is my cell number: (307) 257-9926. Please note that my cell dose not work at the ranch. Too far off the beaten path. I would very much like to discuss this with you and if you are satisfied with what we talked about perhaps post it here. Good or otherwise.


----------



## peach (Mar 19, 2013)

If you are looking for the reports, you may have to buy them and that's ok.  I always required the contractor to supply them rather than use the bandwidth to download them.

No different than USGBC, ACI, etc.. all you get for free is errata.


----------



## alanmurfee (Mar 29, 2013)

Well, I believe people are misusing ICC-ES's criteria and this could be the major reason why it’s been out of the acceptance criteria from the internet.


----------



## Mark K (Mar 29, 2013)

How misusing?

Since individuals regularly misuse the building code does this mean we should limit access to it?  Please clarify


----------

